This is not intended to be a us vs. them thread. But I was thinking after reading up on the various uses of photoshop to embellish (a nice way of putting it) older images.
If someone scans a negative into a computer and then destroys the negative, is there any way to disprove that the image from the negative later manipulated by software is not the original image on a negative?
If I produce an image or images in my digital camera, manipulate, combine, edit out details etc and then destroy the files leaving only a printed copy, can anyone prove this was not an orignal scene?
As a journalist, it seems that it would be improtant to have a record that could be examined by experts and determined to be ture. A negative would provide that level of credibility.
Then i realized that the manipulated image could be transferred to film, giving the impression that it originated there.
My question is: do you think that as people become more and more aware of how easy it is to manipulate images and alter their content, they will eventually quit believing anything they see.
For many years people have looked on print and TV journalists as rating lower then used car salesman.
It always seemed that photographers were seen as better communicators of the truth. Are we at the end of that era?