Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)

• To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
• Subject: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
• From: Sam Wang <stwang@mindspring.com>
• Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:20:48 -0500
• Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
• In-reply-to: <20000322143449.16116.qmail@hotmail.com>
• References: <20000322143449.16116.qmail@hotmail.com>
• Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca

At 2:34 PM +0000 3/22/00, Thor Bols wrote:

>I'm curious though.  What do you mean by "the authentic nature of 
>the camera negative will not be lost"?  How much digital 
>manipulation DO you allow before the "authenticity" is lost?

That's a good question. I don't know. I suspect that the minute you 
scanned the image into the computer, it is no longer authentic. Not 
that all images need to be authentic, mind you.

Does anyone know at what point do the courts cease to consider a 
photograph to be creditable evidence?

Sam

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
    • From: Darryl Baird <dbaird@flint.umich.edu>
  • Re: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
    • From: Carl Weese <cweese@earthlink.net>

• References:
  • Re: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
    • From: Thor Bols <thorbols@hotmail.com>

• Prev by Date: Re: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
• Next by Date: Re: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
• Prev by thread: Re: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
• Next by thread: Re: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread