Professional photographers working

jonbeeza

jonbeeza

Messages
9,389
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I was in hospital last night and the person in the cubicle next to me, had been beaten up. A police photographer came to photograph him. The photographer was carrying a large case, and by the way he was carrying it, it seemed pretty heavy. Not a very glamorous part of photography, but obviously it has to be done.
 
When I had a lengthy stay in hospital a number of years ago (motorcycle accident), I remember my injuries being photographed on many occasions, for the legal case I was involved with....don't think it was a police photographer, but still just as glamourless!!
Purely from an evidence collection standpoint of course, but I'm sure there's plenty of work out there, serious road accidents, violent crime etc.
I seem to remember the photographer had a 35mm film camera....just wondering if this was still the case today. I assume the reasoning would be that film is much more difficult to tamper with....although nowadays it's not so difficult.

P.s. hope you're ok Jon :)
 
GarethB said:
When I had a lengthy stay in hospital a number of years ago (motorcycle accident), I remember my injuries being photographed on many occasions, for the legal case I was involved with....don't think it was a police photographer, but still just as glamourless!!
Purely from an evidence collection standpoint of course, but I'm sure there's plenty of work out there, serious road accidents, violent crime etc.
I seem to remember the photographer had a 35mm film camera....just wondering if this was still the case today. I assume the reasoning would be that film is much more difficult to tamper with....although nowadays it's not so difficult.

P.s. hope you're ok Jon :)
Click to expand...


I was in the hospital for about four hours, getting bloods done, and hooked up to an ECG machine, or whatever they are called. Got some medication, and sent home.
Thanks Gareth, I am fine now. ;)

GarethB said:
I seem to remember the photographer had a 35mm film camera....just wondering if this was still the case today. I assume the reasoning would be that film is much more difficult to tamper with....although nowadays it's not so difficult.
Click to expand...

While in the hospital, I was trying to take my mind of things, by trying to guess what the police photographer had in his case.
Not sure if they would still use film, would they use old tec? Just thinking, if they shot in RAW, would the police photographer be allowed to enhance the image?
After all, a red mark could be made bright red for example. But surely that could be seen as manipulating the evidence. :thinking:
 
Last edited:
It would be nice to think that they have some 'creative' leeway....I can imagine something along the lines:

"I'm sorry detective, but the bokeh of the heart monitor is proving rather distracting, can we move the model....erm....I mean the suspect, so that I can achieve a pleasing composition!?"

I suspect it's the contrary, however - a 'warts-n-all' style, with just cursory attention to settings for a correct exposure.
And in the case of criminal cases, no post processing jiggery-pokery!!

I wonder how quickly they have to submit their photographic evidence though....very quickly indeed perhaps, so as to circumvent any fiddling that may be performed by a....shall we say.... photographer who has strayed from the path of righteousness!!:D
 
Last edited:
I would be like “any chance we can wheel him outside, the light is just poor in here and I’ve not learnt flash yet “
 
jonbeeza said:
He did have a flash fitted to the camera, and a diffuser of some sort.
Click to expand...

Oh no! On camera flash?

The poor chaps been through enough already without having terrible skin tones, harsh shadows and glaring, specular hotspots all over his bruises!:D
 
Last edited:
I think the Canon 1-series RAW files are claimed to be pretty much tamper proof. Maybe this is no longer the case as anything can be hacked but maybe the latest 1DX would be the weapon of choice for the forensics.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I think the Canon 1-series RAW files are claimed to be pretty much tamper proof. Maybe this is no longer the case as anything can be hacked but maybe the latest 1DX would be the weapon of choice for the forensics.
Click to expand...
They can't be edited, manipulated?
 
I did some scenes of crime stuff years back. At that time pentax 6x7 was popular in my area. Last I heard I think it was nikon had a system that would check an image for tampering (at extra cost) not sure if thats still going though.
As far as evidence goes it's my understanding that as long as the injuries match the medical report and the photographer is prepared to make a statement that they are unretouched (and theres a size scale) the courts lawyers will normally accept that. As it's common for hospitals to record injuries I suppose theres a check anyway if it's challenged.
 
swanseamale47 said:
As far as evidence goes it's my understanding that as long as the injuries match the medical report and the photographer is prepared to make a statement that they are unretouched (and theres a size scale) the courts lawyers will normally accept that. As it's common for hospitals to record injuries I suppose theres a check anyway if it's challenged.
Click to expand...
I think this is exactly how it is still done today....the little research I've done over the last day or so, suggests that an evidence photographer should expect to be called as an expert witness, who would testify that the images are exact likenesses of the evidence material, and have not been tampered with or manipulated in any way.
 
Last edited:
This must be where the dual card slots come into play. 2 sets of evidence that can be separated, if they don’t match then something has been tampered with!
 
I don't know the procedure these days. But in the days of film. I had to sign a legally binding statement on the back of each print. To say the photos were a true representation of the injury. And to be able to show the negs if required.
 
Last edited:
I *think* I'm right in saying that they developed a system to make photographing much easier for police officers (rather than photographers) to be able to accurately record injuries/wounds.

The camera was equipped with a macro lens and a piece of something (card/plastic?) which protruded from the bottom. This was touched against the skin so that the focal distance would be correct.

They may well have had a ring flash too, But I'm not sure.
 
Last edited:
This is as near as I can find. but doesn't seem to quite ring true from an article I read a few years back about someone taking an old forensic camera and using it for 'regular' photography.

Polaroid CU-5.

unnamed_96_orig.jpg
 
Kell said:
I *think* I'm right in saying that they developed a system to make photographing much easier for police officers (rather than photographers) to be able to accurately record injuries/wounds.

The camera was equipped with a macro lens and a piece of something (card/plastic?) which protruded from the bottom. This was touched against the skin so that the focal distance would be correct.

They may well have had a ring flash too, But I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
Ahh, yes I do remember something now. The photographer did ask for help, he asked for someone to hold something against the patient's ear, while he took a photo. I thought it may have been a measuring scale, for reference. To show the size of the injury, possibly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top