All machines can be altered to achieve a bias result. A paper document having legal ramifications is signed in blue ball point pen. There are many accurate ways to tell if that signature is authentic due to its material composition. This is also true of film. The nature of matter in a film's layers, it's processing, etc.. has a greater chance for locating its maker's thumb print. Matter can be dissected; virtual reality hides behind highly refined abstract 1's and 0's. Current digital technology is already so sophisticated that most altered images cannot be detected, and digital is still very young. What will the next decades bring? So are we then to rely on material analysis or the ethereal digital recreations of matter? Film still seems to keep us honest. Bob-3 wrote: > > When shooting photos documenting something is it better to use film, > where an unaltered negative can be shown vs a digital image that can be > argued that it was made to show what the shooter wanted by software? > > Thanks, > > Bob > > > -- > > ///// > ( O O ) > --------------------oOOO-----O----OOOo-----73 de w8imo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Curiosity killed the cat although I was a suspect for a while........ > > > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/A-film-vs-digital-question-tf2940265.html#a8311350 Sent from the Photo Forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
