CLPEX Chat Board

Who does what and how...what file formats are used when and what cameras are used?

Would like to know.

Thanks all

Come on guys and girls, is this classified information?

Would like to know who shoots Canon or, heaven forbid maybe Ni**n...there I cannot even bring myself to type out the full, ermmm brand name...

Actually, we don't encourage digital photography (quality issues, most of all when it comes to footwear, tire, ... marks)

We work with NIkon since the early 90ties, and we continued to do so in the digital era : D70S and D90 (soon). Full Frame camera's are being considered for next year and Nikon isn't in pole position for that.

Digital photography is being done in RAW format (and mostly JPeg at the same time). Memory cards are being copied onto two hard drives (working copies). A Raw embedded DNG is saved on two seperate hard drives (delete and overwrite protected) for archival purposes.

All the best,

Gerrit

I think we've gotten past the time of arguing for one or another digital camera maker, so long as it's quality. I happened to go with Pentax, for some fairly petty performance reasons and because of the ease of mounting older Pentax glass. As stated, it's easy enough to shoot RAW+JPEG simultaneously (although I usually end up shooting RAW only, to save some memory) and still have plenty of capacity on a decent size memory card. For me, having used pretty basic film cameras (mostly Canon for 35mm), it was nice to have the high capacity and some nice features, like automatic bracketing exposures and built-in wireless remote control. It's good to have a practically unlimited capacity and the ability to download in the field.

For those who are thinking about going digital, from the crime scene perspective, there wasn't much to make a convincing argument among the major makers. Much of the bells and whistles are aimed at the artistic aspect. There's a lot to be said for going down to a store and working through the controls for the things you do want in crime scene work: aperture and shutter speed controls and locks, ISO control, color balance, focus lock, manual focus mode, and the preview and playback functions, like zoom and histogram display. The makers differ somewhat in their philosophies of how to access functions through dedicated controls and special function controls, without going through menus. When you're thinking hard, it's nice to have pretty much what you want to control being easy to get to. And control placement matters. There's an awful lot that can be going on, without having to do finger twisting exercises to make quick changes.

dpreview.com has probably the most complete and deep reviews and tests results and comparisons. The reports are standardized enough that comparisons are meaningful.

As far as file formats go, comparison images are most commonly being captured in a lossless format. Raw is often preferred as post-capture processing can occur to an image prior to opening the image in your favorite digital imaging program. For scene shots that won't be used for comparison, using a lossy compression such as .jpg is more acceptable. But the less compression, the better. The key is that the image captured represents the image you were shooting.

As far as which camera you choose goes, there can be different factors.
If you've got a unit where everyone has been shooting one brand and is familiar, you may want to stick with that brand. The functions of the newer digital cameras are usually very similar to the previous 35mm version. This will make training your photographers a lot easier than starting with something completely new.
The lenses are another consideration. If you have one brand of lenses, you may want to stick with that brand of camera - or one that uses their lenses (Nikon/Fuji for example). That way you'll be able to interchange the lenses you currently have with the new bodies. If you're budget limited, then you can get more for your money when you're just buying bodies as opposed to new bodies and lenses. Or if you're not as budget limited, you could buy new lenses to fill a need that you may have relative to your current equipment. If you've got a need for wide angles or macro lenses, you can get those instead of starting over from scratch.

Gerrit, thank you for responding.

If I may ask, why the interest in and move towards full frame, any specific reason?

Would like to hear more from you on that. Oh and do you run any further software on your photos to validate, verify and or watermark the archive copies?

Regards,

Anton de Klerk
Uitenhage, South Africa

Gerald, thanks for your reply.

You say you went with Pentax...which is interesting as I also still own two K-1000 cameras and a few film lenses. Was that your personal choice and was that choice different from your colleagues?

I am asking these questions to get a rough idea of what other agencies/individuals are doing and what their preferences are. We went for the Pentax *IST cameras (which I think was not a good idea but that is just my opinion) but they do feel and look a bit brittle. I suppose that was mainly because in film days we used to shoot Pentax.

I agree with your opinion on control placements but that can surely be argued both ways - inadvertently adjusting while shooting? Pretty much comes down to what you are used to I suppose.

As far as you can/may divulge, what procedures do you follow after capture? I downloaded all the .pdf sections off the SWGIT site but that is somewhat dated and vague.

Appreciate hearing from you in this.

Regards,

Anton

Steve

Thanks for your response. I understand what you say about retaining older lenses although I personally feel that this is not always a good idea with FOV Crop/ perspective differences and potential loss of AF and other functionalities.

The interesting aspect to me is that 3 out of 3 replies said Raw is the way to go...which REALLY makes me wonder what subsequent software do you use to enhance and / or process the working copies and outputs of the images.

Also, how do you verify the integrity of the images as they are downloaded off the camera or memory card. Combination of dedicated software and dedicated personell?

Would appreciate to hear from you in this.

