U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: "evidence tampering"

RE: "evidence tampering"

Wrt Judy's final comments I suppose it depends to a great extent on how
skilled or otherwise you are at P-shopping.

The following link relates to a photographer who's entire Reuters
collection was withdrawn during the recent Israel-Hizbollah conflict.
Apologies if this forum has already seen this. I vaguely remember an
APUG discussion.

Word for the wise: don't overuse the clone tool and you're unlikely to
be detected.


-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2006 12:43 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: "evidence tampering"

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Camden Hardy wrote:

> "...calls for works that specifically question the nature of visual 
> documentation, including its definition, potentials, semiotic systems,

> and social resonances in a Post-Modern world."

> I interpret this as saying, "so photography has the ability to distort

> the truth...now what are we, as photographers, going to do about it?"

A book on this topic was published about 7 years ago, I think by Frank
Richie (or someone like that)... I have it around here somewhere, but it
struck me as more or less re-laboring the obvious & only partially true,
anyway. (Basically his point was that digital made trickery possible,
but IMO, as noted, 'twas ever thus, just not so easy.)

However I have a question.  There was a fair amount of police chicanery
with videotapes of arrests during the Republican National Convention in
NYC in 2004 -- actually quite amusing, if police lies and evidence
tampering strike one's funny bone. Independent videotapes were located
that showed the deleted parts, as reported at several points by the NY
Times. But then, sometime last year (I have the clip, just not in front
me) the Times mentioned, almost in passing, that something like 400
(FOUR HUNDRED !) police prosecutions had to be dropped because the tapes
had been found to be "improperly edited."  (I think Mark would add "heh

I took that to mean, tampering had been detected again -- on the
videotape. My question, which I figure some of the digital mavens around
here would know, is, can you see by examining a jpeg (or digital camera
file) if that's been altered as apparently you can with video?

I would assume if it's been saved in a different format, editing would
not be detectable. But if it were saved in the same jpeg format ????

(Just wondering, not planning anything.)