Yes I agree . For a final judgement to be made. Accurate forensic photographs would have to be made.
Digital imaging has opened a can of worms in what can constitute photographic evidence. Also there are many issues around journalism being debated. It's a two edged sword.
Analog photographs could be "enhanced" but were very difficult to add content to.
In fact "enhancement" dodging, burning, grade, etc was and is always considered part of the phot. process. In that you can only work with what is on the negative. or today the digital file.
Photo montage.. The addition of elements was not.
So therefore if the paint splashes have been added at a later stage then that is not acceptable.
Here in the UK the national union of journalists have publish a list of guidelines as to what a journalist can do to a news photo. The Police have similar guidelines.
So I guess it depends on exactly what has been done.
In my humble opinion, if elements have been added that were not on the original file then that is no longer a photograph. Which is pretty much what the Police here say.
If elements that exist on the original file have been enhanced for the purposes of clarity then that is OK. Which again is the UK Police angle.
I'm sorry to disagree with you on one point. It is impossible to enhance an "imaginary" paint drip. If it is not there it cannot be enhanced.
It is possible to ADD a paint drip.
Only forensic photographs would acceptable as hard evidence.
Forensic digital photographs are frequently enhanced in order to reveal detail that is not easily seen in the RAW file.
I must stress there is a world of difference between "enhancement" and "addition"
There does not seem to be any forensic cartouche phots. available to the public.
At the moment all we have are semi-professional photographs to work with.
Post Edited (08-Sep-14 16:02)