Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 2003-08-30 bdcolen@earthlink.net (bdcolen) thoughtfully wrote: >Certainly it's true that there were fakes long before digital - but it >is utterly inarguable that digital technology makes photo faking far >easier, bringing it within the reach of virtually any putz with >Photoshop. It's interesting to note that one of the - expensive - >accessories listed for the Canon1D on the B&H site is, or at least was, >something -software I assume- that in theory makes it apparent if there >has been any alteration what-so-ever in the image as captured by the >camera. Of course I assume that there was a hack for this as soon as it >was announced. ;-) > >B. D. I assumed this was for crime-scene folks so the images they shot could be determined to be "untampered" when used as evidence. I remember reading about it but haven't followed up. I would assume that there must be SOME way to demonstrate that the file downloaded for the camera hasn't been tampered with - but in the digital domain this is a tricky question. I'm assuming that all crime scene photos these days are still shot on film of some sort with chain-of-custody processing etc but I don't know that. Curiously some of the best chain-of-custody protocols I've dealt with have been with environmental samples which have rigourous protocols and chain of custody requirements - almost as strict as high-level nuclear materials. Adam - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html