Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Cameras Don't Lie

Subject: Re: [OM] Cameras Don't Lie
From: Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:24:11 -0500
At 7:41 PM +0000 12/31/02, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:59:01 -0800
>From: Tal Lancaster <tal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [OM] Cameras Don't Lie
>
>On 30 Dec 2002 11:27:00 -0000
>owner-olympus-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (olympus-digest) wrote:
>
> > Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:05:24 -0500
> > From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [OM] Cameras Don't Lie
> > 
>[snip ..snip]

As for Susan Sontag, I think she was discussing photography as she knew it in 
the 1950s and 1960s, not as it would become after the 1980s.  Ms Sontag was an 
essay writer, not a scientist, and her stock in trade is psychological insight. 
 I have no opinion on how well she did this, but very many people found her 
writings worthwhile or at least interesting, enough people that she was able to 
make a very good living of it.  Very few people can do this.


> > I tell them they should strenuously object based upon the 
> > generally common knowledge of the trickery possible through 
> > digital photographic manipulation and demand that an original 
> > negative or transparency be produced to authenticate the picture 
> > being challenged.  
>
>Actually, I don't even think a negative or transparency would be
>sufficient proof.  Who is to say that said evidence is the "original"? 
>One could manipulate the image digitally and then just dump it back out
>to film.

Non-digital photos can be faked, and often were.

Even with Photoshop, it's pretty hard to make a fake that will withstand expert 
scrutiny.  Even non-experts will notice that the photo just doesn't look quite 
right, although the non-experts may not be able to put their finger on exactly 
what's wrong until an expert points it out.


> > Whether or not the objection is sustained by 
> > the court, it still provides a great point to raise in argument to 
> > the jury, because almost everyone nowadays has at least seen 
> > enough tricked up TV commercials to realize you can't necessarily 
> > believe it just because you saw a picture of it.

It has been true for some time that photographs are not accepted in a court of 
law, unless the photographer or some other authoritative source is able to 
testify as to the veracity of the photo being offered as evidence.   The more 
serious the crime, the more airtight the evidence must be.  

For murder cases, the photographer must be able to testify to an unbroken chain 
of trusted custody from shutter release to courtroom, or the photo will be 
rejected as no better than hearsay.  This is because if there is any question 
about the provenance of the photo, "beyond reasonable doubt" excludes the photo.

I got this info from an old Kodak instructional pamphlet on taking evidence 
photos, written in the late 1960s if I recall.  I read it in the 1970s.  It had 
all manner of advice on how to ensure that the photos are accepted as evidence. 
 Kodak may still offer a descendant of this pamphlet, on their website, where 
there is a section devoted to law enforcement..

Joe Gwinn


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz