Re[2]: law and image
Hi, I have some personal experience similar to this from a civilian's standpoint. In my other life as an IT person I was at one time in charge of the financial systems at a company I worked for here in England. One of the employees was prosecuted for stealing large amounts of cash. Computer-based accounts were used as evidence, and had to be accompanied by a signed statement that they accurately reflected the state of the business at the time indicated. There is quite a good analogy here between computerised accounts and Bob Cratchet-style ledger books, and digital photos and film. Incidentally, we had quite a long discussion here on this subject some months ago. The recent thread on whether or not to have a FAQ could profitably be extended to include a FAC - Frequently-Argued Crap. We could then adopt a UK parliamtary practice, and write 'I refer the honourable member to our previous correspondence on this subject'. It would have saved me some time dealing with the 505 messages that were awaiting me after a mere 2 days absence from the list. --- Bob Wednesday, October 23, 2002, 8:08:29 PM, you wrote: > My husband is a police investigator, and he has NEVER had to "swear" he > didn't manipulate an image, film OR digital, and that includes photos > generated from scanned negatives. If the officer has not compromised his > credibility previously, such a thing isn't necessary. If he has compromised > his credibility in ANY way, I guarantee you he won't be testifying in a > court of law, period. Judges will simply kick all the cases out with which > that officer is involved if there aren't other credible witnesses whose > testimony can be used. When that happens, that officer won't be employed for > very long. An officer whose testimony won't be accepted in court is useless. > When your credibility in one area is damaged, it calls everything else > you've done into question. > - Original Message - > From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:05 AM > Subject: Re: law and image >> As I mentioned elsewhere, I think this distinction will become even more >> blurred when it becomes easier to create a film-based image from a >> digital one. as I understand it, even now you need someone to swear >> that the photo was not manipulated, which diminishes its value as >> something closely tied to reality. Even CCTV images are ultimately >> going to depend on someone vouching for their authenticity. >> >> >> Steven Desjardins >> Department of Chemistry >> Washington and Lee University >> Lexington, VA 24450 >> (540) 458-8873 >> FAX: (540) 458-8878 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>
Re[2]: law and image
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Bob Walkden wrote: > months ago. The recent thread on whether or not to have a FAQ could > profitably be extended to include a FAC - Frequently-Argued Crap. We As the designated FAQ writer, I'll be glad to include this topic as well. :) I realized as I was writing the other other day, slowly mind you, that I hadn't even bothered to make a note of who answered what. I think that makes me a jerk... -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: Re[2]: law and image
Hi Brad, On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:23:27 -0400, Brad Dobo wrote: > I hear a lot of Nikon and Epson. I just wonder >about how many people here that own a digital Pentax product (Optios) invest >large sums of money in the so-called digital darkroom area. From what I >gather, those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not using >Pentax cameras. Just some thoughts...open to debate or correction. I DO use a Canon digital P&S that is almost three years old now, and mainly because Pentax did not have a decent one then ... However, I DO use an Epson printer, since they are among the best, and Pentax does not make any printer at all. I also use a Nikon film-scanner, a coolscan III for 35mm, now replaced by an 8000 ED to be able to scan my 67 negatives as well. Again, Pentax has NO scanner at all ... All my film camera's (6 of them) are Pentax ... 95 percent of my lenses (about 30) are Pentax, a few are Sigma. I use Pentax cameras mainly because that is what I happen to start with in 1977, and because the lenses turn out to be among the best. For other equipment I prefer Pentax, but only if comparable in quality and features. I don't mind using other brands where they are unique, or better. So I don't think the that "those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon" are not using Pentax! Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery
Re: Re[2]: law and image
'Allo Jan, It was not a blanket statement, I always assume since you and others post here you must have and use Pentax gear. I was aware that Pentax does not make printers, scanners, (or, not because of your message, a DSLR) Perhaps I wrote poorly, it was really directed to those that use digital P&S and DSLR and spend the cash on the darkroom stuff. I wondered how many of those, were actually using a Pentax digital camera. Hope that clears it up! Regards, Brad Dobo - Original Message - From: "Jan van Wijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 5:18 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: law and image > Hi Brad, > > On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:23:27 -0400, Brad Dobo wrote: > > > I hear a lot of Nikon and Epson. I just wonder > >about how many people here that own a digital Pentax product (Optios) invest > >large sums of money in the so-called digital darkroom area. From what I > >gather, those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not using > >Pentax cameras. Just some thoughts...open to debate or correction. > > I DO use a Canon digital P&S that is almost three years old now, > and mainly because Pentax did not have a decent one then ... > > However, I DO use an Epson printer, since they are among the best, and > Pentax does not make any printer at all. > > I also use a Nikon film-scanner, a coolscan III for 35mm, now replaced by an 8000 ED > to be able to scan my 67 negatives as well. Again, Pentax has NO scanner at all ... > > All my film camera's (6 of them) are Pentax ... > 95 percent of my lenses (about 30) are Pentax, a few are Sigma. > > I use Pentax cameras mainly because that is what I happen to start with in 1977, > and because the lenses turn out to be among the best. > > For other equipment I prefer Pentax, but only if comparable in quality and features. > I don't mind using other brands where they are unique, or better. > > So I don't think the that "those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon" are not using Pentax! > > Regards, JvW > -- > Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery > > >
Re: Re[2]: law and image
I hear a lot of Nikon and Epson. I just wonder about how many people here that own a digital Pentax product (Optios) invest large sums of money in the so-called digital darkroom area. From what I gather, those that speak about Epson and Nikon and Canon are not using Pentax cameras. Just some thoughts...open to debate or correction. I guess most people just go for the most obvious, and Pentax isn't that obvious to most people on Earth. regards, Alan Chan _ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
