Use for digital camera haven't seen documented

[nospambob]

Wife showed me two keepsakes she keeps as momentos of her folks. A ceramic painted 5" sphere with holes for stems of whatever flower and a ceramic dog that her father bought to remind him of the dog that adopted him that they had for years. I suggested taking a picture of each to put on an envelope with the history of the item inside for the kids when they get the items during estate distribution. Same concept could be used for tools, jewelry, furniture, whatever.

[BillyBob]

I was going to ask what this had to do with woodworking and then you used the "tool" word. Of course!

Thanks, Bob

[mare]

This is a SawStop table saw. It won't slice Wieners.

[George]

Insurance company likes pictures of the nameplates with serial and model #. For the rest, include a bit more background so they can be seen as indisputably resident at the same time in your shop.

I've scanned all the old family pictures, including the backs (for facing pages) with mom or dad's notation. Put on a CD, they have been distributed to the family so everyone can share the heritage, if not the real photos. That, and some tapes of the old folks before they go can really be a great family gift.

[Clint]

I wouldn't count on images printed from a home printer lasting a long time, nor images written to CD. Neither of them have demonstrated life-spans. The images will fade/lose color, and the CD's will degrade over time. Plus, who's to say in 25 years that we even have drives capable of reading CD's? How many people still have 5.25" floppies on their computer?

And finally, if I was an insurance adjuster, and someone had a whack of digital pictures of their stuff, I'd be cautious about accepting them at face value. One of the nice things about the digital images is the editing capability. I remember one of my first experiences with digital imaging was someone wanting to use a scanner at the computer store where I worked to edit their university transcript. Changed a 3 to an 8 in no time, and it was almost impossible to tell that it was done. When you're editing at a pixel level, anything is possible.

Clint

distributed

[Dave Hinz]

That's true. I asked a friend of mine, who is now the local Sheriff, about that. They use a digital camera for some of the crime scene photography, which I thought was odd. The legal system doesn't differentiate between a digital or a film image. The photo is offered up into evidence (or whatever the term is), the officer who took it swears that it accurately portrays the incidents that are being testified to, and that's that.

I've done some amazing things with old scratched dusty faded ripped wrinkled photos, and I'm just a hack at this stuff. I've seen someone turn a photo of a yellow firetruck into a photo of a red firetruck; reflections, shine, shadows, all that came out perfect. But...from an insurance documentation standpoint, I would think that the same standards could be held as are done in a court of law; "yes, this is an accurate portrayal of the item I'm claiming" and so on.

Dave Hinz

[willshak]

On 12/23/2004 5:21 PM US(ET), Dave Hinz took fingers to keys, and typed the following:

That's that for the time being. If it is proved that the photograph was altered, then the person testifying as to its authenticity could be charged with tampering with evidence.

[Eric Tonks]

Actually the difference between digital and photographic film is minimal. Film can be converted to digital, and digital can be converted to film. Neither medium is finite. If one was crooked enough they could use a high resolution scanner to digitize a kodachrome slide, alter the image on a computer then use an imaging camera to convert it back to a slide. It would take an expert to tell it was not a photographic original.

It is the same with paper documents, most any pr>

[George]

Work much in a darkroom? You'd be amazed.

[Jim Yanik]

"Clint" wrote in news:6fHyd.549694$Pl.478574@pd7tw1no:

I have CDs that I wrote several months to a year ago,and cannot read all the data on them.I wonder if the newer writable DVD-ROMs are any better?

[Swingman]

Yeah, we know that guy ... he got an MBA and went to work for Enron.

[Clint]

That may be true, but more people have computers nowadays than darkrooms. And doing photo editing on a computer is more idiot proof than in a darkroom too, I would think.

Clint

[Mike Marlow]

I'd bet so also. Look at what stands up now... All you need to provide the insurance company is a handwritten list of items you own(ed). There's certainly nothing stopping you from having been creative in making that list. Likewise, all that is required in court during a dispute with another party is your file copy of a letter (for example), that you, in theory sent to the other party. You need never have really sent the letter, but the presence of the "file copy" is a widely accepted factor in your favor.

[Nick Hull]

Apparently police are allowed to lie under oath in court and not be charged with perjury.

[George]

Nope, only presidents.

The penalties for tampering being greater than perjury, it's the preferred charge.

[GregP]

.. or they're allowed to skip the oath part altogether, and get their vice president to sit in with them to make sure they don't make a mistake.

[mac davis]

damn sure hope not!!!!

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

[mac davis]

good point! I know a guy that owns an auto body shop, and he transmits the insurance company a set of digital pictures with his repair estimate..

he could edit it and merge another wreck into the pic.. hmm

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

[mac davis]

hasn't worked so far, has it?

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

[Dave Hinz]

Right, just as with any other technology or piece of evidence. The topic came up because I was (a) surprised, and (b) toying with some sort of "If we used an MD5 checksum, we could prove that the image hadn't been tampered with". He explained how (b) wasn't needed because of the whole "testify that the content...." thing. Film photos can be faked, after all, it's just much more time consuming, so the legal folks have already been over all this, to the level they understand it.

Dave Hinz