Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Photo scandal at National Geographic!!!
From: Afterswift@aol.com
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:16:41 EDT

In a message dated 8/28/03 7:32:45 PM, mcintyre@ca.inter.net writes:

<< Also, would a doctored transparency be easier to expose (no pun intended)

than a doctored digital file? >>

The difference is that the slide from which the doctored version was made 
still exists as it came from the processor. So, whoever is familiar with the 
original slide could holler bloody murder about its modification. 
By contrast, a digital file defeats the principle of an original source 
because there's really no way of authenticating it. One digital file is as protean 
(sorry for the use of that odd word) as any other of the image.
Who knows which is the original? They're both made of the same digital 
alphabet.

As I mentioned to LUG some time ago, there are craft magazines that won't 
accept a digital image because judges and editors were let down when the original 
piece didn't match the glorified digital shot of it.  

br
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from "Jim McIntyre" <mcintyre@ca.inter.net> (Re: [Leica] Photo scandal at National Geographic!!!)