Hip Coyote

I’m a word: No. First photogs have to shoot, generally, in jpeg and can only crop and possibly it adjust exposure This avoids the whole notion of editing. Much like press photographers.

Second, the photog has to testify to AUTHENTICATE the photo. Meaning a true and accurate depiction of the scene.

Third, this is not action shots of the scene. It is photos of evidence. That same physical evidence is then booked into evidence, collected by scientific people (blood splatters, etc) or
backed up by trajectories (on which case more scientific people are doing analysis. All of this has to jive. What

It could be photos of injuries which would also be documented in medical reports or autopsy reports.

Fourth, there are 360 degree photographs of many scenes plus the old fashioned still photos. I think it is called total station. Many police age agencies do video as well.

Fifth, it has been my experience that more than half of officer involved shootings are captured on some sort of surveillance camera. The evidence is what it is.

The whole notion of some sort conspiracy or manipulation of the scene is preposterous in most agencies. It would take an army of people to support the conspiracy to manipulate the scene. Add to that body worn video. As the saying goes, if you want information out there, telegraph, telephone or tell a cop. Can’t keep their mouths shut. (I know. I was one.)

Finally a whole bunch of people, from detectives, prosecutors, defense attorneys and management need access to the photos. No one on their right mind is going to go back to 1990 tech to open up a new (old) lab, develop film, etc. Photos are out on a server so that access control can be robust, but people who need access can get it.

I could go on, but no. It will never happen.

netsailer Loc: Tampa, FL

Again stretching the point a bit, this thread makes me think of what we value as the authentic work of an artist. A reproduction, no matter how good, is not as valued as the original (well, unless perhaps if a famous artist reproduced the work of a less illustrious artist). Photographs are generally not considered to have the same value as a painting, unless it was made by the likes of Ansel Adams. Old daguerreotypes seem to have value, perhaps because they are rare. As are prints made by Adams. Or unless the photographer has a well-established reputation.. To me the authentic work idea signifies creativity, but also something that is relatively rare. If an artist make 10,000 prints, each would probably not hold the same value as an equally impressive print that had only 200 pressings. To that end, the production number is usually on the print, and often the artist destroys the original blocks so more can be produced. But negatives can make a million prints, or one. And slides are sort of unique.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Cannot law enforcement officers be certified and sworn to uphold an oath of authenticity regarding their collection of photographic evidence? It's not like just ANYONE can photograph a crime scene and expect their images to pass as evidence.

Going back to film for forensic use seems like a non-starter for a whole book of reasons, mostly having to do with cost, speed, and the uncertain availability of film in the future.

leftj Loc: Texas

Forensics can determine if a digital image has been altered so SOC will still work.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I doubt it.
Digital files can be authenticated as true and accurate.
Also they can all be manipulated, no matter what, and presented as true and authenticated.
A governmental agency can get away with anything dishonest they want to as long as the public allow it. Technology even now can show a video of a person doing something that they didn't do and saying things in their own voice that they never said. I saw a demonstration of this. It was amazing.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Agree. Honesty is the wrong word. I restore photos and get a lot of requests to exchange a frowning head with a smiling one or put someone in a different background. Does that make me dishonist...no? This whole discussion is silly. Everyone knows not to alter a forensic file, how many of us in UHH are forensic photographers?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The only people shooting film in 2023 are fools, the idle rich and hipsters from Brooklyn.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Actually, I did a little research after making my post above. It turns out that manageable authentication software is easily defeated. Both Canon and Nikon Image Authentication systems were hacked quite soon after being made available, and were discontinued soon afterwards. They have not been reintroduced.

As for the notion of an oath not to behave badly, yes, oaths are used to cover many situations. But a person who is motivated to alter evidence is going to have no problem violating an oath.

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

Don’t you shoot film Paul? Which one of those are you.

Chuck

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I've been shooting almost exclusively film this year ...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Typical moronic vacuous response.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

In the world of morons, game knows game ...

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Revive APS film?

Stan

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Why?