Digital Photos Can’t Be Trusted....

[BillBingham2]

Hepcat, I don't think that I have ever seen this subject summarised more succinctly than that... well said.

Have to agree and give this one a +1!!!

Hepcat,

I wonder how the chain of evidence has changed with respect to digital capture.

With BodyCams starting to become ubiquitous the role of a crime scene photographer could see some pressure, not from questioning the need, but questioning the editing (what to photograph and what not).

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

B2 (;->

 

[hepcat]

Yeah, but I read that quote in light of the following quote:

It isn't the manipulation of the content (that could be done with film if one really wanted) - it is the experience that McCullin is talking about. Digital images aren't wrong but are giving a false impression. And I do agree with the content of your post, just not that this is McCullins position. But we of course could disagree on how to read this article :angel: and as long as McCullin doesn't contribute to this thread, we don't know what he meant.

I think he was talking about manipulation in general... both the ability to saturate colors, add warmth where there isn't any, for example... AND the ability to clone things in or out. His general premise is that there's no way to determine the "truth" in a digital image. It's an old saw that is getting more dull as the years pass for the reasons listed in my earlier post; and of course my point was that there's really no "truth" in ANY image, film OR digital and that all images are manipulated by the photographer in framing and printing. The best a photographer can do is illustrate part of a scene as accurately as possible using "normal-ish" lens focal lengths and eye-level perspectives. It's the photographer who has to supply the "truth," not the image itself.

 

[Bill Clark]

Interesting article on photo manipulation:


http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/

 

[hepcat]

Have to agree and give this one a +1!!!

Hepcat,

I wonder how the chain of evidence has changed with respect to digital capture.

With BodyCams starting to become ubiquitous the role of a crime scene photographer could see some pressure, not from questioning the need, but questioning the editing (what to photograph and what not).

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

B2 (;->

Interestingly, there never has been a "chain of custody" for crime scene photographs, unless photos themselves are seized as evidence from a scene. Otherwise, crime scene photos only become evidence during the trial when they're introduced to the court as evidence, and subsequently authenticated by the photographer. How the image was made isn't an issue unless the authentication is called into question; and then of course the reputation of the photographer and his/her integrity is really what's being called into question.

Video editing is always called into question; the Rodney King fiasco is a prime example. The 30 second footage on TV that so enraged the public was only a small part of the roughly three and a half minute total video. The officers' initial acquittal by the Simi Valley jury was based largely on expert testimony analyzing the contents of the other three minutes; so editing is obviously a key (and arguable) point in any video in a trial.

 

[hepcat]

Interesting article on photo manipulation:


http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/

An amazing link, Bill. Thanks for finding and sharing it.

 

[Bill Clark]

You are welcome.

I have given presentations on this subject and referenced photographs mentioned at the web site and others.

One of the photographers that worked with me had, during the film days, a pretty good business working on negatives of folks. Mostly cosmetic things is what she did.

 

[hepcat]

You are welcome.

I have given presentations on this subject and referenced photographs mentioned at the web site and others.

One of the photographers that worked with me had, during the film days, a pretty good business working on negatives of folks. Mostly cosmetic things is what she did.

So, Bill... what's your take on the article?