-Alan Bucknam
On Mar 5, 2004, at 7:37 AM, lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.
<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>
