I don’t think much about photography as evidence, but it is certainly a part of law as it relates to photography. I found an interesting article about digital photography as evidence. It talks about metadata and keeping a totally original copy of all files (no name changes, no caption information, etc.), which I don’t do. I just prefer to caption and rename everything as a first step when I ingest, or immediately after. I would flunk “Forensic Photo 101.”
The article discusses authentication procedures for digital photography. Basically, any changes, including toning, tend to open the door to questions about the photos. It also talks about how shooting with a wide-angle or telephoto lens can create concerns about the authenticity of the image. Hmmm. Is it possible that “photojournalistic ethical standards” could be slashed to pieces by forensic standards?
Thinking about the forensic examination of a digital image also has implications for defending a photo against an orphan works claim and I plan to explore this concept more. But for now, I give you this fascinating article: