RE: "evidence tampering"

[Robert Peterson <petersonrbrt@yahoo.com>]

I've seen this while working on an image, but I'm totally unaware of it being saved. How does one access this historical record of changes?

 

Bob Peterson

Eric Neilsen <ejnphoto@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Wow, I missed this thread. Judy the file can have information attached to it
> as well that will tell you all the changes. If one was intent on making
> things up through digital manipulation it would be hard to absolutely prove
> it but here come the "If it smells like a... and walks like a... " .
>
> PS will give you a list of actions taken toward the file and I don't mean PS
> actions from the action palette but any retouch, opening, closing, etc.
> There was in fact, on one list that I participate, a desire to share the
> file info so that other could see what you did to make the image. 
>
> Eric
>  
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:43 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 of
> > 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 heh
> > 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.)
> > 
> > Judy