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.
As the manufacturers say about Rollei d30 flex:
"High-speed lens resolving over 100 line pairs;
Recording in RDC raw format ensuring "digital negatives" without any loss in quality
Photos accepted as evidence in court "
Postindustrially,
Peeter
