At least YOU understood the joke.
On 2/15/2021 16:42:20, Larry Colen wrote:
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]
--
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.
