Kodak had a publication on crime scene photography featuring IR and UV imaging among other methods.
PE
Weegee was not a crime scene photographer in the meaning of that article, which is about forensic photography.
Weegee was not a crime scene photographer in the meaning of that article, which is about forensic photography.
... do you doubt that "Alphonse Bertillon, a Parisian-records-clerk-turned-pioneering-criminologist who is now largely regarded as the father of forensic photography"....was excited in some non-scientific way, or that his police associatesk were excited in some non-scientific way...perhaps akin to Weegee?
Interesting in this context is the case of the former Swiss police officer Arnold Odermatt. As amateur photographer and officer from the mid-50s on he made photographs of the car accidents he was called for. For evidence use, with his private camera and at first even against the order of his superior who wanted sketches instead. Long after his retirement those photoghraphs were disvovered by his son and and published at the art world. Meanwhile they are sought after.
But he does not show corpses.
Interesting distinction between intentions.
Is intention important ... how is cold forensic work, done for police department money different from Weegee's work, done for public thrills and newspaper money?
There's a famous story about Weegee's photo of a slain mafiosi boss. I think it was Carmine Galante. There he was dead next to a table where he was eating lunch outside, blood gushing out with a cigar still in his mouth. They claim Weegee, who was a prolific cigar smoker, stuck one of his stogies in Carmine's mouth for effect. It seemed to work.WeeGee took crime scene photographs to earn money, not to solve crimes.
There's a famous story about Weegee's photo of a slain mafiosi boss. I think it was Carmine Galante. There he was dead next to a table where he was eating lunch outside, blood gushing out with a cigar still in his mouth. They claim Weegee, who was a prolific cigar smoker, stuck one of his stogies in Carmine's mouth for effect. It seemed to work.
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/...ted-mafia-leader-carmine-news-photo/515180638
Maris:Now that the system has gone digital the question of physical links has been put aside. All that is required to authenticate a crime picture is that some breathing and conscious human being has to get into the witness box and swear "Yep, that's the way it was." The crime scene picture has passed in substance from being evidence to becoming mere testimony.
Speaking as a former forensic chemist who responded to crime scenes to collect evidence but not take pictures.... Photos are taken today to document where items were when they were at the scene. The point is to show the eventual jury how things looked and where the evidence was found. The only scene photos that might get used to solve a crime are those of blood spatter (notice there's no "L" in spatter) - and those need to be taken in a very precise way so that the angle of impact of the drops can be calculated. In my 15 years at the MA lab, I had probably less than 10 scenes where the spatter actually became important (I responded to around 50 per year). I wasn't supposed to take photos at scenes because I was a civilian chemist, not a trooper but there were several times I wished I could just grab the camera from them and do it myself. Yes, I've got LOTS of stories - I just can't put them online.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?