Regards,

Anton de Klerk
Uitenhage, South Africa

The whole idea of using RAW images is that you can't change the image, it is like a film negative (although it is actually a positive negative, if that makes any sense) you can normally only open them with the software provided with the camera, or get yourself the latest version of Photoshop. With RAW files all camera information and settings are recorded including the serial number of the camera as part of the file. If you can open the RAW file and then make any changes you will have to save it as another format ie JPEG or TIFF. Obviously I am talking Apple talk here so if you are using an IBM it will TFF or JPG.

As already stated by another post above, for location shots these formats are fine but if your court system is very picky you may not get these formats accepted unless you can show what you have done to the image, if you are using the images for comparison work ie fingerprint identification and tool marks. In New Zealand our courts have accepted JPG and TFF for fingerprint comparisons for the last 15yrs or so but we always save the original image only, any enhancement is also printed with notes of what was done.

I agree with you sometimes older lens can cause issues and their coatings have improved over the years, I was told the coatings on the digital lenses may well be different to those on film cameras so you may not get the best result, although this maybe only sales talk, I don't know. It is the lens that is the main thing, go for the best, don't bother with lens they throw in with the cheaper SLRs.

As far as what camera, well that depends on your budget. With cheaper SLRs I would go Nikon mid range Canon, top of the range, I don't know because I have never had that kind of budget.

Another benefit of Raw is that it will help save you from yourself. The idea is that you expose the image correctly the first time - every time, but sometimes things happen and the image isn't perfect. An example is a photographer I had dinner with this evening. He mentioned that he'd take a photo on a camera stand in a lab and set the color temperature manually based on the situation. Then he'd take a photo using the flash and the white balance was way off, because he hadn't set it for flash. In the real world this happens, and shooting in Raw allows us to fix this on the back end.

By using Raw, you can make that adjustment prior to opening the image. Or if you tend to shoot on auto white balance, and it isn't quite right in some situations, you can take care of it upon opening the image. This is much better than trying to fix it afterward.

All the cameras that shoot Raw will have their own software for opening the images. Photoshop has Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) which is updated several times a year with the newest Raw formats, along with their DNG converter which will convert Raw images to a DNG file. There are also third party companies that have programs for opening Raw images. But you won't necessarily get the same thing from every method. There may be some differences as the algorithms used will likely vary.

I think that ultimately, the important thing is that the image represents what it purports to represent. Most (US) Federal and State Laws will likely have some sort of language stating this.

Neville wrote:The whole idea of using RAW images is that you can't change the image, it is like a film negative (although it is actually a positive negative, if that makes any sense) you can normally only open them with the software provided with the camera, or get yourself the latest version of Photoshop. With RAW files all camera information and settings are recorded including the serial number of the camera as part of the file. If you can open the RAW file and then make any changes you will have to save it as another format ie JPEG or TIFF. Obviously I am talking Apple talk here so if you are using an IBM it will TFF or JPG.

As already stated by another post above, for location shots these formats are fine but if your court system is very picky you may not get these formats accepted unless you can show what you have done to the image, if you are using the images for comparison work ie fingerprint identification and tool marks. In New Zealand our courts have accepted JPG and TFF for fingerprint comparisons for the last 15yrs or so but we always save the original image only, any enhancement is also printed with notes of what was done.

I agree with you sometimes older lens can cause issues and their coatings have improved over the years, I was told the coatings on the digital lenses may well be different to those on film cameras so you may not get the best result, although this maybe only sales talk, I don't know. It is the lens that is the main thing, go for the best, don't bother with lens they throw in with the cheaper SLRs.

As far as what camera, well that depends on your budget. With cheaper SLRs I would go Nikon mid range Canon, top of the range, I don't know because I have never had that kind of budget.

Neville, thanks for your reply.

I am a great advocate of RAW for all the reasons you mention. What concerns me is the possible hassles for someone who is not proficient in editing software to enhance and process the eventual print output but greater than this is my cocern that a proper methodology / SOP should be in place to download, verify, watermark and archive an original and untouched master copy of the image.

Personally I cannot see how jpeg cannot work in this day of Megapixel races. Also let's be fair and admit that, unless we buy serious printers capable of printing 16 bit image files, we ultimately will convert the original Raw (or tiff) to an 8 bit jpeg for printing and will therefore be forced into a lossy compression format in anyway. Further to this, printers capable of 16 bit print outputs (as far as I am aware) are built for large format A3+ prints and are ill-suited to printing jumbo and A4 prints as we would typically do in a lab environment.

The metadata you refer to is also present in the Jpeg.

Also, when using advanced editing software such as Photoshop CS X, it is possible to control the degree of compression and therefore minimise the potential loss of detail.

Surely most courts should accept a professional software package available to and used in the professional photographic community IF the forensic operator is competent in using it AND can demonstrate the (repeatable and testable) workflow methodology used to produce the output image in print or display form as applicable. Yes I also definitely agree with printed (or even hand-written) notes documenting the process.

There is also the history log which was discussed elsewhere on here and forms part of the metadata relevant to the image.

