Evidence Photography?

I would find it less depressing knowing my work may lead to justice for that person

It is hardly ever that straightforward and simple. It can revolve around spins on negligence and responsibility which are seldom clear, precise and indisputable.

skieur
 
I have a degree in forensic science and throughout the course we where taught always to use a flash, an aperture of f11 or smaller and a focal length of 50-55mm to simulate human sight. the focal length however dpeends on whether or not you are using a full-frame camera (we weren't). If you have doubts look through through the viewfinder and find a focal length that matches your own perception. ALWAYS use a ruler next to the object being photographed to give an acccurate representation of scale. if you are photographing fingerprints or footprints make sure to use a tripod as it is extremely minute details that are paramount to these evidence types. also if you do not have a macro lens close-up filters work just as well if not better (we always used them).
hope this helps,
dave
 
Many of the programs that I have encountered, to look at photos, tells you what camera was taken , in what format etc, is that program from Nikon worth it?
 
I have a degree in forensic science and throughout the course we where taught always to use a flash, an aperture of f11 or smaller and a focal length of 50-55mm to simulate human sight. the focal length however dpeends on whether or not you are using a full-frame camera (we weren't). If you have doubts look through through the viewfinder and find a focal length that matches your own perception. ALWAYS use a ruler next to the object being photographed to give an acccurate representation of scale. if you are photographing fingerprints or footprints make sure to use a tripod as it is extremely minute details that are paramount to these evidence types. also if you do not have a macro lens close-up filters work just as well if not better (we always used them).
hope this helps,
dave

Great advice, thanks. Thanks to everyone else and your comments too.
 
Take overall photos showing the person's face for identification purposes, then close up photos of any injuries using a scale. The scale should be one that is commonly used. You may be asked to print the photos in 1:1. You will only be called to court to testify if there is a question about the photo. If you do have to appear in court you will have to testify that the photo fairly and accurately depicts the injuries as you saw it on the day the photo was taken. Just make sure that the photo looks exactly as the evidence actually looked. No big deal, if you don't mind testifying in court. But, with the possibility that you may have to go to court (maybe more than once) you will have to figure that into your price.Good luck.
 
Take overall photos showing the person's face for identification purposes, then close up photos of any injuries using a scale. The scale should be one that is commonly used. You may be asked to print the photos in 1:1. You will only be called to court to testify if there is a question about the photo. If you do have to appear in court you will have to testify that the photo fairly and accurately depicts the injuries as you saw it on the day the photo was taken. Just make sure that the photo looks exactly as the evidence actually looked. No big deal, if you don't mind testifying in court. But, with the possibility that you may have to go to court (maybe more than once) you will have to figure that into your price.Good luck.


You could conceivably add a line to the contract that stipulates an additonal travel rate/hourly rate for any depositions or court appearance. That is done in medical testimony routinely.
 
Many of the programs that I have encountered, to look at photos, tells you what camera was taken , in what format etc, is that program from Nikon worth it?


The nikon program goes a step farther.
It authenticates images, it can tell it the image has been altered in any program.
It can't show you what was altered, but it will tell you the image could have been compromised.

The point of this software is for in court, when a picture is questioned it can be proven the file has not been altered since the photo was taken.
 
I've been following this very interesting thread. Doesn't image verification info have to be tagged by the camera itself? If it were software only based, then what would stop someone from editing an image and then tagging it as authentic in the software?

This quote seems to support that the Nikon software works only with certain models:

Nikon Image Authentication software : Nikon Corporation has announced its latest Image Authentication Software, designed exclusively for use with the Nikon D2xs digital SLR.
taken from:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_8290.html
 
The Canon solution is a combination of hardware and software which is why, I suppose, it costs a couple hundred more than the Nikon approach.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top