posted on May, 22 2011 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by fixer1967
Found your new thread
Star and flag.
I think, that even if a photo isn't been manipulated that some people will still think it is - simply because the technology exists to do so. (In my
opinion just because something can
be done doesn't mean it has
been done, but not everyone will think that way).
I have seen people talking about EXF data that can somehow 'prove' that a photo has been changed in some way - but how far does this go?
For instance whenever hubby and I download pictures from our digital camera they always come out really large on the computer, so we resize them so
they fit on the screen
but would this show in the EXF data as manipulated? Cos in one sense it is, but nothing in the actual picture has been
altered, only the size of it. So my point is if someone took a picture of a genuine anomoly then resized it after downloading, it might show as
manipulated even though the subject of the photo wasn't changed?
But as for alternative proof if photos are no longer reliable - I don't think there is any alternatives. Video maybe but can be altered too?
Like I said on other thread - it seems like the more technology we get, it allows us to have less proof instead of more. It's kinda sad, when you
think about it.