DSLRUsers.com

Was watching CSI last night and noticed Gil Grissom, (William Petersen), photographing a crime scene with a Nikon D200. I don't get to watch the show very often, but I always try to see what camera they are using. They mostly use Nikon, but I've never been able to spot the model before.
Anyone see what else they use?

they have upgraded - they used to use coolpix 5700's

and if you noticed the "press photographers" were using DSLR's however were holding them like P&S's with the blank LCD panel in front of their nose.....

I noticed the nikon, but not the model. Did notice that the CSI team members were using the built-in pop up flash. I would have thought a sb-600 or sb-800 perhaps...

Russell

A lot of TV shows i watch use Nikon, infact i rarely see a Canon.
Veronica Mars i know uses a Nikon (i think it was a D70 and then upgraded to a D200). She probably uses it the most 'professionally' i have seen anyone on TV use a DSLR. some ep she had a fast prime, with flash bracket, SC-29 Cable, SB-6(8)00. Most of the time though she has a 18-200VR on it. i *think*.

I *think* Dexter was using a Nikon.

NCIS use Nikon - each different member of the team uses it differently, some using it with the LCD some with the viewfinder.

i *think* i have seen a Nikon or 2 in Ugly Betty

rflower wrote:I noticed the nikon, but not the model. Did notice that the CSI team members were using the built-in pop up flash. I would have thought a sb-600 or sb-800 perhaps...

Russell

Or at least one of those ring lights on the front of the lens'

I noticed the D200 last night as well.
Last season I thought they had SB800's as well.

The current season of NCIS in America has the team using D200's, usually with an unnatural strap showing the brand nice and clearly. How often when you wear your strap does it say the brand nice and clearly down the side of your collarbone?

Wocka wrote:I noticed the D200 last night as well.
Last season I thought they had SB800's as well.

they were using sb800 flash units last series........ and the name down the strap...... I think it is called "Brand Placement"....... wonder how much Nikon paid.......

I also was intersted to see the D200 in use last night.
If only I could get Nikon Oz to sponsor our show, I would be more than happy to have a D200 hanging off my puppets neck!
Oh bugger that's right I work for the ABC - No sponsorship
Oh and Nikon Oz is Maxwell's

I'm always on the look out watching my shows for the cameras, I care a little less how they use them, but it's interesting. A lot of my regular shows have been mentioned but the The Wire is one that uses a mix of brands, but so far they have all be film cameras. Blood Diamond has the reporter using a crappy Minolta at the start but a Nikon SLR at the end.

One thing that bugs me is the rarely use the real shutter and flash sounds, but rather replace them with stock sounds that aren't anything l like the equipment they are using.. but I'd say few would notice or care.

Craig, that would be because the shutters sounds we know and love either aren't loud enough, long enough, or "sound like a camera" to most people*.

*The term "most people" includes people who think their point & shoot is a camera.

CSI and NCIS are both seemingly sponsored by Nikon with huge brand placement. They have all been using D200 with the nice wide signwritten straps for about a year now. They also seem to alternate between using the pop up flash and the RC1 macro flashes, ring flashes have disappeared.

About 3 months ago there was an NCIS where they needed to use some special microscope, so the girl from the show went to an exhibition and stood in front of a Nikon banner for about five minutes. Also a good selection of torches on these shows.

Glen wrote:About 3 months ago there was an NCIS where they needed to use some special microscope, so the girl from the show went to an exhibition and stood in front of a Nikon banner for about five minutes. Also a good section of torches on these shows.

Her name is Abbey and yes, that was so blant it was funny.

Is anyone aware of what a "real" Forensic Photographer would use? If a digital camera was the prefered option, would this evidence be admissible in a court of law. Just curious.

Old Bob wrote:Is anyone aware of what a "real" Forensic Photographer would use? If a digital camera was the prefered option, would this evidence be admissible in a court of law. Just curious.

Nikon digital, and yes. There are options available that provide for validation of the images taken - effectively a fingerprint of the image file.

I believe that Matt K has recently (within the last 12 months or so) run some training courses for forensic photographers.

Old Bob wrote:Is anyone aware of what a "real" Forensic Photographer would use? If a digital camera was the prefered option, would this evidence be admissible in a court of law. Just curious.

I have seen Bronica/Metz gear for sale which were apparently used by forensic teama, and my sister bought an F90x which was apparently ex-forensic.

P

I know that digital images are accepted in court but with some authenticity checking, they even do that on speed camera photographs. I knew a deep undercover cop, when he first saw a D1 he was stunned, he instantly saw the capability for evidence. I think it is Fuji who specially make a camera for police use, it was mentioned in a thread here somewhere. From memory I think it has no IR filter. I am actually organising a torch for nnnnsic which is designed for forensic use with IR leds in it.

