| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2006 01:40:24 PM · #1 |
sorry if this was already covered.
CNET is reporting on new HP and Olympus cameras that can "slim" models and remove facial lines.
"People in the legal world are now concerned about whether photos can be accepted as evidence anymore, especially when you can alter the scene as you click the shutter"
Wonder what that means for the ruleset at DPC :-)
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 01:43:41 PM · #2 |
Were photos ever acceptable as evidence? I'm not sure about that one... DPC exif verification is one thing, but I'd bet I could figure out a way to edit a photo without messing the exif. (I'm not into that kind of stuff, though).
No, DPC-wise, I hope that exif from these cameras would contain some information indicating that what we see is not what was there:-) |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 01:45:39 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
No, DPC-wise, I hope that exif from these cameras would contain some information indicating that what we see is not what was there:-) |
As the rules currently stand, anything done in-camera is legal. If this becomes a problem, the rules will have to change.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 01:49:19 PM · #4 |
HP's Demo showing in-camera advanced filters.
Message edited by author 2006-08-29 13:49:37.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:05:33 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Were photos ever acceptable as evidence? I'm not sure about that one... DPC exif verification is one thing, but I'd bet I could figure out a way to edit a photo without messing the exif. (I'm not into that kind of stuff, though).
No, DPC-wise, I hope that exif from these cameras would contain some information indicating that what we see is not what was there:-) |
Yes, photographs can be entered as evidence in a trial, but they can also be challenged by a defense attorney. Most judges and legal experts prefer film for this reason, but even film negatives can be challenged. In very important trials, photo experts will weigh in on the authenticity and integrity of a negative. Photos aren't considered "best evidence" though, physical evidence is. Having said all that, I wouldn't worry about the new HP camera effects. They're pretty silly, really. Slimming somebody down with a distortion effect is much different than putting a gun in somebody's hand. |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:05:53 PM · #6 |
If the effect used is recorded in the EXIF, then it may be possible to reverse the algorithm(s) used and recreate the "original" as the light fell on the sensor.
Also, whether an image is "good" evidence may depend on the integrity of the photographer and the chain of custody of the camera/files.
Message edited by author 2006-08-29 14:07:26. |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:07:35 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by srdanz:
No, DPC-wise, I hope that exif from these cameras would contain some information indicating that what we see is not what was there:-) |
As the rules currently stand, anything done in-camera is legal. If this becomes a problem, the rules will have to change.
R. |
In the demo, the adjustments were made after the photo was taken. It was my understanding that what was legal for DPC was to change settings before taking the picture. But that was just an assumption of mine, really - have I assumed incorrectly? |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:08:53 PM · #8 |
Interestingly enough, the effect as illustrated in the demo is simply "squishing" the image from the sides, so the final image is actually fewer pixels horizontally than the original would have been. We can do this VERY easily in photoshop, but it would not pass muster even under advanced editing rules :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:09:43 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by klstover:
In the demo, the adjustments were made after the photo was taken. It was my understanding that what was legal for DPC was to change settings before taking the picture. But that was just an assumption of mine, really - have I assumed incorrectly? |
As the rules are written, yes...
R.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:10:46 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Interestingly enough, the effect as illustrated in the demo is simply "squishing" the image from the sides, so the final image is actually fewer pixels horizontally than the original would have been.
|
It said the subject had to be centered so I thought it only squished the middle part. |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:11:20 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As the rules are written, yes...
R. |
Yes I assumed incorrectly?
(sorry, I'm so tired right now.. ) |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:13:10 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As the rules are written, yes...
R. |
Yes I assumed incorrectly?
(sorry, I'm so tired right now.. ) |
jejeje� Yes we have no bananas? As far as I can tell (I'm not SC) you assumed incorrectly.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:16:01 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
jejeje� Yes we have no bananas? As far as I can tell (I'm not SC) you assumed incorrectly.
|
Okay, thank you :-)
(we have no bananas today!) |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:19:05 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by srdanz:
No, DPC-wise, I hope that exif from these cameras would contain some information indicating that what we see is not what was there:-) |
As the rules currently stand, anything done in-camera is legal. If this becomes a problem, the rules will have to change.
R. |
In the demo, the adjustments were made after the photo was taken. It was my understanding that what was legal for DPC was to change settings before taking the picture. But that was just an assumption of mine, really - have I assumed incorrectly? |
Anything done in camera is legal under the current wording of the rules. This already includes such things as desaturating, rotation and toning (sepia) that can be done after the image is on the card. All of those things are legal in both advanced and basic editing so they haven't been much of a problem.
Other things that can be done in camera are -- double explosure, triptychs and such -- are, as you say, only possible (as far as I know) with back to back images.
When the editing possible becomes an issue the rules will likely change.
David
|
|
|
|
08/29/2006 02:38:17 PM · #15 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/21/2025 02:14:48 PM EDT.
