Bang, crunch, click
Discussion
I was weaving my way to work on the bike through the nightmare that is New Cross, when I realised the queue of cars had stopped because of a minor coming together of 2 cars. The aggrieved driver of the car in front was shouting at the other driver (couldn't hear what he said, I had ear plugs in and my exhaust is too loud).
As I passed the stricken vehicles, driver from front car was taking photos with a digital camera.
Now I don't drive or ride around expecting to have an accident, but it's useful to have a pocket camera with you, 'cos you never know what you might want to take a photo of.
How many PHers carry such a device?
As I passed the stricken vehicles, driver from front car was taking photos with a digital camera.
Now I don't drive or ride around expecting to have an accident, but it's useful to have a pocket camera with you, 'cos you never know what you might want to take a photo of.
How many PHers carry such a device?
joust said: In the same way that digital cameras can't be used for speeding offence - insurance companies won't accept them either.....
J
This is completely untrue. The law was changed a couple of years ago to make digital pictures acceptable as evidence, in order that digital GATSOs could be used. And the last time I had an insurance claim, the body shop photographed my damaged car with a digital camera for the insurance co.
That said, I keep a Kodak disposable in the car for this very reason.
.....on disused airfields of course!
zumbruk said:This is completely untrue. The law was changed a couple of years ago to make digital pictures acceptable as evidence, in order that digital GATSOs could be used
AFAIK digital pictures are only acceptable as evidence from Home Office type approved equipment (i.e. SPECs etc.). The device has to be type approved and working in accordance with its design, and that there is a system to ensure that the photos are both digitally signed and encrypted so that a "chain of evidence" can be proven in court ensuring it is amissable. A high street digital camera does none of these.
If you check your insurance policy most will ask for pictures to be in traditional format - if you don't follow what your policy says then they are under no obligation to honor it or pay out.
If the case went to court and you wanted to rely on your pictures to prove a point of law it would be simple for the defense to throw reasonable doubt on the authenticity of your picture (as there would be no way of telling if it was modified post photograph) and such the opposite law team would easily get your evidence thrown out.
And the last time I had an insurance claim, the body shop photographed my damaged car with a digital camera for the insurance co.
That would be an arrangement between the insurance company and the body shop. Some council's allow digital photos to be submitted for planning permission, some don't. It's a pain for the work we have to do at work if they want them from 35mm but there is nothing we can do about it if that's what they want.
J
Ah but what constitutes a digital picture? One taken with a digital camera but printed out as a standard photo? Or one sent electronically?
Either can be altered but anything loaded onto a PC is much easier to alter than using actual real film.
Of preference I would always go for the real film for 2 reasons. The first being the difficulty in altering it so it's use as evidence is much better. The second is cost - a disposable camera is a damn site cheaper than even the cheapest digital. It's also cheaper and easier to get them processed (per photo).
Either can be altered but anything loaded onto a PC is much easier to alter than using actual real film.
Of preference I would always go for the real film for 2 reasons. The first being the difficulty in altering it so it's use as evidence is much better. The second is cost - a disposable camera is a damn site cheaper than even the cheapest digital. It's also cheaper and easier to get them processed (per photo).
I really don't understand how you could edit a digital picture so much as to make it inadmissible as evidence. It's so obvious where a picture has been edited even by the most highly skilled operative that I would have thought it impossible to influence an image to your favour.
:racksbrainforexamplesituation:
:racksbrainforexamplesituation:
I'm not so sure!
If I work on a 200mb file and edit it at a resolution or something like 300lpi and 4096x4096, when I resample the image down to 72dpi and send it on you would not notice tampering due to the fact that most artifacts caused by the tampering are now so small that they look original (i.e. if I edited 4 pixes out of the original and then saved it down to a factor of 16 then the original modification would only be 1 pixel and hence unobtrusive).
Also a lot of so called 'evidence' of tampering is the compression format used. If you use JPEG at anything below high quality you end with unwanted artifacts around sharp edges (and sometimes even in flat colour areas). How are you going to prove that these are caused by malicious tampering, and not just coincidential to the format?
If I work on a 200mb file and edit it at a resolution or something like 300lpi and 4096x4096, when I resample the image down to 72dpi and send it on you would not notice tampering due to the fact that most artifacts caused by the tampering are now so small that they look original (i.e. if I edited 4 pixes out of the original and then saved it down to a factor of 16 then the original modification would only be 1 pixel and hence unobtrusive).
Also a lot of so called 'evidence' of tampering is the compression format used. If you use JPEG at anything below high quality you end with unwanted artifacts around sharp edges (and sometimes even in flat colour areas). How are you going to prove that these are caused by malicious tampering, and not just coincidential to the format?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff