Does Crime Photography Demand Film?

Disclaimer: I love film

 

Just curious: are any of you crime photographers, or do any of you know anything about crime

photography? I'm just asking, because I know the late, great Technopan was sometimes used to

document crime scenes. Doesn't it seem that digital photography is the weak link in crime scene

reportage? I mean, if I were a lawyer, I'd call into question the validity of digital capture in a crime scene.

Do crime photographers use film only? And if they don't, shouldn't they? I mean, it leaves a physical,

unalterable imprint of the captyured image. Serkiously, this has been driving me crazy. Any answers will

help lead me back to the land of film stasis. help!

Pretty sure they are still using both. This is just from what I've gleamed off the walls of

police stations. I saw "archival CD storage guidelines" last time I was in one, but there was a

35mm kit there too, so it's at least available for them to use.

The Police Department in my town uses Polaroid film.

<I>Doesn't it seem that digital photography is the weak link in crime scene reportage? I

mean, if I were a lawyer, I'd call into question the validity of digital capture in a crime scene.

</I><P>Nikon in partnership with either Lexar or SanDisk has addressed this question of

validating digital still photography with an option in the D2X and D2Xs cameras.

And so has Canon (they have since the introduction of the original 1D) with their data verification kits that write information about the image on a seperate card. Plus, the introduction of the Fuji S3 UV/IR says that there is a market for dedicated digital crime scene photography.

It is a person who authenticates the evidence, not the medium.<p>

 

Here's a <href="http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/admissibilityofdigital.html">link</a> on the subject.<p>

 

An interesting article about how digital photography hs improved court work is <a href="http://www.foray.com/Digital%20Photos%20Give%20the%20Police%20a%20New%20Edge%20in%20Abuse%20Cases.pdf">here.</a><p>

 

A typical state-run course for use of digital photography for law enforcement can be found <a href="http://www.ct.gov/post/cwp/view.asp?a=2065&q=320024">here.</a><p>

Great question. In the mid/late 90's, Congress passed a law that a photograph/ negative is not "necessarily" evidence by its own existence. Long before PS was invented, photographs and negatives were manipulated, and this was discussed as a potential problem for decades. In the same year, handwriting analysis (graphology) was allowed as evidence. As a side note, if you followed the Jon Bonet case, the center of the graphology universe for teaching and training is, you guessed it, Denver.

 

Once the defense allows a photograph as evidence, its concrete. Regardless of the medium used. To disallow implies and assumes conspiracy. It's happened before, it will happen again. Keep in mind, rarely is a photograph of a crime scene the "the final evidence that convicts". But they do play a huge part when it comes time to sentence the guilty.

On the federal law enforecement level, digital is now being used for about 90% of all

applications. The only area where it still hasn't been implemented is in the evidence

collecting area- new guidelines are complete for their use, so that wil be the last step. In

three years or so film will be a memory. The areas right now where digital works very well are

surveillance, evidence documentation (copy work), public relations, aerial surveys. Banks that

used to use film for robbery photos, now have transitioned to digital (video) use 100%. When

testifying in a cout proceeding, you are essentially testifying to the images you captured, and

their authenticity. It really isn't relevant if the images are captured using film or digital, the

testimony and credibilty of WHO took them is what is important.

Hi to ALL!

 

I am wondering that all producers of analogue films and papers, like ILFORD, FORTE, FOMA, MACO/ROLLEI, KODAK, FUJI etc. etc. are so very busy, to fulfilling their orders. AGFA GEVEART in Belgium is producing for the industry with 15,000 employees (!) analogue film products. NO, THE ANALOGUE PHOTOGRAPHY is NOT death yet. Take a look, at the new super ROLLEI SCANFILM CN 400 PRO, introduced just recently at the Photokina. From this un-mask C41 color negativ film, you can make color prints or B&W prints without any problem. Furthermore, based on the un-masked film base, the ROLLEI SCANFILM CN 400 PRO is perfect for scanning!

 

Regards

A man here was just set free because the Judge could not prove that the pictures were not altered..... but you must prove the digital images are not altered. Small towns can not afford to prove that they are not... so Film that and Prints a microscope that every town has can look at then be verified.....

