CLPEX Chat Board

I have a question about magnifiers. I have a sirchie JC300 at work and it seams like it is pretty clear and magnifies well. A latent examiner in a neighboring agency has the following magnifier
http://shop.armorforensics.com/mm5/merc ... _Code=2591
To me the Lightning Powder magnifier is much clearer than the Sirchie model. Does anyone have an opinion as to the two listed.

I am also interested in the
http://shop.armorforensics.com/mm5/merc ... _Code=2705
I believe the 4.5 power will be pretty well suited for more detailed work that the wide field magnifier shown above.

If you have an opinion or a suggestion please share.

There seem to be two types of magnifiers on the market – those with one lens and those with two lenses.

The single lens magnifiers tend to produce more distortion around the edge of the image, or what might be called a “fish-eye” effect. This is especially true the further your eye is from the lens. For stand up comparison magnifiers where your eye will be several inches from the lens, these glasses do not give a wide, undistorted field of view. However, I find that a small hand held magnifying glass of about 5X is an excellent tool for evaluating latent prints, not comparing them. This type of little "Sherlock Holmes" magnifier also allows you to more easily sit back in your chair to analyze a latent print without have to bend over all the time. The key is to hold the lens almost in contact with your eyeball, or to place the rim around the magnifier against the rim of your eye socket. An excellent little glass to use this way is Catalog # 3057 that can be found on this page: http://www.evidentcrimescene.com/cata/magni/magni.html

For the two lens systems, the best are those with the glass perfectly flat on the top and bottom, and with the curvature of the glass facing inside the barrel, or cylinder on which the lenses are mounted. The more curvature to the lens on the top outside and the bottom outside, the more of that “fish-eye” effect you will get. Also, the less the magnification, the bigger the area you can view through the lens. The greater the magnification, the smaller the area of view. So you want a magnifier with good magnification, but not too much, and one that has flat lenses on the outside of the barrel. For my money, the best one on the market is the “Martin Held”, or “M-H.” I believe it is still made in Germany. You listed it in your query here: http://shop.armorforensics.com/mm5/merc ... _Code=2705

I also find that ridge counters are important, but the kind that click like a ball point pen are actually too sharp. The too easily poke holes in photographs and pop paper fibers loose from inked prints. The needle sharp tips can also penetrate skin with almost no pressure and I have seen latent print examiners slip the needle tip through their skin without even realizing it. The best ridge counters are not quite so sharp, but sturdy. My preference is found here: http://www.forensicssource.com/p-1797-s ... unter.aspx

Some examiners prefer one magnifier, but I prefer two – one over the latent and one over the inked print. I also recommend two ridge counters, one to mark your point on each of the two prints you are comparing.

Hope this helps.

Most people where I work use the Faurot 4.5X magnifiers for most of their work (http://www.faurotforensics.com//product ... cts_id=347). But we also have the wide field magnifiers in the event that we need to see more of the print (i.e. palm prints) than would be visible under the 4.5X. I think I've used my wide field magnifier about 3 times in the last 15 years, but it's good to have.

The reason I like the Faurot better is that the adjustment is a threaded holder for the lenses, rather than the set screw. We have some of the set screw versions (like the ones you referenced), and they tend to drop at inopportune times.

Amy Hart wrote:The reason I like the Faurot better is that the adjustment is a threaded holder for the lenses, rather than the set screw. We have some of the set screw versions (like the ones you referenced), and they tend to drop at inopportune times.

Excellent point, Amy, and something I tend to forget about. I got tired of mine slipping years ago and put a drop of superglue in each magnifier to glue the mount to the shaft. The little buggers don't slip anymore! But that precludes anyone else from using the glasses (unless their eyes focus the same as mine). It also means that if my eyes change as I age (which they are starting to do), my magnifiers may no longer be in perfect focus.

I just decided to buy my own M-H magnifier after noticing how much clearer it seems compared to the glass I have now. When I was working at the police department, we had the M-H and I forgot how nice it was until I used someones a couple of weeks ago. I still have the ridge counters I got in Pat’s class a few years ago.

If anyone has an M-H they want to sell, please let me know.

Thanks, David

I am a non-practitioner, but I still have some of the threaded barrel type magnifiers. I know of two sitting in my desk right now and I should have another hidden somewhere in my stuff. It has “Sirchie” cast in one of the base legs.

I am with Pat on the use of two magnifiers, one on latent and one on record. That was the way I was instructed. However, the large field magnifiers made that a bit cumbersome and so I stuck to the smaller field versions. If you are a single magnifier person, the larger field is better suited.

Pat, you need those sharp pointers to poke holes in the latent photograph when you match a Galton detail to the record. That makes it so much easier to count your points when you turn the photograph over and mark off the punch marks!! BLAST FROM THE PAST.

Ernie Hamm wrote:Pat, you need those sharp pointers to poke holes in the latent photograph when you match a Galton detail to the record. That makes it so much easier to count your points when you turn the photograph over and mark off the punch marks!! BLAST FROM THE PAST.

I’m with you on that, Ernie. The ridge counters I linked in my earlier post will poke holes just fine in paper, but the retractable ridge counters are just plain too sharp. I had a student once who was wrapped up in looking at a latent print and forgot he was holding one of those needle sharp ridge counters. There was an itch on his temple and he poked it with the ridge counter. The needle went all the way into the bone. OUCH!

But how many of the folks today are being trained to poke holes, then turn the photos over and compare the constellations? Sometimes the old ways were just as good or better than Adobe Photoshop, but you can’t even buy Polaroid film any more, much less the good old blue-sensitive CPO sheet film, chemicals, and paper. I do miss the old days, Ernie, as I’m sure you do, too.

Thanks for all of the input so far. I requested one of the MH magnifiers today from my boss. If I really like it I may ask for a second.

One question based on other posts - when some of you have indicated that you poke holes to count the points I assume that you are doing this on a copy and not the original latent lift and the 10 print card. Just checking. I now, just as of today, have acess to adobe photoshop. I did not know it was so widley used in compairsons until I read so much about it here.

I am very excited because next week I am attending my first training class on fingerprints. It is at the Sirchie complex in North Carolina. I also have two other classes at the same complex this year. I am really excited about fingerprints. I just hope I am not to old to get good. I am 37 and have been working in law enforcement for the past 19 years. The last 2 have been in crime scene.

Thanks again