I can think of one area where the amount of manipulation - whether the image starts out as film or CCD - is of *vital* importance - when a photograph is used as evidence in a criminal - or possibly marginally less important - civil trial.

Once I was contacted by Lawyer representing a teen-ager who had been accused by the police of reckless driving. My photographs, taken as a bystander - I happened to be there - showed that a stop sign that he supposedly violated (there was an accident) was, in fact, screened from view by shrubbery. I supplied a number of 8" x 10" black and white prints - I know the case was dismissed upon presentation of these photographs - but I wasn't called to testify.

There must be some criteria where opposing legal practioners can argue over the validity of the photographs and the prints ... but I have no idea what they might be.

Anyone out there have any experience/ thoughts about "Evidence" photography?