Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Photo scandal at National Geographic!!!
From: "Jim McIntyre" <mcintyre@ca.inter.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 07:57:18 -0400
References: <c8.3cca3a45.2c802da9@aol.com>

Agreed, but there is safety in numbers. I'm sure no one at Kodak remembers
every shot of kodachrome that goes through their plant. But more to the
point, if I were to create a composite image from digital sources, and then
run it through a slide imager, are there tell-tales clues (scan lines,
contrast issues) that shout digital versus optical?

> << Also, would a doctored transparency be easier to expose (no pun
intended) than a doctored digital file?
>
> The difference is that the slide from which the doctored version was made
> still exists as it came from the processor. So, whoever is familiar with
the
> original slide could holler bloody murder about its modification.
> By contrast, a digital file defeats the principle of an original source
> because there's really no way of authenticating it. One digital file is as
protean
> (sorry for the use of that odd word) as any other of the image.
> Who knows which is the original? They're both made of the same digital
> alphabet.
>
> As I mentioned to LUG some time ago, there are craft magazines that won't
> accept a digital image because judges and editors were let down when the
original
> piece didn't match the glorified digital shot of it.
>
> br

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from Afterswift@aol.com (Re: [Leica] Photo scandal at National Geographic!!!)