I work for the Alameda County DA's Office. I'm looking for info on whether technology is far enough along to take a point-n-shoot pic of a vistim's bruises and face without fiddling with exposure controls (non-photographers will take these pictures) and output to (what's best?) printer at 8x10" to pass out to a jury? They've purchased a Sony Mavica 91 and tryed outputting to a color Xerox DocuColor 5750 on plain paper, and while you can see the subject clearly, there tends to be color shift towards reds, graininess and pixel blocking (same file output to HP Deskjet 1120C looks a bit better). Please remember the Coolpix 950 is back-ordered until August. Also, any suggestions as to best printer would be appreciated. Thanks!

-- Mike Bowden (mbowden@co.alameda.ca.us), June 30, 1999

Answers

I would suggest the Epson 750Z camera with the Image Authenication system and a Espon Photo 750 printer with Epson "Photo Paper".

Here is the Image Authenication web site:

http://www.epson.com/cam_scan/cam_extras/ias/

By using the Image Authenication System it help insure the pictures haven't been digitally altered.

-- Bob G. (rgreg88721@hotmail.com), June 30, 1999.

I do agree with Bob in regard to the Epson, it is a good DigiCam. Since you already have access to the Sony FD-91, try to take the picture at well lighted room (i.e. Fluorescent lighting), and try to print it on the Photo quality paper instead of regular paper. I have to say the best Photo printer is Epson, I also like the Lexmark 5700 (true 1200x1200 Res.) with the photo paper. I like HP products, but I can not recommend HP printers for photo quality output at this time, I have tried the Deskjet 2000C and 895Cse. The photo quality is not there (300DPI) and HP's technical support could not help to raise the DPI to advertised 600. Their new software does not have any manual DPI setting, my outputs are at 300 DPI. To be fair, for other printing formats, HP has a great line of printers (Deskjet or Laser).

-- Fred (tabarrok@frontiernet.net), June 30, 1999.

Fred does bring up some good points that since you already have access to some equipment it would be worth while to see if you can do more with it. A coated or glossy paper should help although I am not familiar with color laser printers. One thing you might want to watch with you Xerox printer is feeding problems do to the thickness of most photo paper. You may need to find a light weight (25 lbs or less) coated or glossy paper that is laser compatable. Another thing If you were to print to 5"X7" it would probably be big enough to show detail without going beyond the resolution of the Sony camera. ArcSoft makes sofware that works well for printing multiple photos on a single sheet of paper. You would be able to print 2 5"X7" on one sheet of paper.

-- Bob G. (rgreg88721@hotmail.com), June 30, 1999.

First of all, I'd recommend that you be extremely careful in terms of what paper you use in a color laser printer. Check with the printer and paper manufacturers before you use any type of coated paper in a "hot process" type machine like a laser printer. The heat of the fuser unit could easily cause a heat sensitive coating to ruin your fuser or something else in the paper path! I seem to recall someone warning people against doing exactly that in an earlier post to this forum!

Whatever camera you go with, you'll probably need to do some tweaking for color balance due to lighting differences and white balance control from what I see of the reviews. Perhaps the best way around this is to pick a program that lets you set up a particular "curve" and use it to process all your shots in a semi-automated "batch" type process. The PhotoGenetics program will let you adjust an image and then save the process used to arrive at that final result so you can immediately apply it to other images that need the same processing. Look at: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SOFT/PGEN/PGEN.HTM

My only concern about using digital imaging for your application is that it might open up a new type of defense for lawyers claiming "that the images could easily be 'doctored' by someone with almost no specialized skills"; thereby, greatly improving the chances for throwing doubt on the evidence. As an insider, is this suddenly a non-issue for you?

As for the camera choice, I'd say that you might be better served by a unit capable of 1600x1200, although I print 8x10's from a 1280x1024 file with an older 720 DPI Epson printer and find them acceptable at a distance of 24" or so. [No wisecracks, I'm *very* slightly nearsighted at 20-25 vision, do not wear glasses, and regularly work with microelectronic devices . :-)] It seems that you'd want good macro capability for closeups and that a zoom lens would really not be that important for your uses. With all that in mind, perhaps you should skip the Nikon 950 and go for it's little brother the 700. It doesn't have the 3X zoom, but you really don't need that for your app. Another good choice might be the Olympus C2000. If you're happy with a 1280x1024 8x10" I'd say try a Toshiba PDR-M3 with 3X zoom (under $500), or a Toshiba PDR-M1 which doesn't have the zoom. I have the PDR-M1 and love it for unzoomed shots and it's pretty good at macros in the range you'd use for filming injuries. It's also very cheap now, since it's been out for a while and has no optical zoom. I've seen them in the $300-$330 range.

