# Blackmail chiche of "getting the negatives back" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 27, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493 "2009-07-27T23:19:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/1 "2009-07-27T23:19:25Z")
(Tossup whether this belongs in CS or GQ, but it is a factual question so here goes) In countless stories about blackmail, the victim is shown the prints of their misdeeds caught on camera and told it will cost them to get the negatives (the original developed film from the camera). But how hard could it be even in pre-digital days to make a high quality copy of the negatives? Getting the negatives back shouldn’t guarantee anything. Or is there something abot film photography I’m unaware of? I was going to post this in the technologically obsolete movie cliches thread, but then I realized it should never have worked at all. ---
**Author:** ![Jman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jman/32/4416_2.png) [@Jman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jman)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/2 "2009-07-27T23:27:05Z")
You are correct…there is nothing that would prevent the blackmailer from getting 2, 3 8, 12 etc copies of the prints from the original negative before giving them back. And, even then, for blackmail purposes, making new prints from a scan of a print isn’t even difficult (You lose quality, but for blackmail, that’s not a big deal). ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/3 "2009-07-27T23:32:56Z")
I never thought about this much until I saw this question. Movie film has never been a problem to copy, and movie film is basically like camera slide film (it’s a positive rather than a negative). In fact, I think some photogs would use 35mm movie film to make their own rolls of slide film for cameras. If you can make copies of positives of movie film, I suppose it must be possible to make copies of negative film. ---
**Author:** ![Cleophus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a88e57/32.png) [@Cleophus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cleophus)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/4 "2009-07-27T23:44:32Z")
A quick and dirty way would be to make prints, then photograph the prints. A better way is to expose the originals onto “interpositive” film (specialized negative film), then expose the interpositive film onto regular negative film. Practically any photofinisher would have offered this service before digital became popular. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/5 "2009-07-27T23:47:32Z")
Just a movie/TV plot device. That’s one to add the next time one of the “unrealistic things in movies” threads comes up. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/6 "2009-07-28T00:13:19Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > I was going to post this in the technologically obsolete movie cliches thread, but then I realized it should never have worked at all. Which thread is that? Sounds interesting, but I can’t find it. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/7 "2009-07-28T00:18:29Z")
This was the basis of the plot in the Travis McGee novel _The Quick Red Fox_, by John D. MacDonald. The victim received the negatives upon payment, but then someone else got hold of a copy of the prints and started the whole thing all over again. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/8 "2009-07-28T00:34:28Z")
I think the idea was that the prints could have been doctored but negatives couldn’t. Therefore any sort of argument as to the authenticity of a alleged photo could be settled by the negatives. If the blackmailer couldn’t produce them, you assume he/she is the liar. Don’t now how valid this thinking would be in the 20th century though ---
**Author:** ![Bisected8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@Bisected8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bisected8)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/9 "2009-07-28T00:35:17Z")
In this digital age, wouldn’t such blackmail be redundant? You can easily claim any such picture was faked. A fake image could be created on a computer and then transferred to film after all… ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/10 "2009-07-28T00:45:04Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I think the idea was that the prints could have been doctored but negatives couldn’t. Therefore any sort of argument as to the authenticity of a alleged photo could be settled by the negatives. If the blackmailer couldn’t produce them, you assume he/she is the liar. > > Don’t now how valid this thinking would be in the 20th century though > [@Bisected8](#): > > In this digital age, wouldn’t such blackmail be redundant? You can easily claim any such picture was faked. A fake image could be created on a computer and then transferred to film after all… Exactly. The blackmailer would hand over the photos to the local tabloid. The victim would claim the photos were faked. Without negatives the blackmailer couldn’t prove the photos were authentic. ---
**Author:** ![Bisected8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@Bisected8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bisected8)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/11 "2009-07-28T00:51:44Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Exactly. The blackmailer would hand over the photos to the local tabloid. The victim would claim the photos were faked. Without negatives the blackmailer couldn’t prove the photos were authentic. But couldn’t the negatives be faked? If you have an image then all you need to do is display it on a screen and take a photo. Hell, you could probably rig a device specifically for that purpose with a small LCD screen and a modified camera. Or am I being paranoid? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/12 "2009-07-28T01:03:24Z")
Expert analysis can show whether a digital photo is real or manipulated. However, if it is published, then substantial damage can be done before thte fakerty is exposed. ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/13 "2009-07-28T01:15:33Z")
