Lifting vs Photography of Fingerprints

[VijaySharma]

Hi all,

Is anyone aware of any research that looks into detail loss of fingerprints by lifting vs photographing?

Do you think there is any discernible detail loss from either?

I would be interested in your thoughts, and also if there is any published research.

[Tazman]

A lift is frequently easier to work with, but does not show the object from which it was lifted.

A photograph shows the latent print in place on the surface where it was developed.

Why not use both? Photograph the latent print in place, then lift it.

[VijaySharma]

Photographing before lifting would be best practice for sure - but is there any difference in the recorded detail from each method?

[timbo]

It depends on the surface. A curved or shiny surface will often be very difficult to photograph, and a lift will provide more detail.

More often than not, however, a photograph (properly taken, I might add) will show more detail. When a lift is taken, it does not take every last trace of the fingerprint. It is actually a good method to use for heavy deposits to 'double lift', as the first lift cleans the print out and the second lift can often be much better. A lift will also take a lot of the background with it (again, depending on surface), which is part of the reason why famous cases of fabrication can be found out (see Lotz murder, Alan McNamara). This can often impair the lift - I have on a number of occasions taken a photograph of a print with beautiful detail, and then the lift literally shows nothing due to the background interference.

My opinion is that photography before lifting is best practice, and I would submit that lifting would only be beneficial for latents that are difficult to photograph, or if your camera malfunctions (note that this is my personal opinion only). Photography can also place your latents at the scene via labeling and a series of close to far scene photos, whereas a lift (as Tazman correctly points out) does not show the object that the latent was on - we have to rely on the description of the location, as well as our observations of the lift itself.

This, however, will depend on your local courts - many courts like to see & be able to touch the original lift, as opposed to look at a photograph.

[josher89]

In the same vane, I have another question about photography vs. lifts:

In the instances where a photo before a physical lift is taken and the physical lift are both submitted for further examination, how does (or should) one document both? For example, I've come across the situation that timbo has where a developed latent photographs nicely, but the lift results in almost no detail (either because of background interference or it just didn't lift--and makes you glad you photographed it first!). Should the lift and photograph be viewed as separate 'things' and ACE-V'ed appropriately (and separately) or can one simply say, "The photograph contained more detail and was used for analysis."--is this enough documentation?

[timbo]

josher89 - I would think so. It is a pretty easy explanation in the stand as to why the photo worked but the lift didn't, as per my previous post. I would think the documentation statement you listed would suit nicely.

[Neville]

In a perfect world Photograph first then lift, but the time taken is the only reason I do not. Often I have found the photograph contained detail not present in a lift; so that now if I think there maybe a problem with lifting I will attempt to photograph first.
This is not always easy, the two most dificult surfaces I have experieced were a round alloy house door handle and the chrome inside door handle inside a Subaru Legacy.
Yes there is often loss of different detail with both methods and I would not see any issue with using both when producing evidence in court on the same ident, if neither gave sufficient detail but where using both would.

[awilson]

I think if in doubt photograph first. As far as loss of detail I think a lot will depend on the item. I once processed an ammo tray that was extremely textured. There were two latent prints on the tray and I was worried that because of the texture of the item I would lose detail with a lift so I photographed the prints first and boy was I glad I did. When I tried to lift the prints I lost a significant amount of detail on both prints. Another thing that may be an issue is the possibility of a process destroying a visible latent print. I once had a handgun with a very nice palm print on the barrel that was visible before processing so I photographed it. When I superglued the item there was a considerable amount of detail that was lost and couldn't be recovered with further processing. There are instances where lifting may provide more detail so I would say keep both. It's something that would be easy to explain in court. Where I work when you have a photograph and a lift of the exact same impression the one with the highest quality is used for examination and the other is referred to as an additional capture.

[antonroland]

There are instances where lifting may provide more detail so I would say keep both.

Would you kindly quote an example giving some info about substrate, matrix and as much related info as possible?

I am hard pressed to think of any incident where I would have preferred lifting over photography despite the D.O.F. issues of a latent on a complex curvature surface.

What we come across quite often is having to process shiny curved objects such as liquor bottles in the open although I personally feel that reflections of ambient light are much greater problems than the D.O.F. issues.

[ER]

Lifting generally flattens out the print which can make for easier comparisons. Lifting also generally doesn't take the background with it. This can eliminate potential background interference from photography, especially with 3rd level. I've had some items that were superglued, stained, and then powdered. The powder lift ended up better than photos after each of the other steps. Doesn't happen very often but it does happen. Finally, blind lifting from the inside of door handles or other similar confined spaces may be best when photography is extremely difficult or impossible.

[antonroland]

Maybe we should all pitch in and put up some images of our own tests?

I personally vote for photography over lifting in a heartbeat but I have also been around for long enough to know that (on rare occasion...) the lift would be useful.

It would also be useful (to me at least...) to know what powders, reagents, dyes and application methods are used