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. >> >> Dan Matyola >> Dan Matyola >> *https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery >> <https://tinyurl.com/DJM-Pentax-Gallery>* > > > >-- >Science - Questions we may never find answers for. >Religion - Answers we must never question. >-- >%(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. -- %(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.
