Back to film? Just had a thought (ouch that hurt) I wonder whether our law enforcement agencies will have to revert to film photography for forensic purposes? With AI being able to...

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

Just had a thought (ouch that hurt) I wonder whether our law enforcement agencies will have to revert to film photography for forensic purposes? With AI being able to create almost anything and smarty pants computer techs being able to change even the basic exif data of a photo how will the courts be able to accept photo evidence as true? A film negative/positive though cannot be changed without obvious damage and if the date can be embedded no-one can dispute its originality!

netsailer Loc: Tampa, FL

JohnR wrote:

Just had a thought (ouch that hurt) I wonder whether our law enforcement agencies will have to revert to film photography for forensic purposes? With AI being able to create almost anything and smarty pants computer techs being able to change even the basic exif data of a photo how will the courts be able to accept photo evidence as true? A film negative/positive though cannot be changed without obvious damage and if the date can be embedded no-one can dispute its originality!

Well, I would think one could digitally duplicate the film, alter it, and then recreate a new film. Might be a bit tricky but I think even I could do that, or at least handle the basic mechanics. Basics like duplicating the negative, editing the negative, then maybe taking a high resolution picture of the result, printing it out and then rephotographing with a film camera. I guess one might have to know the type of film used, and probably a forensic analysis would identify the new image as on different film stock than the remaining images, etc.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

JohnR wrote:

Just had a thought (ouch that hurt) I wonder whether our law enforcement agencies will have to revert to film photography for forensic purposes? With AI being able to create almost anything and smarty pants computer techs being able to change even the basic exif data of a photo how will the courts be able to accept photo evidence as true? A film negative/positive though cannot be changed without obvious damage and if the date can be embedded no-one can dispute its originality!

It is possible to create a misleading or dishonest photograph just by such things as what to include or exclude from the composition, the timing of the exposure, the type of lens used, etc. I did some forensic photography back in the film days, and even then the court didn't automatically accept photographs as "true". The photographer was required to testify, or the attorneys to specify, that the photo was true to what it purported to show.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Chain of evidence…

netsailer Loc: Tampa, FL

JohnSwanda wrote:

It is possible to create a misleading or dishonest photograph just by such things as what to include or exclude from the composition, the timing of the exposure, the type of lens used, etc. I did some forensic photography back in the film days, and even then the court didn't automatically accept photographs as "true". The photographer was required to testify, or the attorneys to specify, that the photo was true to what it purported to show.

John, you pose an interesting, related question: when one photoshops a picture to perhaps focus in on a subject of interest, make the composition more pleasing, adjust resolution or color, is that still something that can be seen as honest or authentic. Some contests require unaltered shots, for example.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

netsailer wrote:

John, you pose an interesting, related question: when one photoshops a picture to perhaps focus in on a subject of interest, make the composition more pleasing, adjust resolution or color, is that still something that can be seen as honest or authentic. Some contests require unaltered shots, for example.

Aside from photojournalism/documentaryforensic photography, or contests with specific rules, I'm not sure what "honest or authentic" means for photos. I certainly don't think photos manipulated to look different than the scene photographed is dishonest or inauthentic.

TimmyKnowles Loc: Gallup, New Mexico

Adobe and others are developing digital "fingerprints" to tell if an image has been altered, copied or otherwise"messed" with. Those testifying in court will have to tell the truth about an image or face perjury charges. That wouldn't be good.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

JohnSwanda wrote:

Aside from photojournalism/documentaryforensic photography, or contests with specific rules, I'm not sure what "honest or authentic" means for photos. I certainly don't think photos manipulated to look different than the scene photographed is dishonest or inauthentic.

You can change the ‘plumb’, {mildly} change the WB, or crop. Almost anything else is dishonest/inauthentic.

Painting a bridge green that was orange would certainly be inauthentic, perhaps dishonest also.

We have this discussion all the time here.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

rehess wrote:

You can change the ‘plumb’, {mildly} change the WB, or crop. Almost anything else is dishonest/inauthentic.

Painting a bridge green that was orange would certainly be inauthentic, perhaps dishonest also.

We have this discussion all the time here.

Only if you believe that a photograph must always resemble the original subject as closely as possible. Photography is very good at that, but that's not all it can, or should, do.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

JohnSwanda wrote:

Only if you believe that a photograph must always resemble the original subject as closely as possible. Photography is very good at that, but that's not all it can, or should, do.

This is different from painting[unwatch]

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

rehess wrote:

This is different from painting[unwatch]

There's your problem, right there. Photography can be an art medium just like painting. There's no rule anyplace that says photographers can't create images that don't look like the scene photographed. And photographers have done that since photography was invented. I'm tired of hearing that something that has always been a part of photography is now dishonest.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

JohnR wrote:

Just had a thought (ouch that hurt) I wonder whether our law enforcement agencies will have to revert to film photography for forensic purposes? With AI being able to create almost anything and smarty pants computer techs being able to change even the basic exif data of a photo how will the courts be able to accept photo evidence as true? A film negative/positive though cannot be changed without obvious damage and if the date can be embedded no-one can dispute its originality!

The first firmware update I ever installed added a function called, I believe, Image Authentication to my D200. I never pursued exactly what that functionality was or whether some external software was also required. Might have to check it out and see.

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

JohnR wrote:

Just had a thought (ouch that hurt) I wonder whether our law enforcement agencies will have to revert to film photography for forensic purposes? With AI being able to create almost anything and smarty pants computer techs being able to change even the basic exif data of a photo how will the courts be able to accept photo evidence as true? A film negative/positive though cannot be changed without obvious damage and if the date can be embedded no-one can dispute its originality!

believe it or not, there was an episode in the popular Western series "Bonanza" nearly 60 years ago that dealt with this topic. In this episode, titled A Girl Named George, a man is accused of a murder to which he was guilty of. He was acquitted because he had hired a photographer to superimpose of picture of him at a gathering that took place at the time of the murder. His ultimate downfall came when he shot said photographer to silence a witness. As his victim fell, he pressed the shutter showing the smoking gun

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

JohnR wrote:

Just had a thought (ouch that hurt) I wonder whether our law enforcement agencies will have to revert to film photography for forensic purposes? With AI being able to create almost anything and smarty pants computer techs being able to change even the basic exif data of a photo how will the courts be able to accept photo evidence as true? A film negative/positive though cannot be changed without obvious damage and if the date can be embedded no-one can dispute its originality!

Excellent Point !
I had not considered that.

Bill_de Loc: US

JohnR wrote:

Just had a thought (ouch that hurt) I wonder whether our law enforcement agencies will have to revert to film photography for forensic purposes? With AI being able to create almost anything and smarty pants computer techs being able to change even the basic exif data of a photo how will the courts be able to accept photo evidence as true? A film negative/positive though cannot be changed without obvious damage and if the date can be embedded no-one can dispute its originality!

Years ago I entered a contest in a club with a 35 mm slide of a picture taken near the Grand Canyon. The club insisted on slides because they 'couldn't be tampered with.

I declined the award and showed them the four slides I used to create the image.

Don't lose any sleep over it John.

---