Digital Images admissable in court

[gshughes]

Right we know digital images are inadmissible which is why we carry a disposable film camera in the glovebox, for use at the scene of an accident.

But, presumably the new generation of digital speed cameras ARE admissible, can anyone explain the difference ?

[leosayer]

One rule for them, another for us???

[t-c]

I use digital pictures in court on a regular basis, and their legality has never been questioned!

[Flat in Fifth]

gshughes said:

Right we know digital images are inadmissible which is why we carry a disposable film camera in the glovebox, for use at the scene of an accident. But, presumably the new generation of digital speed cameras ARE admissible, can anyone explain the difference ?

Canon have a (new-ish?) system on (top-end?) cameras where there is some system encoded within the file which tracks changes to the image.

Sorry that is a bit vague, I came across it a few months ago in What Digital Camera Mag when I was looking for a digital camera.

Probably someone more knowledgeable about this can comment.

[supraman2954]

I think this is related to the compression applied to the image for storage (I could be wrong though). JPEGs are questionable because they slightly alter the image (a bad thing if to be used as evidence) to enable a reduction of the amount data required.

Images captured in RAW and maybe TIFF format should be OK as the data captured from the imager is not altered at any stage of the process.

Then again, digital images lend themselves to easy manipulation for anyone who can use M$ Paint.

[DustyC]

Chemical photos can be edited too, most people just dont know how.

[m-five]

DustyC said:

Chemical photos can be edited too, most people just dont know how.

Brings back memories of my days working in an old touch-up lab.

[gshughes]

DustyC said:

Chemical photos can be edited too, most people just dont know how.

I guess by doing something at the enlarger stage when making a print from the neg ? Does that mean that the only foolproof type of photo is an original negative or transparancy ?

[StressedDave]

All digital images are admissable but there are various procedures that have to be fulfilled otherwise you get into trouble with the defence/prosecution lawyers. You have to retain a master copy of the image as taken by a camera (you don't need to save in RAW/TIFF format, JPEG is perfectly adequate) on a WORM disk (CD-ROM). You can make a copy of this master disk as a working copy and manipulate the working copy image to your heart's content, provided you keep a proper audit trail of what has been done, so that anyone else with suitable software can exactly duplicate the finished 'artwork' - Photoshop isn't generally used. Failing to keep to this protocol means the images get chucked out at court.

If you're really interested, PSDB have a copy of the appropriate protocol on their website in .PDF for downloading.

[supraman2954]

Thanks for the pointer StressedDave, the document made for an interesting read. Your summary is bang on, I stand corrected

There are lots of pages, but no hard and fast legislation.

PSDB said:

“However, any alterations which affect the image data, no matter how innocuous, should be treated with caution”

This includes compression, though I now believe this would be not considered as “unfairly modified”, so it’s not a problem.

stresseddave said:

…..JPEG is perfectly adequate…..

In any event, it is safest to use RAW/TIFF formats, otherwise blurring may occur.

[deeen]

m-five said:

DustyC said: Chemical photos can be edited too, most people just dont know how. Brings back memories of my days working in an old touch-up lab.

I guess that would not be legal since the sex discrimination laws came in...

[andy mac]