Alpha_7 wrote:

Glen wrote:About 3 months ago there was an NCIS where they needed to use some special microscope, so the girl from the show went to an exhibition and stood in front of a Nikon banner for about five minutes. Also a good section of torches on these shows.

Her name is Abbey and yes, that was so blant it was funny.

Thanks Craig, the name slipped me but you are spot on. You were probably laughing like I was, the biggest Nikon ad I have seen yet.

as far as im aware, cops still use film and hasselblad gear for forensic/evidence

don't think they have made the switch yet as using digital brings in bring in other issues, such as digital manipulation of images which doesn't help in the court of law...

Foonji, you are in Adelaide (I was born in Adelaide). In NSW they use digital, both in the SLR form, but also when a neighbour had the front door broken, there was a big fuss by the beat police to have another car bring the digital P&S up for evidence. I offered to shoot it but they wanted it on their own card.

Digital up here as well. As to the images, can't both the high end Nikon and Canon tag an image so it can be proven it has not been tampered with?

You mean UV LED's, Glen. (Glen's torches penetrate the an R72 IR filter at f22 on ISO 200 and still blow highlights, hence their use)

And the Fuji UVIR is apparently becoming the forensic camera of choice for agencies that can get them, but it's only available officially in America. There is a Fuji Point & Shoot variant of it, mind you, which is half the price, does the same thing, takes CF cards, but is otherwise P&S.

I expect that for times when you're not using luminol to pick up things that can only be seen under UV, a regular colour camera would otherwise be fine. A lot of it, I suspect, would be more so used for crime scene placement (for objects, bodies, trace, etc) rather than a concern for colour.

Nnnnsic wrote:You mean UV LED's, Glen. (Glen's torches penetrate the an R72 IR filter at f22 on ISO 200 and still blow highlights, hence their use)

And the Fuji UVIR is apparently becoming the forensic camera of choice for agencies that can get them, but it's only available officially in America. There is a Fuji Point & Shoot variant of it, mind you, which is half the price, does the same thing, takes CF cards, but is otherwise P&S.

I expect that for times when you're not using luminol to pick up things that can only be seen under UV, a regular colour camera would otherwise be fine. A lot of it, I suspect, would be more so used for crime scene placement (for objects, bodies, trace, etc) rather than a concern for colour.

Isn't the use of luminol a last resort as it destroys the evidence it shows up...

Buggered if I know.

I love their ability to zoom into a photograph and interpolate useful information! amazing! I wish my computer/camera could do that!

yeah, its been a while since i've seen the forensics dudes out, next time i'll be sure to go and ask them wat the latest is for them

adam wrote:I love their ability to zoom into a photograph and interpolate useful information! amazing! I wish my computer/camera could do that!

Adam, I agree. There is no picture which cant be saved on TV

Saw a police investigator with a F90 a couple of months ago

A friend of mine still studying in uni for forensic science, one of his forensic photography subject required him to learn how to operate properly a film SLR and get the results 'as-is'.

I guess in the real workforce they use digital now, but they are still teaching from the very basic fundamentals.

Sorry to drag out this old thread, but saw something that reminded me of this thread.

Front page of The Daily Telegraph today was about the unfortunate L-plater accident in Sydney. Amongst the carnage, did anyone notice the strap around the police photographer's neck? Nikon D200. Can't quite work out what lens he is using.

Smaller version (Image 1) here:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s ... ?from=news

Does anyone know why the D200 was chosen? I mean, what feature in the D200 do they need that a D80/D50 does not have?

Ben

It would survive a drop better among other things.

Vodka wrote:Does anyone know why the D200 was chosen? I mean, what feature in the D200 do they need that a D80/D50 does not have?

The D200 is weatherised. It also supports LockTight technology from Lexar, which they may want:

http://www.lexar.com/newsroom/press/press_11_21_05.html

Because they could

Not sure on the lens but suspect either 17-35 or 17-55

cheers,

André

Old Bob wrote:Is anyone aware of what a "real" Forensic Photographer would use? If a digital camera was the preferred option, would this evidence be admissible in a court of law.

The photo-plod I've seen are usually willing to take a moment out of their day to bitch about the gear they use. Their budget for new gear is not the best. In tassie they were still using film, and sometimes paying to have it scanned, and really hanging out for the day when they were allowed digital. One problem is that there's a lot of MF bigots in the "professional photographer" camp, some of whom work for the plod. So they see it as $50k for a MF digital camera or nothing, and they don't have $50k. The major manufacturers have add-ons that allow you to provide chain of evidence details, which I suspect makes the photos forensic rather than suggestive (or whatever terminology the courts use).

But plod intelligence types seem to be quite taken with cheap digital cameras. My impression is that they're giving some (many?) cops cheap PoS cams as generic recording assistance, at least at protests. They also seem to have adjusted to the presence of these cameras in the hands of civilians by reducing the print size on name badges and increasing the latitude officers have to remove the badges completely.

From a complaint we laid the other day, it seems that any kind of digital record will be accepted but as a memory aid rather than as stand-alone evidence. So if you stand up in court and say "this photo/video is an accurate record of what I saw happen" then they'll give it reasonable weight, but they won't treat it as the word of ghod. If you're a member of a minority group, that means that it does not change the basic p*lice approach - your word plus the word of three of your friends does not outweigh the word of a majority citizen, regardless of photo or video evidence. So just having video of (say) someone with a weapon attacking someone else does not constitute cause for the p*lice to lay that charge (or any charge, as it happens). You still need to prove that you were doing everything you possibly could to avoid causing offence to the majority citizen, regardless of the law (sorry, I mean "provoking").

moz wrote: They also seem to have adjusted to the presence of these cameras in the hands of civilians by reducing the print size on name badges and increasing the latitude officers have to remove the badges completely.

Your talking out your ass. The name plates that we wear have actually had the print size increased, and the amount of information reduced to make it easier to read the officers name. You must be thinking of some other, possibly secret, police force.

From a complaint we laid the other day, it seems that any kind of digital record will be accepted but as a memory aid rather than as stand-alone evidence. So if you stand up in court and say "this photo/video is an accurate record of what I saw happen" then they'll give it reasonable weight, but they won't treat it as the word of ghod. If you're a member of a minority group, that means that it does not change the basic p*lice approach - your word plus the word of three of your friends does not outweigh the word of a majority citizen, regardless of photo or video evidence. So just having video of (say) someone with a weapon attacking someone else does not constitute cause for the p*lice to lay that charge (or any charge, as it happens).

Good grief, what a rant. It is not up to the Police what evidence is admissible in Court, that is up to magistrates. If you are laying an initial complaint at a Police Station and supply photographic and video evidence of an offence being committed, then the evidence will be taken and retained as an exhibit, to assist in proving the offence you report.

Police chose Nikon gear because they could. I gather that in the past, a decision was made to purchase nikon film slr cameras, which were nikons, and they continue to purchase them like most of us do. We're stuck with the lenses, speedlights and other bits and peices that suit nikon.

I have raised the issue of admissibility of digital images with FSG (forensic services group) before and they stated they're no issue with it. There are changes made to file structure if it is edited. They can also 'watermark' the image with software (approved by leglislation) that makes it impossible to edit the image.

[/quote]

Ohhh - you guys sound so cool when you talk all legal like.

So, when is a picture not a picture.

Does it have to be a raw image, or is in camera sharpening and exposure balancing admisable?

In the old days were prints admisable, or did you have to prove that the prints came from a specific negative ?

The recorded image, has been manipulated since it was invented.
The Digital era just allows more of us to manipulate, when previously more chemistry skilled darkroom techniques were employed.
Surely the question for the courts is as always - what was left out of the image may be as important as what may have been preserved.

Just thoughts.

Well, the D2xs (and I think firmware modified versions of the D200 and D2x) have a digital certification affirming that the original picture is indeed the original picture.

I expect that would help.

I don't think Canon have that feature.

The 5D does have the image verification function. Not sure if it's the same or similar to the D200 and D2X though.

Nnnnsic wrote:Well, the D2xs (and I think firmware modified versions of the D200 and D2x) have a digital certification affirming that the original picture is indeed the original picture.

I expect that would help.

I don't think Canon have that feature.

I think the 1Ds has this.
As well as a data verification kit: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012 ... ndvke2.asp

http://www.canon.com/technology/canon_t ... ation.html

Suri wrote:So, when is a picture not a picture.

Where is EnergyPolice when you need him?

I didn't realise that it was an old thread.
If you guys haven't yet figured the amount of product placement in popular shows.....

For interest sake:
I've not seen any police units in Australia use anything other than Nikon.
Note that they don't have the ability to choose their gear often.
AFP forensics in Canberra were using Nikon D100's when I saw them a couple of years ago.
By the way, if you ever want to wind up a forensic investigation officer, just tell them that if they want a hand, you've seen every episode of CSI.
Most forensic investigators aren't given weapons for just this reason.....

Perth police were also using D100's and were quite taken with my D70's ease of use compared to it. They aren't sure about my D200 though.
Some have bought D70's since playing with mine.

SA Police were using Nikon D100's too.
NSW police definately had Nikons although I couldn't see what type. Only lens I saw was a 70-200 2.8 which was the only one of decent quality other than the 60mm Macro on the Forensic cameras.
Most are just given 70-300's and they make do.

AFP in Sydney have been given some D80's.
All the police were quite happy to discuss photography techniques and pick up hints. There were few who were photo buffs.