A U.K. woman was photographed standing in a mirror where her reflections didn’t match, but not because of a glitch in the Matrix. Instead, it’s a simple iPhone computational photography mistake.

  • @curiousaur
    link
    fedilink
    English
    384 months ago

    It should be. All computational photography has zero business being used in court

    • Decoy321
      link
      fedilink
      English
      184 months ago

      We might be exaggerating the issue here. Fallibility has always been an issue with court evidence. Analog photos can be doctored too.

      • @curiousaur
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 months ago

        Sure, but smartphones now automatically doctor every photo you take. Someone who took the photo could not even know it was doctored and think it represents truth.

        • Decoy321
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          Fair point, but I still think we’re exaggerating the amount of doctoring that’s being done by the phones. There’s always been some level of discrepancy between real life subjects and the images taken of them.

          It’s just a tool creating media from sensor data. Those sensors aren’t the same as our eyes, and their processors don’t hold a candle to our own brains.

          In the interest of not rambling, let’s look back at early black and white cameras. When people looked at those photos, did they assume the world was black and white? Or did they acknowledge this as a characteristic of the camera?

        • @ElderWendigo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          84 months ago

          Film is also subject to manipulation in the development stage, even if you avoid compositing e.g. dodging and burning. Photographic honesty is an open and active philosophic debate that has been going on since its inception. It’s not like you can really draw a line in the sand and blanketly say admissible or not. Although I’m sure established guidelines would help. Ultimately, it’s an argument about the validity of evidence that needs to be made on a case by case basis. The manipulations involved need to be fully identified and accounted for in those discussions.

    • @Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      94 months ago

      With all the image manipulation and generation tools available to even amateurs, I’m not sure how any photography is admissible as evidence these days.

      At some point there’s going to have to be a whole bunch of digital signing (and timestamp signatures) going on inside the camera for things to be even considered.