Is film better for the truth?

Pieter12 · Jan 8, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
[Quote: Pieter12] A photograph, film or digital, can easily be staged and presented as evidence. It is not necessarily the truth.

Read what I posted, not what you want to see. The courts believe what is on the surface of a negative and are suspect digital photographs. Yes the photographer can include or exclude objects from the lens, but once on film, the negative always tells the truth. You can thank FauxTow$hop and sleazy digitsnappers for ruining digital photography's credibility.[/QUOTE]
A judge may have based his opinion of what was true in your particular case because of his inspection of a negative. Although that might mean that what was on the negative was true, it does not mean that the negative is a true representation of what happened at the time. Negatives usually have no time stamp, clocks and dated items can be included in a photograph to influence the truth of the scene at the time, objects can be added, altered or subtracted. Damage can be faked or done after the fact, make-up can simulate injuries. Look at what movies have been doing for years, before digital effects. Also, police departments around the world use digital cameras to record crime scenes and evidence. Are those photos all invalid because they are digital?

MattKing · Jan 8, 2022

With some very narrow statutory exceptions (e.g. automatic traffic cameras), photographs alone are not admissible as probative evidence in our courts of law.
They are, however, relied upon heavily as demonstrative evidence.
Essentially, in court, they aren't seen as the score, they are seen as the performance.
Where have I heard that before?

mshchem · Jan 8, 2022

AA the traffic cop!

gone · Jan 8, 2022

A negative can be faked, right? Just make some changes on one, then make a photograph of that. I can't think of anything that can't be faked.

Mike Lopez · Jan 8, 2022

Pieter12 said:
Read what I posted, not what you want to see. The courts believe what is on the surface of a negative and are suspect digital photographs. Yes the photographer can include or exclude objects from the lens, but once on film, the negative always tells the truth. You can thank FauxTow$hop and sleazy digitsnappers for ruining digital photography's credibility.

A judge may have based his opinion of what was true in your particular case because of his inspection of a negative. Although that might mean that what was on the negative was true, it does not mean that the negative is a true representation of what happened at the time. Negatives usually have no time stamp, clocks and dated items can be included in a photograph to influence the truth of the scene at the time, objects can be added, altered or subtracted. Damage can be faked or done after the fact, make-up can simulate injuries. Look at what movies have been doing for years, before digital effects. Also, police departments around the world use digital cameras to record crime scenes and evidence. Are those photos all invalid because they are digital?

Harry Callahan made some wonderful portraits of his wife using double exposures on sheet film. The resulting negatives would pass muster as authentic (and they are), but you’re right: those negatives do not represent “truth” as it’s being used in this argument. They are planned, posed, staged…whatever you want to call it. Just like they did in the movies for generations before digital, as you note.

Deleted member 88956 · Jan 8, 2022

If photograph represents true event it does not matter how it was recorded. If it represents some imaginary composition it does not matter how it was recorded.

Mike Lopez · Jan 8, 2022

Pieter12, something got wonky when you made your post as a reply. The first quoted post in my reply was of course not made by you, but I don’t want you to think I’m falsely attributing it to you.

Sirius Glass · Jan 8, 2022

Mike Lopez said:
Pieter12, something got wonky when you made your post as a reply. The first quoted post in my reply was of course not made by you, but I don’t want you to think I’m falsely attributing it to you.

Please do not step on Mike's toes. Not only does it hurt but that also messes up the shoe shine.

Helge · Jan 8, 2022

There are grades and kinds of “truth” for lack of better word.
A negative or slide is just harder to falsify or alter.

Maris · Jan 8, 2022

..

Jim Chinn said:
....My question is: do you think that as people become more and more aware of how easy it is to manipulate images and alter their content, they will eventually quit believing anything they see. .....

No!
Credibility is supported by the medium in which the information is couched. But no trust is absolute.

Some media are inherently difficult to edit into falsehood. Examples include physical media like death masks, life casts, papier mache moulds, footprints, wax impressions, brass rubbings, camera original photographs, court exhibits. High trust.

Other things like cellphone pictures or videos are easy to manipulate in theory but the majority of users have neither the motivation, guile, or technical adroitness to do it. The sheer volume of independently produced naive images promotes some trust.

Some media are trivially easy to warp in the cause of misinformation: paintings, drawings, verbal testimony, descriptions of things rather than the things themselves, the printed word, social media, rumour, word of mouth, and electronic files. Verify and crosscheck.

Some people want to be fooled, some fool themselves. The hard part is to convince them they have been fooled.

markjwyatt · Jan 9, 2022

Helge said:
There are grades and kinds of “truth” for lack of better word.
A negative or slide is just harder to falsify or alter.

There is truth (kind of an absolute- God or a Platonic Idea if you prefer) and truthfulness. A digital image has a greater potential to deviate form truthfulness because of its ease of modification than a negative or slide; though all these have potential for modification. I have a book- 'The Manual of Slide Duplicating",Mike and Pat Q, which has parts that sound a lot like a Photoshop manual. Of course if a fake were made on duplicating film, this would be a big clue. If it were made using on a more standard slide film (e.g., standard consumer daylight or tungsten as appropriate for the scene), it might not turn out right, etc. In a court there are experts that can look at digital files and ones that can look at negs and slides and form credible opinions on whether the image is modified or not.

guangong · Jan 9, 2022

Altering images and pictures began long before the invention of photography, beginning in Mesopotamia and continuing with paintings, murals, etc . With birth of photography, photographs were frequently altered to remove those who suddenly became non persons. However, untruths can often be expressed by positioning of the camera so as to distort the facts. Sometimes, the camera can unknowingly demonstrate the truth; for example when NBC reporter describing riot as peaceful orderly demonstration while blazing fires and rioting going on behind him. So photographs have been faked long before photoshop. The difference is that now the fakes can look more genuine.

