Vaughn
Allowing Ads
-
Welcome to Photrio!Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.Click here to sign up
Makers or Takers
-
- Thread starter cliveh
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Hasselblad Distagon FE 50mm
- Started by Jammoh
-
Want to Buy Jobo CPP-3
- Started by lifeandmylens
-
Want to Buy Dagor 12" F6.8
- Started by lifeandmylens
-
Want to Buy Arca Swiss 8 x 10 F Metric
- Started by lifeandmylens
-
Want to Buy Canon 5D IV low shutter count
- Started by Nathan Olsen
Forum statistics
i'm a taker, then a maker. First I take the picture, then I make the picture!
Alan Edward Klein
Allowing Ads
Only photographers on a photo forum can argue that fake pictures are real. Judges don't seem to have that trouble. Here's a true story:
A fellow shot another with the gun that he was legally carrying. He was tried for murder. The defendant claimed that the guy was trying to grab his gun away from him, and he shot the victim to protect himself because he would have been shot with his own gun had he lost possession of it. The prosecutor showed a video taken by a bystander that was not clear enough to prove the defendant's claim. You couldn't tell if the victim actually grabbed his gun. Then it came out during the trial that the prosecutor supplied a video with a reduced resolution, let's say 720x480 instead of the original 1920x1080. When the original, clearer, higher resolution video was shown, it distinctly showed that the defendant was correct, that the person had grabbed for his gun, and he shot him in defense. The judge was so angry at the prosecutor for playing games with a "phony" video that he nearly jailed him for contempt of court and would have thrown the case out if the jury did not find the defendant innocent, which they did.
A fellow shot another with the gun that he was legally carrying. He was tried for murder. The defendant claimed that the guy was trying to grab his gun away from him, and he shot the victim to protect himself because he would have been shot with his own gun had he lost possession of it. The prosecutor showed a video taken by a bystander that was not clear enough to prove the defendant's claim. You couldn't tell if the victim actually grabbed his gun. Then it came out during the trial that the prosecutor supplied a video with a reduced resolution, let's say 720x480 instead of the original 1920x1080. When the original, clearer, higher resolution video was shown, it distinctly showed that the defendant was correct, that the person had grabbed for his gun, and he shot him in defense. The judge was so angry at the prosecutor for playing games with a "phony" video that he nearly jailed him for contempt of court and would have thrown the case out if the jury did not find the defendant innocent, which they did.
Nobody has argued that. What people are saying is that even "real" not-deliberately-altered photographs aren't literally real. They are a particular version and incomplete recording of whatever actually happened in front of the camera.
snusmumriken
Allowing Ads
Anyone know what was going on there? Were the ferns for sale, or just packaging for something else?I did find some ferns by Atget...
Vaughn
Allowing Ads
My guess is a fish shop.
snusmumriken
Allowing Ads
That's a very plausible guess, thanks.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |