Can someone help me with a court case?

Question

I am currently involved in a court case, where the main evidence exhibit, is a photograph. The photo was taken at a distance of approximately 6 feet and the camera flash was used. What I need to know [from photography experts] is whether or not the light from the flash would prevent dark holes from being visible in a material that is white in colour? I know that you can get glare from a reflective surface, but would the flash effect things with regard to the circumstance that I have just mentioned.

Answer 1

Most likely not. The entire photo is reflected light captured by the film or the image sensor. If a photo is overexposed, lighter parts 'blow out' beyond the existing dynamic range but you can still see whatever is in the shadow. Underexposed, it goes the other way, but you can still see the lighter parts. Perfectly exposed and you can see everything. A flash is just another light source, so assuming there is at least something being exposed, the flash would have no impact on hiding dark areas (the holes) from appearing in the white material. As for glare, what you are describing there is 'flare' where light bounces around inside the lens and comes in at two different angles causing what is in effect a sliver of overexposure. This might possibly hide the holes, but you are more likely to get flare in sunny conditions than from a flash.

Of course there are many other elements at work. If the holes are very small, the resolution might not be high enough to pick them up. There is also the fact that photos can be easily manipulated and while I am not a lawyer, it would seem that attacking the authenticity of a photo would be part of any strategy from whomever is trying to disprove what the photo shows. How does anyone know that the photo has not been altered. There have been several highly publicized cases (at least in photographic circles) of journalists being fired for subtle manipulation to photos that imply circumstances other than the truth (most recently a journalist who used photoshop to make the smoke from a battle appear worse than it really was). See here:

http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

Answer 2

First of all, if the photo is correctly exposed for the white material the dark holes would be evident and shown as dark holes, but this would entirely depend on the material (if any) that was directly behind the holes. If the material inside the holes was reflective this would be bounced back to te camera as bright white areas and would affect the exposure. Need more info' to help further.
HTH

Answer 3

possibley, as the light from a camera is so intense it can see through thin enough material,
but unless the holes were tiny its doubtful the dark holes would be flushed out of the picture.

Answer 4

this is a tricky one but i would say yes - the flash may not pick up the dark holes and they would stay "hidden" i suppose it all depends how much light was there in the first place! like i said - tricky one that!

Answer 5

If you could post a link to the photograph, it might be possible to help you. Your question actually involves too much speculation for us to answer based on your verbal description alone.

"Was the photo over-exposed?" for instance, would be important to know.

Answer 6

if the picture is a good exposure, than no.
but the 'glare' suggests that this is overexposed, so the chances of it are higher. but it completly depends on the image. if we could see it it would be a lot easier

Answer 7

more information would be useful, did you take and do you have possession of said photo. If you do try working on it in phot shop or paint shop, you can enlarge that area, increase contrast and then look

Answer 8

it sounds like a blood spattered suit... probably the dark holes are knife entry wounds.

you have nothing to worry about, you sound like the victim !!!!

Answer 9

Can I suggest doing some experiments of your own?

Answer 10

were you flashing somebody