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

• To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
• Subject: Re: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
• From: Darryl Baird <dbaird@flint.umich.edu>
• Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:47:23 -0500
• Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
• References: <20000322143449.16116.qmail@hotmail.com><v04210102b4ff480f61e5@[165.247.196.118]>
• Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca

> Does anyone know at what point do the courts cease to consider a
> photograph to be creditable evidence?
>
It probably comes when the expert witnesses can not verify the original
or traceable photographic medium embedded in the "image". For instance,
a photograph, negative, or slide when scanned will leave marks of its
"filmness" -- grain pattern, size and structure. The microscopic visual
"information" which we take for granted is quite a science.

A friends' dad was a forensic scientist and a really fascinating person.

--
Darryl Baird

• References:
  • Re: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
    • From: Thor Bols <thorbols@hotmail.com>
  • Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
    • From: Sam Wang <stwang@mindspring.com>

• Prev by Date: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
• Next by Date: Polaroid 20x24" film
• Prev by thread: Authenticity, was 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