Use for digital camera haven't seen documented
 

Wife showed me two keepsakes she keeps as momentos of her folks. A
ceramic painted 5" sphere with holes for stems of whatever flower and
a ceramic dog that her father bought to remind him of the dog that
adopted him that they had for years. I suggested taking a picture of
each to put on an envelope with the history of the item inside for the
kids when they get the items during estate distribution. Same concept
could be used for tools, jewelry, furniture, whatever.

wrote in message
...
Wife showed me two keepsakes she keeps as momentos of her folks. A
ceramic painted 5" sphere with holes for stems of whatever flower and
a ceramic dog that her father bought to remind him of the dog that
adopted him that they had for years. I suggested taking a picture of
each to put on an envelope with the history of the item inside for the
kids when they get the items during estate distribution. Same concept
could be used for tools, jewelry, furniture, whatever.

I was going to ask what this had to do with woodworking and then you used
the "tool" word. Of course!

Thanks,
Bob

Insurance company likes pictures of the nameplates with serial and model #.
For the rest, include a bit more background so they can be seen as
indisputably resident at the same time in your shop.

I've scanned all the old family pictures, including the backs (for facing
pages) with mom or dad's notation. Put on a CD, they have been distributed
to the family so everyone can share the heritage, if not the real photos.
That, and some tapes of the old folks before they go can really be a great
family gift.

wrote in message
...
Wife showed me two keepsakes she keeps as momentos of her folks. A
ceramic painted 5" sphere with holes for stems of whatever flower and
a ceramic dog that her father bought to remind him of the dog that
adopted him that they had for years. I suggested taking a picture of
each to put on an envelope with the history of the item inside for the
kids when they get the items during estate distribution. Same concept
could be used for tools, jewelry, furniture, whatever.

I wouldn't count on images printed from a home printer lasting a long time,
nor images written to CD. Neither of them have demonstrated life-spans.
The images will fade/lose color, and the CD's will degrade over time. Plus,
who's to say in 25 years that we even have drives capable of reading CD's?
How many people still have 5.25" floppies on their computer?

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. 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.

Clint

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
Insurance company likes pictures of the nameplates with serial and model
#.
For the rest, include a bit more background so they can be seen as
indisputably resident at the same time in your shop.

I've scanned all the old family pictures, including the backs (for facing
pages) with mom or dad's notation. Put on a CD, they have been
distributed
to the family so everyone can share the heritage, if not the real photos.
That, and some tapes of the old folks before they go can really be a great
family gift.

wrote in message
...
Wife showed me two keepsakes she keeps as momentos of her folks. A
ceramic painted 5" sphere with holes for stems of whatever flower and
a ceramic dog that her father bought to remind him of the dog that
adopted him that they had for years. I suggested taking a picture of
each to put on an envelope with the history of the item inside for the
kids when they get the items during estate distribution. Same concept
could be used for tools, jewelry, furniture, whatever.

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

On 12/23/2004 5:21 PM US(ET), Dave Hinz took fingers to keys, and typed
the following:

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.


That's that for the time being. If it is proved that the photograph was
altered, then the person testifying as to its authenticity could be
charged with tampering with evidence.



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




--
Bill

Actually the difference between digital and photographic film is minimal.
Film can be converted to digital, and digital can be converted to film.
Neither medium is finite. If one was crooked enough they could use a high
resolution scanner to digitize a kodachrome slide, alter the image on a
computer then use an imaging camera to convert it back to a slide. It would
take an expert to tell it was not a photographic original.

It is the same with paper documents, most any printer (we are not talking
ink jet or laser) who uses presses and ink on paper has the capabilities to
forge most documents. That is why there has to be someone who can verify the
documents as to their originality.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
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

Work much in a darkroom? You'd be amazed.

"Clint" wrote in message
news:6fHyd.549694$Pl.478574@pd7tw1no...
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. 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.