For the printer, I'd recommend an Epson 750 or 1200, or the Canon BJC6000. All are models that people on this forum seem to be quite happy with of late. As far as I know, all have 1440x720 DPI resolution and use 6 ink colors. The only differences I've spotted so far are that the Epsons use 6 picoliter drops and a combined 5 color cartridge and the Canon units use 7 picoliter drops and separate cartridges for each color. This may give Canon the low cost edge on consumables, but Epson has a longer standing rep for making great printers. Tough choices. I'd say the only way to decide would be to collect some print samples and then compare printer and consumables prices.

Good Luck!

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francorp.francomm.com), July 01, 1999.

Mike:
All good answers. But... Unless you are really more interested in establishing new Body of Law, for which there is currently insufficient precident - stay very clear of digital photography in the courtroom! Damages and punatives are high enough to warrant a full scale attack on the viability of digitally mastered evidence for which the industry has established no sufficient safeguards. Use negatives that can be certified as un-retouched. Period!
Des

-- Dan Desjardins (dan.desjardins@avstarnews.com), July 01, 1999.

Images from a digital camera are not admissable as evidence in Canada. We can use scanned images, however there are always negatives or slides to back up the image. You would be better off to use a point and shoot camera with a fast negative film (iso 400 or 800). There is much greater exposuire latitude and a lot more information available in the image. You can always buy an inexpensive film scanner such as the HP photosmart S-20 to get quick prints, but at least you have a negative to go back on if your evidence is challenged

-- Jonathan Ratzlaff (jonathanr@clrtech.bc.ca), July 01, 1999.

I guess Gerald and Dan either didn't look at the Epson web site or didn't believe it. Either way I have not been able to find any flaws in the Epson Authentication System so if I am missing something I guess this would be a good place to get it out in the open.

-- Bob G. (rgreg88721@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999.

Reply to Bob's reply:

I do indeed realize that Epson has built in a new feature that is supposed to be foolproof in the prevention of tampering and I was aware of it before framing my reply. However, only a "fool" believes in things that are "foolproofed", much in the same way that one should regard that locks are made to prevent honest people from entering one's premises or stealing one's twinkies in the dead of night... :-)

For years the SAR encryption algorithm was thought to be unbreakable, no longer.

The point I was attempting to make, in a very low key manner, was better stated by Dan's comment. What I meant to say was, "That were I an unscrupulous defense attorney[surely none exist... :-)], I might be very tempted to make the case that digital images can easily be manipulated." The thing you have to remember is that this sort of thing may not necessarily be true in the case of the Epson system, but it certainly would force the prosecutor's office to spend a lot more time, money, and effort proving that their evidence had not been tampered with. This would be especially chancey in that you might find yourself having to convince a judge and jury that may know or care zip about the science and technology that makes the Epson system a reality that it was any better than the faked images one sees in theatrical movies, on websites or in television and print advertising on a regular basis. Worse yet, perhaps the judge will be a technophobe and toss the evidence because of a personal bias. Or perhaps the judge will be unwilling to make a precedent. I'm sure starnger things have happened.

By the way, I have a question for you. Have you considered how from a legal standpoint a lawyer might attack the Epson 750Z itself? It's images are touted as 1600x1200, but are actually produced from a smaller ccd array and are actually internally manipulated at least once to produce the higher touted resolution. What if someone were to take a photograph, doctor it up in any manner of ways, and then take a digital shot of it with epson and attempt to pass it off as a "virgin" image, since it had been captured with the authentication system of the Epson? How's that one grab you? :-) I'm sure some people would look at it and say that's not an actual photo taken with the epson, but would the judge and jury be able to tell that at a glance?

Were I the prosecutor, I think I'd rather settle for evidence that the judge and jury were already comfortable accepting as unaltered. It seems to me that anything I could do to minimize my exposure to an opponent's attack would be prudent. Look at all of the evidence collected in a certain very high profile celebrity murder case of not too long ago and the field day that was had by the defendant's attorneys in tearing those already established methods apart through doubt, innuendo, and cheap tricks like insisting their client wear rubber gloves when trying on leather gloves... Laughable! Any common dunderhead would realize there is no way to put on a properly fitting pair of gloves over a pair of rubber gloves. Try it sometime... :-)

OK, maybe this turned into a bit of a rant, but I did want you to see my point in this case. That said, I think the Epson system is a wonderful idea, but until it's commonly accepted as a legal form of evidence and the doubts have removed I think you'd have to be a very daring lawyer[surely the must be one? :-)] to use it as your sole claim to the veracity of your evidence. It would be a great way to back up your conventional photographic evidence with some instant evidence that could be used at once without waiting for processing, etc.

Did I do a better job of spelling out what I thought this time?

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francorp.francomm.com), July 01, 1999.

If an officer or medical personnel take a photograph of evidence aren't they presented with the evidence in court to answer to the validity of the evidence. Doesn't it become their answer at that point that is will question not the evidence since they are the one under oath?

-- Bob G. (rgreg88721@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999.

