Jump to content

Forensic Photography


Fresno

Recommended Posts

I am a forensic photographer. I converted from Nikon to Fuji. My current loadout is 32 pounds including the Lowepro Protactic Backpack.

 

FUJIFILM SYSTEM

 

Lowepro ProTactical 450AW, FULL SYSTEM

XT2, Boost Grip 100-400mm

XT2, Boost Grip 18-135mm

X Pro2 16mm

90mm

35mm

23mm

2x Teleconverter

Microphone (2)

7x28 Fujinon Binoculars

Nissin i60 Speedlght, TTL 6' Cord

Mini Flashes (2)

 

Interior Pocket

Titanium Folding Stool

iPad Pro

 

Side Pockets

Battery Charger (2)

 

Belt Pockets

Cleaning Kit

Mini tool, Flashlight

Headlamp

 

5.11 Pouch, Right

L Pocket: 146S Batteries (4) / AA Batteries (8) / SD Cards (2) / Charger Brick

Booster Charger (2)

iPad Pro Charger

DJI Mavic Charger

DJI Mavic Batteries (3)

 

5.11 Pouch, Left

DJI Mavic Drone

Props

Controller

 

Exterior, Back

Manfrotto BeFree Carbon Tripod (2)

Lighting Umbrella, mount

Link to post
Share on other sites

The primes are the 23/2.0 WR and the 35/2.0 WR, not so fast. The 23mm can get me within 22cm. I also carry the 11mm and 16mm ext tubes. We have a XT1 IR with the 60mm Macro (gets me in at 27cm) as a pool camera.

 

Forensic photography work, for me, is photography of crime scenes, accident sites, medical and sub rosa / surveillance. The mics are for witness statements.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by Fresno
Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot RAW slot 1 and Fine in slot 2. The RAW shots are insurance shots. All work is turned in as JPEG, no software modification. I avoid any software enhancement, even in camera. Unfortunately the power of the photograph (and video) is losing credibility as evidence in the age of Photoshop. Sad but true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot RAW slot 1 and Fine in slot 2. The RAW shots are insurance shots. All work is turned in as JPEG, no software modification. I avoid any software enhancement, even in camera. Unfortunately the power of the photograph (and video) is losing credibility as evidence in the age of Photoshop. Sad but true.

 

My point though is that there is lots of in-camera enhancement for JPEG, especially with Fujifilm. That is, there is no "natural" color profile, just the film simulations (presumably the difference between blue and purple could matter quite a bit in a criminal investigation). Some Fuji lenses (and other bands of mirrorless camera lenses) are not optically corrected for distortion, so the in camera processing is doing some heavy lifting there (again, one would imagine that in a forensic setting a ruler is being included in the frame and perhaps physical measurements are being made from the image, which distortion/distortion correction may invalidate). I don't think there's ever been a Nikon (or probably any DSLR) lens with as much optical distortion as the Fujifilm 35mm F2. So this question may be one hasn't had its day in court yet, so to speak.

Edited by kimcarsons
Link to post
Share on other sites

My point though is that there is lots of in-camera enhancement for JPEG, especially with Fujifilm. That is, there is no "natural" color profile, just the film simulations (presumably the difference between blue and purple could matter quite a bit in a criminal investigation). Some Fuji lenses (and other bands of mirrorless camera lenses) are not optically corrected for distortion, so the in camera processing is doing some heavy lifting there (again, one would imagine that in a forensic setting a ruler is being included in the frame and perhaps physical measurements are being made from the image, which distortion/distortion correction may invalidate). I don't think there's ever been a Nikon (or probably any DSLR) lens with as much optical distortion as the Fujifilm 35mm F2. So this question may be one hasn't had its day in court yet, so to speak.

Excellent point. However, having testified in hundreds of cases I have not faced those issues. That standard evidentiary foundation (California) is if this photograph accurately depicts what I observed at the scene.

 

Having shot Nikon for many years, I do not see the distortion you note regarding the Fujifilm 35. Can you be specific as to the distortion you have experienced, maybe a photo. I'd like to see if my lens exhibits that performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent point. However, having testified in hundreds of cases I have not faced those issues. That standard evidentiary foundation (California) is if this photograph accurately depicts what I observed at the scene.

 

Having shot Nikon for many years, I do not see the distortion you note regarding the Fujifilm 35. Can you be specific as to the distortion you have experienced, maybe a photo. I'd like to see if my lens exhibits that performance.

 

The Fujinon 35mm F2 basically has no optical distortion correction, leaving it with extreme barrel distortion. I suggest, rather than take my word for it, you do the experiment yourself. If you process the RAW image software distortion correction disabled in your RAW processing software (or use software which doesn't have the a profile for this lens [e.g. rawtherapee]), you'll see it on pretty much any subject, even chaotic/organic scenes like grass (the corners are also very soft on this lens), but especially any scene with straight lines in it. Fuji cameras do not allow one to disable the software correction in the in-camera JPEG processing. The main consequences of this kind of lens/camera design are that:

 

1) The field of view of the lens (optically) is greater greater than the field of view of the digitally corrected output. 

2) The actual resolution of the final image is lower than it would be with an optically corrected lens, because the image is being digitally stretched (and those soft corners discarded.)

3) Pixels are not sqaure/rectangular or of uniform dimensions across the frame (you can get some weird artifacts in the corners from the stretching of the correction.)

4) You could never use such a lens on a film camera (this is one of the ways mirrorless manufacturers get away with this kind of design without much public outcry.)

And of course,

5) The lenses are smaller, lighter, and cheaper to produce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...