<<It's worth pointing out that, at least in the US, a photograph isn't proof of anything in a forensic case.>> Jeff, I don't doubt it. Perhaps I misused the word: I was meaning only that, with film photography, evidence of something other than a straight photo is *always* to be found in the photo itself. Double exposures etc always leave a trace. With digital there truly can be "fakes" that have no such trace because, in part, the medium is inherently resolution limited by the granularity of the medium and also because the tools available for forming the composites - PhotoShop - are so good. <<There is certainly enough incidents of faked photography in criminal cases that the technology used to produce the photograph is irrelevant. >> Of course, just as famous "decisive moment" photographers have staged thier work and allowed the public to believe they were incredibly aware grabbing such shots as they wandered around cities ... << It's easier to move a weapon into someone's hand at the crime scene than it is to successfully clone it into someone's hand, much easier. >>> Or to move a glove ... Of course, a real photo of a staged scene has no internal clues ... << It's really a bogus issue, which is why the primary focus in forensic circle regarding digital technology is is on resolvable detail, not use of post-processing. I have a real interest in evidence/forensic photography, and have been reading about it for years. Digital changes nothing. >> If you are talking about law (which I guess strictly forensic should apply to) then you are right. The fact remains though that a post-capture faked digital photograph can be a perfect fake whereas the equivalent film one can never be so. Does it matter? Yes or no, I can't see it's worth going to war over ... Bob -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
