...except that I would add you CAN see "generational" evidence that a photo has been altered...I would argue that the grain from the original image would be overlaid by the grain from the reproducing film, and changes in grain size would allow one to tell if a photograph has been re-photographed....I'm sure there's a book on it somewhere, probably with some of those infamous Soviet photos showing Stalin with, then mysteriously without, one of his advisors that fell out of favor.
-Alan Bucknam
On Mar 4, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Jerry McCown wrote:
------------
Being in law enforcement, I recently attended a seminar - 'Forensic Digital Photography'
A statement made by a presenter: "Digital photography is MORE secure than film." This from a man who is an expert in determining if a photo is original or not. The main item is noise. Each camera produces noise (which is unique to that camera) and it is evenly spread on the picture. Any modifications change the noise pattern in that area and allows them to detect alterations.
Where as with film, it is easy to change a photo, photograph that photo and have an original negative that is very difficult to determine if it had been altered. Altering photos has been with us since the beginning, it's just that digital makes it much easier for the lay person.
<x-tad-smaller>notchcode creative services, llc
3300 ingalls st.
wheat ridge, colorado 80033
303.915.5459 tel.
303.238.0598 fax.
www.notchcode.com
AIM handle: notchcode</x-tad-smaller>
