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

RE: "evidence tampering"

  • To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Subject: RE: "evidence tampering"
  • From: Eric Neilsen <ejnphoto@sbcglobal.net>
  • Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:40:29 -0500
  • Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:In-reply-to;b=sxLwh8EmQdWx0MIIJntyQCYeTI683tw9DSXhv42OqV3fCVUkVXCkQaCEqtLt+2atVLLutU7bj7kHThSREiwwUGTGX7CbS2/gKzuisXKEtsDrkLBGE68c8aSHDgd3f23dwxiwUTS1TlRNHUkhrZbUUBB1mF7BMPLOntqb7L11yxM= ;
  • In-reply-to: <20060923164902.68170.qmail@web81505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
  • List-id: alt-photo-process mailing list <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
  • Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
  • Thread-index: AcbfMEjV49/5Lw4BRDmaVwyey0SNcAABdpEw

Bob, Go to the File tab, then down to the File Info. This should pop up a window that has several listings, description, camera data, origin, history, etc.  Clicking on history you should be able to see each step that has been applied to the file. It will however, only be there if you have it selected to save it from the preferences. On the general tab, there is a check box for history log. You can select text and meta, or both with session, concise and detail.  





From: Robert Peterson [mailto:petersonrbrt@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 11:49 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: RE: "evidence tampering"


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.


> -----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