Talk about a hypothetical question that has some potential concerns!
Let's say that "The Government" releases a photo of a dead Bin Laden and reported that it was taken (let's say by Fatima) with a standard P&S Canon (with whatever model number is supported by CHDK).
There are going to be image analysts all over it, checking it out, first looking for image alterations, and comparing all of the metadata (Exif, Makernotes, XML, or whatever) to what the camera normally produces.
They find no differences between the metadata of previous and succeeding photos taken by the same camera not using CHDK, because, with a few exceptions, the metadata from a previous or successive image can be dumped into the CHDK-enabled image so that the metadata is internally-consistent and no evidence of any overrides are present.
They also check out the internal signatures and find they all match.
What else could they do to show that CHDK was active?
In my opinion, referencing a stacked image as if it were a normal, single frame original is not exactly ethical.
OK, what are your thoughts?
Do you tell everyone exactly how it was made and that CHDK was used to merely "enhance" the image?
Or, do you take the position of, "Whatever comes out of the camera is what the camera produced?"
