On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 22:01:38 GMT, Clint wrote:

And finally, if I was an insurance adjuster, and someone had a whack of
digital pictures of their stuff, I'd be cautious about accepting them at
face value. One of the nice things about the digital images is the editing
capability.

That's true. I asked a friend of mine, who is now the local Sheriff,
about that. They use a digital camera for some of the crime scene
photography, which I thought was odd. The legal system doesn't
differentiate between a digital or a film image. The photo is offered
up into evidence (or whatever the term is), the officer who took it
swears that it accurately portrays the incidents that are being testified
to, and that's that.

I remember one of my first experiences with digital imaging was
someone wanting to use a scanner at the computer store where I worked to
edit their university transcript. Changed a 3 to an 8 in no time, and it
was almost impossible to tell that it was done. When you're editing at a
pixel level, anything is possible.

I've done some amazing things with old scratched dusty faded ripped wrinkled
photos, and I'm just a hack at this stuff. I've seen someone turn a photo of
a yellow firetruck into a photo of a red firetruck; reflections, shine,
shadows, all that came out perfect. But...from an insurance
documentation standpoint, I would think that the same standards could
be held as are done in a court of law; "yes, this is an accurate
portrayal of the item I'm claiming" and so on.

Dave Hinz