If there are any doubts there is still a verified and untouched master image in an archive where proper custody chains exist?

I submit that the digital image stands or falls with proper SOP's covering (very specifically, but not only) the detail between the click of the shutter button and the archive of the master copy.

In South African courts a great deal also weighs on the shoulder of the photographer to convince the court of his expertise and the fact that he/she submits the image/photo as true and dependable as a reflection of what it purports to show in the relevant instance.

Gents, I think I can safely assume that Raw is the capturing format of choice. For that I thank you all.

What I would like to hear from you is guidance on your respective SOP's on downloading of the images and verification of downloaded images if any.

Much appreciated.

Lenses... I don't at all buy the tale about digital specifically benefiting from some particular coating. Certainly coatings constantly improve. There was a period in the 70's, i think it was, when we were thrilled with some serious advancements in coatings. But, like a LOT of camera arguing points, it's just not that important anymore. The reviewers strain their tests labs trying to see something to compare. The honest ones will admit no one else is going to notice anything. Any lens new enough to qualify as "automatic," meaning automatic stop-down at exposure time, is likely just fine in the coating department.

I don't mind losing autofocus and full programmed exposure with older lenses mounted. I know the state of the art in autofocus is so high that it's pretty reliable, but I did my serious learning on a 4x5 Calumet view, a spot meter, and a standard meter, and I'm still (unjustifiably) anxious without manual control. I wouldn't necessarily recommend that anyone make a crime scene camera decision on downward compatibility, though. I use mine for a lot more than work, and I just like the availability of good glass cheap. When you compare the cost of the fully automatic, very fast, new lens with the cost of, say, an older 50mm brighter than f2 and consider that, often, when you want something like that you're in a tricky exposure and focus situation, I like being able to pull out just the right optics and don't care about automation.

I think someone mentioned the "kit" lens concern. Some are indeed not everything a purist would want. The things I worry about are what happens out at the edges. Some of the kit lenses just don't cut it there. But some do. That's where I take the lab tests seriously. That, and overall construction. But I also know that in a great deal of what we do, how the photographer uses the equipment more often affects the result more than the equipment. And if we were really that picky, we'd forgo zoom lenses altogether. One thing digital does well is to make it cheap to implement the best advice I ever heard about learning the craft. That was to learn the basics and then buy 500 rolls of film work hard at making each one better than the one before. With digital, it cost nothing but time. But it also requires more discipline. It's like the discipline required with roll film versus sheet film. What the old pro who gave me the above meant was "each frame." The blind hog does find acorns. He just doesn't learn much doing it.

Gerald

The state of the art AF can also fail, trust me...I have 3 serious Canon D-SLR's and even though the 1D bodies are very good, the 5D nails it about 70-80% of the time when the movement is moderate...do not get me wrong, for the purpose it was built it is a wonderful camera, especially with a good prime attached.

Even though it is much more difficult, it is also possible to miss it with the 1D...makes me long for the days when I learned photography without auto anything...or could I simply not afford it then

Long live Manual.

Thanks Gerald for the bit about coating on lenses, although I am surprised that a sales man would put me wrong on that one! Such an honest breed too.
Totally agree with switching off AF, however now that I am back out in the field it is great to just pick up the camera a take a quick shot on Auto everything, it saves a hell of a lot of drawing and writing, like in the good old days.
My dad once told me don't believe someone when they talk about the good old days, he said "the good old days to me means streets of mud, wooden (slippery) footpaths, horse $@#% every where, very smoky chimneys and exhausts. Give me the modern days anytime." He died 10yrs ago at age 85. I guess he had a point. Do you really want to go back to wooden tripods and bellow full frame cameras, remember loading up those 5x4 frames with FP4, then developing it in the dark so that 24hrs after the event you could find out if you had stuffed up and had to go through the whole thing again, when you got it right you could then go on to the next procedure, yipee I can now move on to ninhydrin.
At the end of the day we do what we do to the best of our ability and what we do at a Burglary will never compare with what we do at a homicide and what a cop from Joburg (SA) does at a homicide may be the same as what a cop in Brisbane (AUST) does at a Burglary, does it matter that much, provided what we do is the best we can do given time and resource confinements, and that it is acceptable in our courts. In an ideal world we would all treat a burglary the way the guys in the terrorist squad at NSY would treat a bombing of a world leader.
That reminds me of the Fingerprint Expert from Moscow at a conference in Israel who told every one there that he had taken 3 points to court and got a conviction. Yes well, horses for courses I guess. And who in there right mind would plead not guilty in Moscow in those years.
So to get back on track, JPG is fine if you are on limited budget and resources provided you keep a log, also the ability of printers is limited so JPG on low compression once printed is as good as RAW, but RAW is best if you do not wish to answer numerous searching questions in court. The other thing I have noticed is that with good photography and high resolution there is very little enhancement, if any required. With RAW your procedures after capturing are not very important provided you archive that file and work with the JPEG file, so why not capture in both modes, memory cards are cheap. Lets face it we all want a simple quiet life with no hassles.