Congrats on your upcoming retirement. I heartily recommend it. I can't
imagine where I found the time for all that work!
Walt Wayman wrote:
Earlier this month, on the same day, I had TWO lawyer clients
thank me for this bit of advice because they believe they
prevailed in cases they were trying at least in part because their
opponents used digital photographs and couldn't sufficiently
authenticate them and had to fume and fidget while enduring
bombast and charges of computerized chicanery in closing argument.
I suppose it would be foolish to ask if this contributed to 'justice' in
the form of an accurate determination of guilt or innocence?
In keeping with my advice, I provide the negatives with all
photographs, which gives me an added bonus: I don't have to keep
up with all this crap! I deliver the photographs, the negatives,
and the bill, and then I go to the bank and forget about it.
Nice idea, but not really all that solid. I'm sure C.H., with his 'film
printer' could provide a nice neg 'after the fact' from a digitally
altered image. A negative shot from a print of a digitally altered image
could be made by any number of us. The digital 'signature' in the data
file output from a DC, as was discussed a bit ago, might actually be
more defensible. At least as Albert described it, it sounded more
bulletproof to me than an 'original' piece of film.
Moose
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|