As an aside, in a court of law, photographs as evidence are only as "truthful" as the person that took them and testifies about them. They are a part of his testimony. Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 1:05 AM Subject: Re: Digital question
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:23:05 -0400, Caveman wrote: > > > Dag T wrote: > > > > > I do not think that photography is an > > > objective representation of some reality, it can never be. > > > > Some guys in the technical branches of it (e.g. photogrammetry) would > > disagree. > > The forensic photographers would probably disagree, too. That doesn't > mean they're right. Sure, they're attempting to provide an objective > representation of reality, but it's reality as they see it, and it's > reality as they choose to photograph it. I wonder if anyone has ever > done a study comparing conviction rates to the various aspects of and > approaches to forensic photography ... > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ > > >
