I tend to agree. I think juries will tend to believe photographs are not altered unless someone can convincingly show they they are altered.
Now as for a judge not admitting them into evidence, I don't know. I am a little surprised by Locomotive Breath's argument. It is not like regular photographs can not be altered. I would think it might depend on which side it trying to introduce the evidence. Remember a defendent need only create doubt.
It would to me hard to argue that a defendant may not introduce photographic evidence unless it can be shown to be altered. But then I am not an attorney nor a judge, just merely an economist who thinks implicit in the US Constitution is that a defendant can offer whatever defense he wants.
That's my take on it. I think the main battle will be over what extent the false accuser's past will be admissible.
I simply can't fathom that a judge in the national spotlight would bar these photos. And if the judge does admit them, then presumably he listened to the experts on both sides, and accepted the defense's argument.