Photos For Court Case

banquetbear wrote in post #15471540
...huh.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com …ta_verification​_system.do

I was a bit doubtful there for a second, but there it is! Cheers for passing that on!

Wow. Thanks for your confidence in me!

Lincolnshire Poacher wrote in post #15471551
Wow. Thanks for your confidence in me!

...my apologies, didn't mean it as a slight against you! Sorry if it came out that way. Just a long day, not much sleep.

banquetbear wrote in post #15471561
...my apologies, didn't mean it as a slight against you! Sorry if it came out that way. Just a long day, not much sleep.

No offence taken. Just pleased my advice is of help.

I do have minor experience in photograph documentation for the courts. Just a few things to consider.
In a court case the photos must be submitted in order of which they where taken. They will look at the original file names and if one is missing out of the sequence the evidence is thrown out.
Also keep in mind that in any court case they have the right to seize the camera used in collection of evidence for as long as they want. So be careful what you get yourself and your camera into!

Indicolite wrote in post #15471603
In a court case the photos must be submitted in order of which they where taken. They will look at the original file names and if one is missing out of the sequence the evidence is thrown out.

Also keep in mind that in any court case they have the right to seize the camera used in collection of evidence for as long as they want. So be careful what you get yourself and your camera into!

That's in the US with the most paranoid, over the top generaly Fked up legal system in the world.
Thankfully the OP is from Ireland where Things tend to be based more on common sense than paranoia and trying to cover every possible scenario imaginable and otherwise.

Seize the camera??? What they going to do, examine the sensor for dust?
I'd suggest they have the right t examine anything used to collect evidence and that's a paranoid extrapolation of that right.

Rights are one thing, The amount of times someone actually abuses them for no good reason is another. In all the court cases in the US, How many times has a camera actually been Siezed?

I did this work for a while some time back. I had to sign the each pic as well. I had to write that the pics had not been manipulated and were a true and realistic representation of the subject matter they depicted.
There was no problem with doing levels, sharpening and colour balance. I guess if the person had green toned skin that would not have been a true representation.

In OUR legal system, Manipulation is taken to be something that changes the way the subject looks in real life. it is not taken to be improving the photo so it reflects the subject matter more accurately and corrects the inherent flaws of the photographic process.

Basically if a person looks at the injury and looks at the photo of it and it is the same and the photo makes it look no different, it's good.

glumpy wrote in post #15472858
Thankfully the OP is from Ireland where Things tend to be based more on common sense than paranoia and trying to cover every possible scenario imaginable and otherwise.

In OUR legal system, Manipulation is taken to be something that changes the way the subject looks in real life. it is not taken to be improving the photo so it reflects the subject matter more accurately and corrects the inherent flaws of the photographic process.

Basically if a person looks at the injury and looks at the photo of it and it is the same and the photo makes it look no different, it's good.

In the interest of accuracy, the OP is actually in the UK. However, the English/Welsh/NI, Scottish, Irish and your own Australian legal systems share common roots and I agree that it would need a valid objection for there to be a problem with an image.

Many thanks for all the replies and advice. Thankfully the photos aren't of the injuries themselves, the attack took place in the middle of last year so the police already have those photos. The photos I'm taking are just to show the extent of the scarring after this period of time. I'm guessing it's just to alleviate the need for the victim to strip of in court to show them.

Sorry I should also point out that it's the victims solicitor/lawyer that is looking the photos.

We get it Glumpy, you don't like the US. Please lighten up with it. It's getting very tiresome.

CraigPatterson wrote in post #15474507
We get it Glumpy, you don't like the US. Please lighten up with it. It's getting very tiresome.

Don't worry Craig. It'll be someone else's turn tomorrow.

I've been reading this with curiosity, I've never been asked to do forensic work.

Seems to me there's a lot that could be done to make a scar look worse, or better, with nothing more than creative lighting and some contrast and saturation adjustments in the camera. Certainly there are limits?

I'm thinking if a lawyer ever asked me to do this, I would ask him for more detailed professional guidelines on forensic photography before taking the job.

Curtis N wrote in post #15476265
I've been reading this with curiosity, I've never been asked to do forensic work.

Seems to me there's a lot that could be done to make a scar look worse, or better, with nothing more than creative lighting and some contrast and saturation adjustments in the camera. Certainly there are limits?

I'm thinking if a lawyer ever asked me to do this, I would ask him for more detailed professional guidelines on forensic photography before taking the job.

I think this is not forensic photography as such but is intended to illustrate or enhance primary verbal and written evidence.

It's quite rare, I believe, for photographs or videos to be admissable as evidence in this country, but they are very useful as visual aids in cases such as this.

John you are correct. These are not forensic in any way. I believe they're just intended to show the state of the injuries now. Possibly also to prevent the victim having to strip off in court to show the scars. I believe the injuries are on her chest and upper back.

casp3r wrote in post #15470138
I've just been asked to take some photographs for a court case that is due to begin soon.

casp3r wrote in post #15478591
These are not forensic in any way.

From Dictionary.com

Furlan wrote in post #15471522
Wow have learned so much in such a short time on this site. I checked back as far as a 30D and it
has the CF mentioned. From what I read you need to purchase a OSK-E3 Kit in order to verify that the
image is original.

I don't think this CF is available on the Rebel series.

Yes, it is.

At least on the 450D.