Compact 35mm Camera with Date Imprint Facility

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by simonwade, May 14, 2005.

  1. simonwade

    simonwade Guest

    Anyone know of a compact 35mm camera (preferably sub £50) which has a
    date imprint facility on it?
    Many thanks,
    Simon.
     
    simonwade, May 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. There are loads of 'em. At the very inexpensive end, try the Olympus
    AF50; it's under $30 USD in most mass merchants in the US. There are
    more sophisticated models, used, on eBay that also have date
    imprinting.

    But why would you want to mar a great photo with tiny orange digits on
    the lower right corner?

    -Cardamon Dave
     
    Cardamon Dave, May 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. There are loads of 'em. At the very inexpensive end, try the Olympus
    AF50; it's under $30 USD in most mass merchants in the US. There are
    more sophisticated models, used, on eBay that also have date
    imprinting.

    But why would you want to mar a great photo with tiny orange digits on
    the lower right corner?

    -Cardamon Dave
     
    Cardamon Dave, May 14, 2005
    #3
  4. simonwade

    Simon Guest

    Thanks Dave. I don't particularly want to mar my pics with a date, but
    I require dated photos to prove a relationship over time for
    immigration purposes.
     
    Simon, May 14, 2005
    #4
  5. simonwade

    Colin D Guest

    Not to dampen your idea but the date facility in such a camera - in fact
    any camera with a date function - can be reset at any time to any date
    you fancy. Doesn't offer a lot of the sort of proof you seem to
    require. Perhaps you could use a verifiable date display instead,
    incorporating it into a photograph for the purpose, like the date
    displayed in a bank or other building, or a newspaper date verified by
    having the paper's billboards showing the same headlines.

    Colin.
     
    Colin D, May 15, 2005
    #5
  6. simonwade

    james Guest

    They can be admissible in some situations as evidence of due diligence.
    I maintain lab notebooks where I actually write the date on the form. I
    could fabricate the date, but that possibility does not cause the
    notebooks to not be admissible, which they are. I'd expect photographs
    to have a similar range of possibilities. Not talking about standards
    of criminal evidence where the possibility of the date being falsified
    would be a concern (jury would be directed to disregard the datestamp,
    or it would not even be shown to them), but in a civil case, the same
    datestamp could be used to show that the party chose to put date stamps
    on the photos. That, coupled with a sworn statement that the dates
    weren't altered or fabricated may still be useful in a legal sense.

    Using such a thing to try to prove that a person committed some crime on
    a certain date would be another matter entirely.
    You could be right, but you don't actually know what the standards are
    for his situation. Was he instructed to use a device that timestamps
    photos in a certain way? It may be more important to follow some rule,
    regardless of the wisdom of the rule, than to have ironclad standards of
    authenticity.
    That's a good idea, and this could certainly change the falsifiability
    coefficient.

    I suspect the OP's situation is a bit more mundane, such as, a
    recommendation that he use a camera that puts dates and times on
    photographs, or a suggestion to write the date by his signature whenever
    he signs anything, or to keep receipts. All presumably just parts of a
    regimen of building a preponderance of evidence in case it is required
    in a civil procedure.
     
    james, May 15, 2005
    #6
  7. simonwade

    Alex MacPhee Guest

    If one has a digital camera and a little printer like the Canon CP220, which
    prints on ready-made postcards, another option is to print from the camera
    to the printer on postcard and then send it through the post, collecting a
    postmark along the way.


    Alex
     
    Alex MacPhee, May 15, 2005
    #7
  8. simonwade

    Colin D Guest

    One has to think like a lawyer here, and consider how any particular
    photograph purporting to verify a date could be faked. Changing the
    camera date is too easy, so that's out. My immediate reaction to your
    idea, providing the overall timescale allows it, would be to send blank
    postcards through the mail to get the postmark, and then at a later date
    print the picture, thus effectively backdating the image.

    I think any date verification has to be recorded as part of the
    photograph, and preferably backed up with exif data showing the same
    date. If dating a photograph for legal purposes was important to me, I
    would try to make it as watertight as I could, maybe even getting a
    print notarized by a Notary Public or similar.

    For digital files, there is a website that notarizes files. See:

    http://www.genuinefile.com/help/how_to_notarize.html

    if it is important enough.

    Colin
     
    Colin D, May 17, 2005
    #8
  9. "One has to think like a lawyer here, and consider how any particular
    photograph purporting to verify a date could be faked."

    Everything that's done for legal purposes does not have to be done to
    the standards of evidence of a homicide trial. There are legal
    situations where something like dates on a series of documents is
    perfectly valid, even if they are handwritten. I keep lab research
    journals which have a handwritten date, which I could fabricate
    obviously, but that does not stop them from being admissible. They
    could be admitted with an affadavit where I swear that I did not alter
    the dates. Not good enough for a murder trial or perhaps even a
    patent, but certainly good enough to support a claim of due diligence.


    That's all that would ever be accomplished with "date stamps" on photos
    anyway, to provide evidence of some sort of due diligence.
    When the standards of evidence are "beyond any reasonable doubt", it's
    going to be hard enough to get the photos themselves into the
    courtroom, much less the date stamps. But in the civil world,
    "thinking like a lawyer" often is far more mundane than Sunday night
    television makes it out to be.

    Evidence can be persuasive and useful, even if it does not meet the
    most exacting standards. For example, something less compelling can
    add weight to other evidence.
     
    James Of Tucson, May 18, 2005
    #9
  10. Usually photographs are as good as the word of the photographer. But the
    pictures, plus the word of the one who took them, are that good, plus they
    serve to substantiate the memory of the witness....That is, the problem of
    the photographer's memory not being too good is taken care of by the photos,
    and, if the photographer is believable, the combination is pretty good
    evidence.......
     
    William Graham, May 18, 2005
    #10
  11. Thank you William; that is a very good way of putting it. People were
    advising the OP basically not to bother with the date stamps. The
    assumption is that, because they can be fabricated, they are useless.
    Or maybe some of them were saying that because they can be fabricated,
    then just go ahead and fabricate them :) Any of that would be bad
    advice.

    It's way, way out of the stated price range, but Canon has an accessory
    targeted at law enforcement and insurance customers. Although I don't
    see what it provides that an RSA signature against the RAW file would
    not. From the looks of it, that's precisely what it is, perhaps with
    an even weaker crypto system than RSA.

    I can find no information about the DVK-E2 that isn't fluff. It
    frightens me that people would trust this thing without even knowing
    how it works, what cipher it is based on, or when and how the signature
    is applied to the file. Perhaps that information is documented
    somewhere, but anyone serious about security would not use a security
    system that relies on the strength of its implementation being hidden
    from the user. (That only protects you from the good guys. If your
    cipher is strong enough to be taken seriously, it's strong enough to
    let your customers know how it works.)
     
    James Of Tucson, May 18, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.