I guess John can’t always get anything he wants.
> On Feb 15, 2021, at 1:39 PM, Ken Waller <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually no. We usually made large blowups on poster board of the most > important images. > I never made any marking on my photos and spoke from memory about the > relevance of each particular image. > > At one trial, I had a juror approach me about obtaining one of my images - it > was an extreme close up of a rust pattern - quite abstract. > > It was not unusual to shoot 3 to 5 rolls of 36 exposure film - always a Kodak > color print stock. > > -----Original Message----- >> From: John <[email protected]> >> Sent: Feb 15, 2021 4:25 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: OT: Photo Forensics >> >> What? No color glossy photos with circles & arrows and a paragraph on the >> back >> of each one explaining what they were about? >> >> On 2/15/2021 13:05:46, Daniel J. Matyola wrote: >>> Ken: >>> I have admitted photographs into evidence at trial many times over the past >>> 46 years. The legal standard, as you stated is that the witness (whether >>> the photographer or another person) must testify that the photograph is a >>> fair and accurate representation of the scene, object or person depicted at >>> the time in question. >>> -- Larry Colen [email protected] -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
