Can Microfilm Be Modified In A Way That Is Not Obvious?

The technology to retouch film negatives has existed for many decades. Search Google for "retouching negatives" for examples. Look on Google Books and you'll see how old the techniques are. I don't know the technology well enough to say if similar techniques would work on microfilm, but some probably would. Film grain or magnification might be issues that would make it more difficult. Given the difficulty, I don't see any subject matter in that particular newspaper page that would be worth the effort and expense of retouching.

Given the late date of the newspaper, if the newspaper was retouched, it would have been easier to do it prior to filming.

You've got me curious. I'm interested to find out what you fear might have been tampered with, and perhaps hear your theory as to why.

I see nothing suspicious about that image. It looks like it was imaged from a well-used microfilm, judging by the horizontal scratches that are typical for microfilms that have been used a lot. The scratches line up. I don't see any obvious signs of discontinuation either.
What makes you think this image has been tampered with?

I work in a microfilm lab. Your image is definitely from microfilm that has been well used. As far as I know, the microfilm itself cannot be altered in the way that you are suggesting. Microfilm can be spliced together when the microfilm break, but any alterations to the image, like what you're suggesting, would be done when it has been scanned. I don't understand what alteration you see in that image you provided. I see a photograph at the bottom that was probably photoshopped when it was published in the paper, but I don't know if that is what you are talking about.

Thanks for your responses!

rraymond: Well I am talking about developed microfilm in this case. Those techniques you linked me to are all for negatives, not developed film, though I'm surprised at how long they've been around. Very interesting!

yhoitink: Ah, I see, that's what the scratches are from!

TDB4677: Ah, a photoshopped photograph? That might be it. Thanks for your perspective :)

To all of you: I just got sort of a feeling near the bottom of the births column and in the column below it (that general area) that something was out of place. Why am I asking about this? I'm doing a research paper and something odd caught my eye in that area of the picture so I was curious about the authenticity of the information. I wouldn't want to use something as a reference if the source had been compromised. It might just be that that picture was photoshopped before being put in the newspaper like TDB4677 suggested and my intuition picked it up. There would be no problem in that case.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid because of the strictness of my professor. Somebody used a photoshopped digital picture of a letter (though they didn't know it was altered) once and he gave them a F because, he said, "You can't be careless when you get a job as a journalist, it gives the people you write for a bad name. To save face, they could do a lot worse than give your paper a F". I'm using the police report area as a source but any other text being modified after the paper was published would probably disqualify it in my professor's eyes.

P. S. Any text at all being modified in the microfilm (because it is after the paper was published), I mean to say.

EE: You're welcome! He does keep people on their toes and encourage them to do their due diligence. That's a good point, that's better than having a sloppy teacher. I think I might be overreacting. Did you take a look at the parts of the image I mentioned? I am speaking of the police report column, the area near bottom of the births section, the column below that and the column to the bottom right of the births. You are an editor so I realize that you probably have a busy schedule. If you don't have time to look at it that's all right :)

So if no one can find anything by Tuesday morning I will go ahead and turn my paper in to the professor. I might just be scared of getting an F and being overly careful about that particular image.