"Clint" wrote in
news:6fHyd.549694$Pl.478574@pd7tw1no:

I wouldn't count on images printed from a home printer lasting a long
time, nor images written to CD. Neither of them have demonstrated
life-spans. The images will fade/lose color, and the CD's will degrade
over time. Plus, who's to say in 25 years that we even have drives
capable of reading CD's? How many people still have 5.25" floppies on
their computer?

I have CDs that I wrote several months to a year ago,and cannot read all
the data on them.I wonder if the newer writable DVD-ROMs are any better?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Clint" wrote in message

capability. 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.

Yeah, we know that guy ... he got an MBA and went to work for Enron.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

That may be true, but more people have computers nowadays than darkrooms.
And doing photo editing on a computer is more idiot proof than in a darkroom
too, I would think.

Clint

"George" george@least wrote in message
...
Work much in a darkroom? You'd be amazed.

"Clint" wrote in message
news:6fHyd.549694$Pl.478574@pd7tw1no...
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. 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.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

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.


I'd bet so also. Look at what stands up now... All you need to provide the
insurance company is a handwritten list of items you own(ed). There's
certainly nothing stopping you from having been creative in making that
list. Likewise, all that is required in court during a dispute with another
party is your file copy of a letter (for example), that you, in theory sent
to the other party. You need never have really sent the letter, but the
presence of the "file copy" is a widely accepted factor in your favor.
--

-Mike-

In article ,
willshak wrote:

That's that for the time being. If it is proved that the photograph was
altered, then the person testifying as to its authenticity could be
charged with tampering with evidence.

Apparently police are allowed to lie under oath in court and not be
charged with perjury.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

"Nick Hull" wrote in message
...
In article ,
willshak wrote:

That's that for the time being. If it is proved that the photograph was
altered, then the person testifying as to its authenticity could be
charged with tampering with evidence.

Apparently police are allowed to lie under oath in court and not be
charged with perjury.


Nope, only presidents.

The penalties for tampering being greater than perjury, it's the preferred
charge.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:48:26 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:


Apparently police are allowed to lie under oath in court and not be
charged with perjury.


Nope, only presidents.

.. or they're allowed to skip the oath part altogether, and get
their vice president to sit in with them to make sure they don't
make a mistake.

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:38:55 -0500, willshak wrote:
On 12/23/2004 5:21 PM US(ET), Dave Hinz took fingers to keys, and typed
the following:

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.

That's that for the time being. If it is proved that the photograph was
altered, then the person testifying as to its authenticity could be
charged with tampering with evidence.

Right, just as with any other technology or piece of evidence.
The topic came up because I was (a) surprised, and (b) toying with some
sort of "If we used an MD5 checksum, we could prove that the image hadn't
been tampered with". He explained how (b) wasn't needed because of the
whole "testify that the content...." thing. Film photos can be faked,
after all, it's just much more time consuming, so the legal folks have
already been over all this, to the level they understand it.

Dave Hinz

On 24 Dec 2004 01:32:12 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

I have CDs that I wrote several months to a year ago,and cannot read all
the data on them.I wonder if the newer writable DVD-ROMs are any better?

I doubt it. The density is much higher, the technology is newer, and
I've made more coasters when trying to burn DVD-R's than burning CDs.

The ones you can't read...are those, by any chance, written with some
sort of direct-cd software, and you are trying to read them on a different
system not set up for that?

Dave Hinz wrote in
:

On 24 Dec 2004 01:32:12 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

I have CDs that I wrote several months to a year ago,and cannot read
all the data on them.I wonder if the newer writable DVD-ROMs are any
better?

I doubt it. The density is much higher, the technology is newer, and
I've made more coasters when trying to burn DVD-R's than burning CDs.

The ones you can't read...are those, by any chance, written with some
sort of direct-cd software, and you are trying to read them on a
different system not set up for that?


No,they were written on a CD-RW drive (Smart& Friendly brand) and tried to
read on another PC's CD-ROM drive.They worked when I first wrote them.
You can see a visible difference on some of the tracks.It may be due to
using lesser priced blanks instead of premium blanks.Maybe too cheap a
write layer on the blanks degrading after several months.Maybe a bad batch
of blanks.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net