If you have ever suffered through attempting to make a copy of film (an interneg), the answers to this question would be obvious. All different types of film emulsion respond differently to light (gamma). Some will emphasize reds, for instance. When you make copies of film (not prints) these responses accumulate. The result is that any copying or manipulation is FAR more obvious than the digital manipulations that high school kids are pulling off today. It’s tough to verbalize how this looks without visual examples. Imagine having to try to duplicate a sound when all you have to play the sound on is a crappy AM radio, with a single speaker. It does not take any special training to spot the fakes and duplicates. ---
**Author:** ![Bisected8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@Bisected8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bisected8)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/14 "2009-07-28T01:19:01Z")
OK, but what if you were basically taking a photo of an already expertly faked image on a very high res screen (with carefully adjusted lighting)? Would that still have the same degradation as a copied negative? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/15 "2009-07-28T02:06:47Z")
A digital photo is a series of dots. If you take a photo of a photo, you superimpose one pattern of dots on top of another. This will create moire effects in the resulting picture. Apart from that, a fake photo would be created by combining objects from several different photos. (Or possibly create some objects artificially in computer graphics.) There would be inconsistencies in things such as focus on different objects, angle of shadows, strength of light, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/16 "2009-07-28T02:19:04Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > This was the basis of the plot in the Travis McGee novel _The Quick Red Fox_, by John D. MacDonald. The victim received the negatives upon payment, but then someone else got hold of a copy of the prints and started the whole thing all over again. Quibbling slightly, the second blackmailer made his own copies by photographing a set of good prints, then sent the copies to the intended victim to prove he had the goods. _"You will no_ the truth and I will set you free."\* That line sticks in my head for some reason. :eek: \*sic ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/17 "2009-07-28T02:49:28Z")
I was never under the impression that these things were meant literally. That is, if I send you the original video, photos, lingerie, or whatever, it’s a symbolic promise that I’ll keep quiet about it. It doesn’t literally mean that I have no more evidence of your misdeeds. Getting the negatives back doesn’t guarantee anything. You just have to trust me that I’m done with the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/18 "2009-07-28T02:53:40Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Getting the negatives back doesn’t guarantee anything. You just have to trust me that I’m done with the issue. Another interpretation: a blackmailer may intend to be done with the blackmail at the moment of payoff, but later change her mind and start the process all over again, if she has the means to do so. If you ask for the negatives, and if she’s sincere at the moment, she’ll lack the means to start it back up in the future, even if she changes her mind. If she keeps the negatives, she could change her mind much more easily. ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/19 "2009-07-28T03:04:39Z")
> [@Bisected8](#): > > OK, but what if you were basically taking a photo of an already expertly faked image on a very high res screen (with carefully adjusted lighting)? Would that still have the same degradation as a copied negative? Imagine that the interneg film that you are using increases contrast. So, you get a contrasty print; then you take a picture of that photo with this same contrasty film. This only increases the contrast in the second generation. and so-on, and so-on. Imagine using a crappy xerox machine to make a copy of a copy of a copy. Everything is hard copy. Without those newfangled slider bars for Brightness, Contrast and Gamma, you’ve got nothing. Another way to illustrate this is Hollywood. Try watching the scenes where people are driving in the movie **Psyco**. It’s completely obvious that they are in a mock-up of a car, jiggling around in front of a movie screen. If you are caught up in the movie, you may not notice this. If someone was using that as evidence to blackmail you, it’s easy for even an untrained eye to spot the fakery. This is with a big budget, Alfred Hitchcock film. Imagine how much more obvious the fakes would be from someone trying to turn out fakes in their basement. You punk kids have gotten soft with your technology; now, _get off my lawn_! ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493/20 "2009-07-28T03:13:12Z")
> [@Bisected8](#): > > OK, but what if you were basically taking a photo of an already expertly faked image on a very high res screen (with carefully adjusted lighting)? Would that still have the same degradation as a copied negative? What you’re describing is akin to what a [film recorder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_recorder) does. We used to use these in the mid-to-late 90s to transfer digital images (mostly scanned negs and early Kodak DCS-400 digital files), to slides for projection, before computer video projectors became very popular. My experience with film recorders were that they did a good enough job, but you could tell the source file was digital. However, remember this was still in the mid-to-late 90s where digital output was mainly sub 3 MP cameras (The DCS-400 was 1.5 MP and the D1, which came out in '99, was 2.7MP) and the scanners we used were 2700 dpi. I couldn’t tell you how good the quality of these things is today. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackmail-chiche-of-getting-the-negatives-back/504493.md?page=2)