Does anyone have any recent experience or knowledge about whether film photos (where you actually have a negative as proof) have any more weight than a digital photo in a legal proceeding, like in a lawsuit? I don't EDC a camera now, but I always think I should put one in the car.

Before digital cameras were readily available, I was on a jury for a civil lawsuit. A guy got rear-ended and was suing the other driver for damage to his car, some medical costs, and some pain and suffering. The pivotal evidence for me was when the other driver's insurance-company-provided lawyer produced photos of the guy's car from a year before the accident. They showed that the guy's car already had the damage that he was claiming happened in the accident. None of us jurors had any doubt that the photos were real and undoctored, but today, in the era of Photoshop and drug store photo kiosks, it's pretty simple to alter a picture and produce a print (real photo, not inkjet print). And not just altering the car, but also, say, placing a tree in front of a stop sign so the guy can claim it was obstructed...all kinds of shenanigans.

E.g. I could easily see a situation where I'm in an accident and say the other car had a damaged front bumper and that's it. A couple weeks later, I learn that he wants my insurance company to fix his bumper, a cracked windshield, a smashed fender, both headlights, yada-yada. Just wondering if having a digital or film photo of the original damage would be more credible in case it went to court. I have no idea how vigorously attorneys attack digital photos in court these days. I mean, I watch lot's of Law and Order, but it's never come up in an episode yet! <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> And those Perry Mason reruns aren't any help either...

Then again, maybe so few people have cameras with them (cell phone cameras are changing that) that having any photo impresses the jury and it doesn't matter so much if it's digital or film.