Photograph 1
The shoe impression to be photographed was first made in the soil and a ruler placed along the length of the impression. A camera was then used to take a photo of the impression ensuring the camera was directly above the impression and the ruler was also clearly visible in the photo. The impression is not clear enough in the photo with only the back part being clearly visible while the front part is barely visible. The photo quality would have been better if better lighting equipment were used when taking the photo.
Photograph 2(flashlight)
For this photo, a shoe impression was first made in the soil and a ruler placed beside it. After the measurements were taken and recorded in the photo identifier. A flashlight was then used to illuminate the impression and a photo taken with this illumination. The camera was also directly above the impression when the photo was taken. The photo quality was better than the first photo although the flashlight seemed to illuminate only one side of the impression. A bigger source of light would have yielded a better quality photo.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Photograph 3(shaded)
This photo was taken by first making the shoe impression in the soil, and then I, as the picture taker, stood next to the photo casting a shade on it. A ruler was placed next to the shaded impression and measurements taken before the photo was taken with the camera above it. The shade cast on the impression obviously negatively affected the photo quality making the impression not as clear as should have been. Slight adjustments on the camera to allow for low light shooting would have yielded a better quality photo.
The experience gotten during this exercise was very enlightening. It was interesting to see how slight changes in lighting and even camera positioning can affect the quality of pictures during forensic photography and maybe ultimately determine the outcome of an investigation.
