Digital photos for forensic evidence

Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E500 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E500 resource - http://myolympus.org/E500/

Alfred Molon writes:

Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.

Film photos can also be altered. The validity of a photo as evidence
is entirely down to the amount lawyer/judge/jury gullibility in each
case.

--
Måns Rullgård

And are usually presented in court along with expert testimony and the
proper line of questioning to backup their validity.


"Måns Rullgård" wrote in message
...
| Alfred Molon writes:
|
| Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
| forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.
|
| Film photos can also be altered. The validity of a photo as evidence
| is entirely down to the amount lawyer/judge/jury gullibility in each
| case.
|
| --
| Måns Rullgård
|
|

Alfred Molon wrote:
Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.

That is no different than images stored on film.

Their value as evidence is absolutely dependant upon someone's
expert testimony as to what the photograph shows and to the
accuracy. In essense, it is worthless unless someone can swear
under oath that it is exactly what it appears to be.

And if that happens, its worth the proverbial 1000 words...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

It depends on who is doing the forensics.


"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E500 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E500 resource - http://myolympus.org/E500/

Alfred Molon wrote:

Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.

I assume you really want to know how accepted are they as forensic
*exhibits*, that is, supporting material presented by an expert witness.
(As far as being *evidence*, as in ,for example, someone being
bludgeoned to death with a digital photo and the photo itself being
tagged & bagged by the police, they're fine, I suppose.)

OK, all joking aside, digital photos can certainly be presented as
exhibits in court. I'm prepared many for exactly that purpose. What
counts isn't the photo itself but the testimony of the witness who
swears under oath that the photo is an accurate picture of what he/she
saw. Film photos, digital photos, heck, even pen-and-ink drawings can be
used.

One medical examiner I know (and I suppose the fact that I know more
than one says something about me, but let's not get into that...) uses
digital photos exclusively and has for the past couple of years. I
expect almost all do now.


--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

Not to mention having negatives or some other form of proof that the image
wasn't altered. I think Kodak does or did make a camera that basically
finger printed each image shot with the camera so that one could tell if the
digital image was altered.

I don't think you will find many in the business that use digital. I know
shows like CSI got flack for it and in fact CSI (Las Vegas) now uses film
cameras.

R


"Crash Gordon" wrote in message
...
And are usually presented in court along with expert testimony and the
proper line of questioning to backup their validity.


"Måns Rullgård" wrote in message
...
| Alfred Molon writes:
|
| Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they
as
| forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.
|
| Film photos can also be altered. The validity of a photo as evidence
| is entirely down to the amount lawyer/judge/jury gullibility in each
| case.
|
| --
| Måns Rullgård
|
|

Alfred Molon wrote:
Since digital photos can be "faked" so easily, how accepted are they as
forensic evidence ? It's easy to edit an image and modify something.
--

A photo is acceptable as forensic evidence as long as you can trace how
it was taken and processed. I have a series of photos now that are
being used as evidence in a case involving a fatal traffic accident.
The photos were taken at the scene at the request of the local police,
who did not have a camera of their own (this is in the Philippines, but
rules of evidence are much like American rules).

In this case a rice truck lost control and hit a tricycle, killing the
driver of the tricycle. The photos are being examined for the length of
skid marks, damage to the truck and to the tricycle, and the final
position of the vehicles. It is a very unfortunate case because the
accident happened right in front of the house where the tricycle driver
was married, and the driver of the rice truck was the tricycle driver's
uncle. The family is obviously very traumatized by the whole thing, and
the entire barangay is greatful that an outsider was available to take
the investigative photos.

The photos were taken in raw NEF format on my D70, so I still have the
raw pictures if anyone needs to see them. I suppose if I was actually
called upon to testify to the photos' authenticity I would have to
describe how I converted them to JPG format and printed them.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:46:46 -0800, "HornBlower"
wrote:



I don't think you will find many in the business that use digital. I know
shows like CSI got flack for it and in fact CSI (Las Vegas) now uses film
cameras.

R

Search on SWGIT (Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technologies)
and/or look the FBI site at:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backis...999/swgit1.htm

The SWGIT rules apply equally to all types of image capture including
silver.

Regarding the various CSI tv shows... keep in mind that these are
entertaining fiction gaudery and have just a passing confection with
the real world. One crime CSI LAS stopped, however, was the
disappearance of their expensive DSLRs. They bought clapped out Nikon
SLR just able to fire a flash and never lost another digital camera.

JPB

Just Plain Bill writes:
Search on SWGIT (Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technologies)
and/or look the FBI site at:
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backis...999/swgit1.htm

The SWGIT rules apply equally to all types of image capture including
silver.

I know my car insurance company required me to submit a
"self-developing" (i.e. polaroid) picture of my car when I enrolled
the policy. They apparently think polaroids are harder to manipulate
than digital or darkroom prints. Of course there are still obvious
ways to fake it, even with no manipulation.