What was wrong with film?

From what they tell me, only film photos are acceptable in the law courts.
I s'pose digital images can be altered any way one wants.

Yeah, and there is no way to take a photo, alter it, then re-image it onto
film...right!

"Reciprocity Failure" wrote in message
.com...
APS exists in part because industry
research showed that so many people had trouble getting a film leader onto
a
take up spool.

.... and also couldn't distinguish a good print from the crap the mini-labs
now spew out.

In article ,
(Wilt W) wrote:

From what they tell me, only film photos are acceptable in the law courts.
I s'pose digital images can be altered any way one wants.

Yeah, and there is no way to take a photo, alter it, then re-image it onto
film...right!

Do you think you could do it well enough to fool an expert?

In federal courts and in every state court I know of digital photographs are
admissable as evidence to the same extent as film and in the same way as
film photographs. Conceivably there is some state in which they aren't
admissable, I'm not familiar with the rules of evidence in every state in
the country, but I know the rules in federal court and I haven't heard of
any state that bars the introduction of digital images into evidence just
because they are digital and not film.

"Wilt W" wrote in message
...
From what they tell me, only film photos are acceptable in the law
courts.
I s'pose digital images can be altered any way one wants.

Yeah, and there is no way to take a photo, alter it, then re-image it
onto
film...right!

In article ,
"Reciprocity Failure" wrote:

In federal courts and in every state court I know of digital photographs are
admissable as evidence to the same extent as film and in the same way as
film photographs. Conceivably there is some state in which they aren't
admissable, I'm not familiar with the rules of evidence in every state in
the country, but I know the rules in federal court and I haven't heard of
any state that bars the introduction of digital images into evidence just
because they are digital and not film.

Then the courts are on a fast slide down. It's just fcuking pitifully ignorant.

Reciprocity Failure wrote:

Seriously, I wonder how many -computer illiterate- digicam owners (which
would describe 99% of digicam buyers) . . . .

What a stupid statement.


How many computer owners know how to format their computer drives or what
that even means? What % even know what usenet and newsgroups are? Sure the
digital camera users who read newsgroups are computer literate, go listen
to the people looking at digicams (or selling them!) at compUSA etc and
you'll quickly see they are clueless. Given most people never read the
instructions on any product they buy, they aren't going to understand
what's going on here either...


It conveys much more information about you than
it does about owners of digital cameras (and what it says about you isn't
flattering).


Yea and that wasn't meant as a personal attack? ;-)
--

Stacey

Reciprocity Failure wrote:

Sorry, I didn't mean it as a personal attack,

Yes you did mean it as an insult, reread the second part of your post..


However, it's amusing to see the straws at which some are grasping in
their efforts to convince themselves that everyone who uses a digital
camera is an idiot.

No, it's that the general public is computer illiterate. The general public
is buying these in droves and most are clueless about using them. There are
computer literate digicam users but they are the minority of digicam
buyers. I had someone last week try to pay me for the "digital film" I used
taking pictures of their car to send into the autotrader! :-) This person
considers themselves "web savy" and works on computers daily.
--

Stacey

Nick Zentena writes:

Odds are we end up with nothing at all. First we edit out all the ones
that are boring when taken. Then later we edit out some more. We keep
repeating the editing until nothing is left. Imagine giving a box of prints
to a series of people. Telling each one to take out the worthless ones and
to then pass it on. Bet by the end that box is pretty close to empty.

From what I've seen, a lot of people aren't keeping any of their digital
images at all. They take them, look at them, then delete them when they
need more space. Some people do this without ever even downloading them
from the camera.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

jjs writes:

Do you think you could do it well enough to fool an expert?

Easily. It's not that hard.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Reciprocity Failure writes:

It was a stupid statement because neither the author
nor anyone else here has any actual knowledge of the extent to which digital
camera users know anything about computers.

There are far more digital camera owners than computer-literate people
(depending on one's definition of literacy). Therefore a large
percentage of digital camera owners are unsophisticated with respect to
computers.

However, it's amusing to see the straws at which some are grasping in their
efforts to convince themselves that everyone who uses a digital camera is an
idiot.

Not everyone who uses a digicam is an idiot. However, digital cameras
have a far broader appeal than film cameras, and so the average digicam
user is far less sophisticated about photography than the average film
user.

The "Pulitzer Prize Winning Photo Journalist Meets Technie Dweeb"
was the best.

A camera salesperson should have known better, though.

Most, probably all, major metropolitan newspapers as well as
many smaller ones no longer use film.

There's more to photography than photojournalism.

But they haven't switched to digital
technology because it enables the photographer to see the photograph at the
time it's being made.

Probably, but I'm amazed at the number of press photographers I see who
spend half their time squinting at the screens on the backs of their
digital cameras. You'd think that with years of experience they
wouldn't need to check every shot, but a lot of them do, anyway. I
prefer to just continue shooting, so that I don't miss half the shots.
I can always sort through them later.

Indeed, the easiest way to spot digital photographers at press events is
to look for people who are staring at the backs of their cameras instead
of through the viewfinder at the event they are supposed to be shooting.
Of course, most press photographers are shooting digital today,
particularly those working as employees (as opposed to freelance).

It's obviously painful for some to acknowledge but digital actually makes a
lot of sense for many people and many industries, everyone who uses it isn't
a computer illiterate or someone who can't read a manual.

It does indeed. It's just tiring to see people claim that digital is
the solution to all problems.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.