<i>"...In

 

three years or so film will be a memory..."</i><p>

 

Lol! Yeah, I heard that before....I think it was about 3-4 years ago!

Hi Larry,

 

and the mentioned film is poured on a polyester film base, with has a certified LE 500 = live expectancy of 500 years! For archive purposes, the analogue film is still un-beatable! NO doubt!

 

Regards

Hi, Richard Sintchak, let's make a bet!

Any evidence can be altered. Emails are often presented as evidence in court now, but they are easier to alter than a photo and they are accepted. <p>

 

<i>A man here was just set free because the Judge could not prove that the pictures were not altered</i><p>

 

Do you have a reference on this? It sounds really odd, since judges don't normally "prove" anything about evidence.<p>

 

Read what J Smith and Neil Peters have said, the answers are in there. And what do Wolf's posts have to do with this topic?

A wise man once said; "Don't tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is!"

Enough said.

Both film or a digital capture can be of a scene with planted items, using just film doesnt mean an image is valid.

Digital is becoming more and more popular, but film still has it's place, especially on the streets (as opposed to in the lab.) Fuji makes (or very recently made) disposable 6-, 8-, and 12-exposure cameras designed for crime-scene use, with ISO 400 film and flash. Polaroids have long been, and continue to be, very popular, but they can't be enlarged very particularly well, and fade quite quickly, which is problematic.

 

The basic issues behind the use of digital cameras for law-enforcement use is covered in the latest (4th?) edition of Sam Sansone's book on the subject, which seems to get a new title for each edition. The first edition spoke of the reluctance of the legal system to accept color photos as evidence, and advised (I'm paraphrasing here) to shoot black-and-white whenever color might be found "objectionable". Mind you, the same book also suggested that 35mm shouldn't be used, because large courtroom exhibits made from 35mm negatives were decidedly inferior to those made from 120 or 4x5 negatives...

i was watching CSI Las Vegas recently, and they were taking pictures with a DSLR, and the sound was of A FILM SLR WITH A MOTOR DRIVE. Hilarious. A lot of times the camera brand name is blacked out, can't figure that out because they have no problem showing a GM vehicle, for instance.

I'm actually a 2nd year forensic science & criminology student in the UK

our lecturer is adamant about film [iMHO she is biased against digital] but acknowledges that it is used.

 

After a crime scene is recorded the memory card is burned to a cd/dvd 2 times. 1 copy is then sealed and the 2nd copy is used for general use/enchancement/etc. This way in court they can say "well we actually have an unopened, untouched copy of these pictures *here*."

 

In addition my lecturer rebukes digital as needing to carry batteries.

I whinge that digial is just as good for CS photography because for 35mm you need *2* cameras - B&W {God I love illford xp2 super !} and a colour. On top of that you need film and most modern film SLR cameras with a photometer or even LCD need batteries anyway !

On top of that a flash unit needs batteries too !

 

So on this point I disagree strongly and thusly believe that the UK will eventually go digital.

However each crime lab/police force has its own regualtions and in the Uk there is no specific requirements except that

1) photos must be fit for court

2) must be a true copy (or as true as you can get without alterations)

3) chain of evidence/custody must be kept intact.

so i could use my personal camera as long as I kept those 3 rules !

<i>Do you have a reference on this?</i><p>

 

After couple days, I guess the answer is "no." Always fun to read the non-evidence, especially on a thread like this one.

Jeff sorry I was away from the Computer for a day ... Life gets in the way ... I am looking it up I hope to find it in a short time....

 

Larry

The Detroit Fire Department has been using digital photography exclusively for two years now. Bryce Denison, their chief forensics photographer, says Detroit has the most arsons, per capita, of any major city in the world, so these folks know their rules of evidence.

Or they don't care what person they convict.

 

Larry

I guess the evidence on that case went missing.

 

Why wouldn't they care who they convict?

 

Someone tell me, how is this different from email, so commonly used as evidence? Or the output printout from most chemical analysis? I don't think people have bothered to learn anything about evidence, they just want to complain about digital.

Jeff I have not stoped looking... Please I have nor could I ever forget you.

 

Larry