Don_ih · Jan 9, 2022

guangong said:
The difference is that now the fakes can look more genuine.

Another difference is that now people are less inclined to accept a photo at face value and are more likely to not believe what it purports than they were in the not-so-distant past. People have become disillusioned regarding photographic evidence. A sure way to get someone to doubt something is claim it's the truth.

Kino · Jan 9, 2022

Since information bias has permeated much of society, it doesn't matter if the image is digital or film; a real, unaltered representation of the event or not.

People believe what they want to believe and have their echo chambers on the Internet reinforce their views.

Ko.Fe. · Jan 9, 2022

No, film is waste of time and natural resources over nothing for journalism.
The competition is so high due to simplified information delivery, if someone is caught on manipulation they are out.

I was watching seminar with Toronto Star photog. He doesn't have time to edit. He sends jpeg1 files almost SOOC while still on location. Newspapers, without paper, are in competition with their own readers who likely post same happening image on the social media witching seconds after something is happening,via straight pictures taken by the mobile.

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 9, 2022

Pieter12 said:
Read what I posted, not what you want to see. The courts believe what is on the surface of a negative and are suspect digital photographs. Yes the photographer can include or exclude objects from the lens, but once on film, the negative always tells the truth. You can thank FauxTow$hop and sleazy digitsnappers for ruining digital photography's credibility.

A judge may have based his opinion of what was true in your particular case because of his inspection of a negative. Although that might mean that what was on the negative was true, it does not mean that the negative is a true representation of what happened at the time. Negatives usually have no time stamp, clocks and dated items can be included in a photograph to influence the truth of the scene at the time, objects can be added, altered or subtracted. Damage can be faked or done after the fact, make-up can simulate injuries. Look at what movies have been doing for years, before digital effects. Also, police departments around the world use digital cameras to record crime scenes and evidence. Are those photos all invalid because they are digital?

In a recent murder case in the news, the Rittenhouse case, the judge didn't allow a piece of prosecution evidence, a picture, when they told him they processed it in an ordinary way. Since they couldn't describe their process in simple, complete details that he understood, he didn't allow it in as evidence. I think they increase the exposure setting because it was too dark. The defense claimed that since the prosecutor couldn't explain what happens to the pixels, the jury couldn't depend the photo wasn't corrupted or played with. The judge agreed with the defense and disallowed it.

There was also a dispute when the court learned the prosecution submitted a video as their evidence that had less resolution than the original. You couldn't clearly see the weapon and action of whether the victim grabbed the accused gun or not. The prosecutor claimed they got it mixed up with the clearer version with more resolution and submitted the unclear version as evidence. I'm not sure what was the outcome of this complaint. I think the defense would have used it on appeal had they lost the case. Since that didn't happen, the issue was moot.

Sirius Glass · Jan 9, 2022

Don Heisz said:
Another difference is that now people are less inclined to accept a photo at face value and are more likely to not believe what it purports than they were in the not-so-distant past. People have become disillusioned regarding photographic evidence. A sure way to get someone to doubt something is claim it's the truth.

That is a great loss to society. "Without trust, there is nothing" -- Talmud

peter k. · Jan 9, 2022

So true, but trust goes beyond evidence.

Sirius Glass said:
"Without trust, there is nothing" -- Talmud

Sirius Glass · Jan 9, 2022

peter k. said:
So true, but trust goes beyond evidence.

I agree trust depends on many things, actions and inactions.

peter k. · Jan 9, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
trust depends on many things, actions and inactions.

... and a depth of confidence that goes beyond the reality of logic.

greg zinselmeier · Jan 9, 2022

I would say, that I am a person who thinks that most people are not interested in truth, they are interested in being perceived as being truthful.

Sirius Glass · Jan 9, 2022

greg zinselmeier said:
I would say, that I am a person who thinks that most people are not interested in truth, they are interested in being perceived as being truthful.

I would say, that I am a person who thinks that most people are not interested in truth, they are interested in being ~~perceived as being truthful~~ right [regardless of the facts].

Pieter12 · Jan 9, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
I would say, that I am a person who thinks that most people are not interested in truth, they are interested in being ~~perceived as being truthful~~ right [regardless of the facts].

Yes, the majority of people are most comfortable in a bubble of agreement/reinforcement of their own thoughts and beliefs. Having to deal with another angle on the same situation is not for them. So they will readily accept as true an image that conforms with their existing views or expectations.

Sirius Glass · Jan 9, 2022

Pieter12 said:
Yes, the majority of people are most comfortable in a bubble of agreement/reinforcement of their own thoughts and beliefs. Having to deal with another angle on the same situation is not for them. So they will readily accept as true an image that conforms with their existing views or expectations.

wiltw · Jan 9, 2022

Lotsa folks don't believe that the video shot on January 6, 2021 really happened, things were peaceful, folks were not supporters of the losing vote getter but 'the other party' members pretending to be...here we have proof that photos do not convince, they are not 'proof'. At least, not 'digital video' would film be more convincing?!

Is film better for the truth?

Moderator

Deleted member 88956

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency