> Most people here are interested in photography as communication, whether > that's personal or commercial, not in using it as evidence at a crime > scene. That's why the example is absurd. Jeff Why is it absurd? Personally I'm involved both in scientific imaging and in making (what I believe are) pretty pictures. Sure, in your work (of which I'm a fan) I can't tell which you took on film and which digitally - grain wise I might if I saw the original prints but that's another matter. But why is it that everytime anyone mentions technical (factual) weaknesses of digital imaging the discussion gets twisted round to why someone can quite happily blow up their art farty semi-OOF snaps to A2 and how after all resolution does not matter? Karl's observation about the police is quite humorous: for most (you used that word first) people involved with owning cameras PhotoShop is synonymous with image MANIPULATION. The idea of coppers (well know for "helping" evidence along when it suits them) cloning in critical clues is a bit of humour. More likely they will be cloning out the bits that don't support the case. If it comes to enhancing pictures for genuine forensic purposes PhotoShop is not the tool of choice. Read *NOT*. OK, forensics, astronomy, physics, wildlife etc etc may not be in the majority compared to the number of snapshots but they are important al, the same. Bob