You make a good point, Bob. But, it seems to me that part of why a jury believes the testimony of the people swearing to the veracity of the evidence is because they also realize that the average person can't easily develop, retouch and fake photographic images. It would probably take more than one person, or a VERY highly skilled individual, and a good deal of time and equipment to do it properly.

If the defense attorney was to develop and demonstrate a simple process of taking a digital image, editing it, printing it out and reimaging the output with a camera equipped with the Authentication system(there's probably a better way to do this) it would certainly shed doubt on the testimony. Especially, since many of the most law abiding average citizens have some feeling that government and it's employees are "out to get the little guy" and would in some cases do anything to make a case stick. This may be slightly paranoid or irrational, but in some recent cases it has been shown to be true. Some DA's have occasionally been known to garner the rep of making a name for themselves, especially in election years.

I think many people would feel that it would be much more difficult to fake a conventional photo in an undetectable manner than it would be to modify ANY type of digital image because they believe they've seen it done. In many cases they have seen it done, perhaps not with an Epson authenticated image, but will they be able to easily make that distinction? I guess it comes down to my thinking that most people still trust physical items like prints and negatives more than they do digital images. Probably with good reason. Personally, I'm a pretty big fan of magic, and I often don't even believe what I've seen, let alone what someone shows me... :-) Look at the images we're presented with on a daily basis. I seem to recall that even National Geographic admitted to digitally altering an image of the Great Pyramids to improve the looks of their cover.

On the other hand, I think the Epson Authentication system is a great idea. I just think that for the nonce, it is still an unproven, unaccepted idea, like all good, yet new, ideas or devices. The world was both proven to be round as well as orbitting the sun many years before either concept was taken as an accepted fact by the general populace. People(jurists) aren't always necessarily completely rational in their beliefs. So, for the time being, it seems safer to me to keep experimental evidence gathering methods out of a courtroom where justice may hang in the balance over jurist's ignorance or doubts concerning new methods.

This is a very interesting topic. The above is, of course, all conjecture and opinion on my part. Are there any legal professionals out there who can give us all an insider's perspective on this issue? How about a few conventional photographers chiming in on how hard or simple it would be to produce a decent conventional fake?

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francorp.francomm.com), July 02, 1999.

Well if we are going to ring out all of the issues here in another. I think Gerry mentioned the HyPict resolution of Epson 750z adding fuel to the question fire. That could be resolved by simply not using it. When the photo is saved the camera resolution information is stored with it so it could non uses of non-HyPict could be verified. The one thing that can't be avoided with many digital cameras is JPEG compression that is also an algorithm that alters the image. Right now digital camera use probably needs to be limited to low profile limited liability situations. If digital imaging can be put in question caution should be used in things like insurance claims or any other matter involing money.

-- Bob G. (rgreg88721@hotmail.com), July 02, 1999.

I am going to try to sum up the discussion here for Mike. It would seem that it is important to keep visual images as visual aids and not evidence. They have a purpose in portraying other evidence recorded in written reports, notes, diagrams and witnesses testimony but they are not a substitute for them.

One last note the Epson 900 would probably fit your application better than the Photo 750 or Photo 1200. The 900 is a more rugged unit intended for business applications and still offers good photo output.

-- Bob G. (rgreg88721@hotmail.com), July 02, 1999.

Good Point, Bob. The hypict mode could easily be avoided! When I wrote that bit, I couldn't remember offhand if the Epson did the conversion in hardware or after download in software. But, actually, my thinking was that when people don't understand exactly how things work, it's fairly easy for a shrewd advocate(lawyer) to sway their opinions one way or the other.

As far as insurance claims go, it seems to me that's a different situation than a prosecutor using a digicam for evidence. In the case of insurance photography, the imaging is usually performed by an agent of the Insurance company or the company employed by them to handle loss evaluation. Since the digital image is used only for their records, and the claim generally settled by them at the time it is taken, it really wouldn't benefit them or their agents to modify it. As far as I can tell, the only real purpose of the "photo" in that situation is to have a record, for administrative use and so the examiner can prove damages paid out by him were for actual damage -that he is not involved in some sort of shady deal. The other purpose served is, of course, to keep people from claiming they've had something fixed when they haven't and then making another claim with the exact same damages.

On the other hand, I'll bet the insurance company would never accept an image of any type from the insured, photographic or not, in lieu of actually having someone see the damage in order to examine it! Not just because of mechanical questions either... :-)

C'mon, where're all the legal eagles with inside opinions? Don't you legal professionals use digicams? :-)

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francorp.francomm.com), July 02, 1999.

I want to thank all who contributed to this thread, both for the product recommendations and the potential problems with defense atty's. After discussing these points they've modified their planned usage of digital cameras to a role in visual aids as suggested, rather than in taking evidence-type pics. We'll most likely return on of the Sony cameras and get one of the camera/printer combinations recommended. Thanks again!

-- Mike Bowden (mbowden@co.alameda.ca.us), July 06, 1999.