Will some expert confirm my belief that digital images are not accepted as evidence in courts? I think I read it somewhere. In any case, all pictures have to have supporting evidence. The argument that digital images are more secure would make them less believable. It's like the argument that secure ID's are safer. The harder they are to detect the more "safe" the fraud is. AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [SPAM] Re: Photographers are Dodos > From: PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx > Date: Thu, March 04, 2004 8:18 pm > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Obviously the presenter has never seen the digital files where the noise > is > overlaid and blended into the picture to coverup the changes. > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/4/2004 1:41:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, > jerry.mccown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > 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.
