In this age of Photoshop (and many other computer graphic programs), it’s easy to “correct” a photograph.
I have a friend who wont stop emailing me “pictures” that he thinks are cute or funny.(You know the stuff–president Bush with Osama Ben Laden’s head superimposed, a big dog with a kitten sitting on his tail,etc. ) Some of the photos are obviously doctored, some may be real, but in many cases it’s hard to tell.
So -first, one specific question(this is GQ, right?): Photographs have always been the best proof – both for vitally serious issues like prosecuting murderers in court, and for mundane things like simple insurance claims. Are they still routinely acceptable as proof?
I’ve reached the point where I assume that half the pics on the internet are “improved”. When my photos(digital camera) of a family gathering were a bit off, the 12 year old said–“that’s no problem–just lighten the backround and reprint them.”
and now for IMHO territory: what effect will this have on society in general, if kids grow up knowing that no photograph is a true view of what was really there–and that there is no way to freeze a moment from the past, and “prove” that something really happened.
Obviously, for most of human history we lived that way, but in the past 100 years we have become used to seeing photographs and come to rely on photos for our sense of reality. Certain shots have become icons of history, a part of an entire generation’s view of society and itself: The soldiers raising the flag at Iwo Jima , the student at Kent State University kneeling over the shot protester, the naked 7year old girl running in terror down a road in Vietnam. Will future generations just say"aw, those are just photoshopped Jpeg files–they didnt really happen" ?
There was no need for Photoshop for the Iwo Jima photo, at least the famous one… it was a staged reenactment of the true, earlier flag-raising, using a larger flag the second time.
I’m pretty sure photos have not been considered proof for a while now; I did a short report on computer photo manipulation around 1990 at college, and I think I had discovered photos had already been inadmissable at that point.
That was while ago though, and I could be mis-remembering. Hopefully a lawyer can clarify.
Photoshop or not, eyewitness testimony is as unreliable as ever, yet still very important to judicial proceedings. One of the roles of the court is to decide the reliablility of evidence, which nowadays certainly includes the origin of photographs. I wonder how long before an expert in digital image manipulation is found on the stand as an expert witness? (assuming it hasn’t already happened…)
I’ve used photographs in court many times, as recently as last week. Photographs are not admissable as evidence on their own. In order to introduce a photo into evidence, there has to be a proper foundation laid by a witness. I generally have either the person who took and developed the photo testify as to its undoctored status, or another witness testify that the photo is a fair and accurate representation of what was seen at the time. Additionally, there are experts who can testify if a photo has gone through most known manipulations.
Short answer - yep, there admissable with proper foundation.
