Articles

• Current Issue
• Issue Archives
• Marketing Articles
• Management Articles
• Technology Articles
• Finance Articles

Law Practice Today

• Subscribe/Unsubscribe
• Write for LPT
• Advertise in LPT
• Article Reprint Permission
• Give Feedback
• ABA Law Practice Management Section
•  RSS Feed

---

Related Publications

 

Basic Digital Photography Made Easy or At Least a Little Less Obscure -- Part 1

by Joe Kashi

March 2006

Digital cameras are all the rage; even Nikon and Kodak, those bastions of traditional film-based photography, recently announced that they were discontinuing the production of most film cameras. How do you choose and use a digital camera for evidentiary purposes as part of your law practice? In this first article, I will discuss the considerations to take into account when deciding upon the right digital camera for your law office. Next month, I will examine some specific cameras that I liked or found wanting and make some specific recommendations in various price ranges.

For those of you who simply want to cut to the chase, my overall digital camera recommendation for the average law office is Kodak’s 8 megapixel P880 ($500 average price), for reasons that I will explore below. This camera has a very high quality Schneider zoom lens that ranges between an ultra wide angle 24mm equivalent through 140mm moderate telephoto equivalent and is very well-designed and easy to use. Avoid the similar appearing 5 MP Kodak P850 - the P850 has a higher zoom range but the end result just doesn’t have enough quality.

Even though a digital camera may seem mostly like an extension of computer technology and is often marketed as such, at heart a digital camera remains an optical instrument subject to the same fundamental concepts as film cameras - optical sharpness, depth of field, image degradation due to camera shake, proper exposure, etc. The basic difference is that film is replaced by an electronic sensor similar to the sensors in astronomical telescopes and prints are made with color printers rather than with chemicals and silver-based paper.

High end digital cameras tend to produce better, and more easily corrected, color photographs than comparable 35mm film cameras – indeed, photos made with the best digital cameras can approach the high quality professional grade images that we generally associate with medium format cameras used by professional and fine arts photographers, not to mention NASA astronauts. Traditional film and photographic paper, however, remains far better at rendering high grade black and white images, particularly in fine arts applications.

The default images produced by most digital cameras often closely resemble the contrasty, vivid color images produced by 35mm slide film. In practice, this means that important highlight detail may be lost if an image is over-exposed because the digital sensor’s range is not wide enough to capture detail across the entire lighting range. Color negative films tend to have relatively lower contrast and thus are more capable of capturing subtle nuances of detail in both dark shadows and bright highlights. These differences are principally of interest to professional and fine art photographers – they are not really important to the average casual and business user who is careful about proper exposure so long as you are careful to avoid so much over-exposure that you lose important highlight detail. When used with a high grade color printer, a decent digital camera can easily and inexpensively produce excellent color enlargements that rival or surpass color prints made from 35mm film by professional color labs, and with much more control over the appearance of the final result. (For what it’s worth, in addition to practicing law, I once owned and operated a color photography lab business and taught Zone System and color photography for a few years at a local college.)

What is important to the legal practitioner is the ability to directly incorporate digital images and video clips into Acrobat-based briefs and trial presentations and to easily and inexpensively make exhibits, including exhibits with Acrobat-annotations, from digital photographs and video clips.

Digital photo file formats: Almost all digital camera save their still images by default in the standard JPEG compressed format which, although it does allow you to fit more shots on a memory card, inevitably loses some fine detail and reduces your ability to later make corrections using computer photographic software such as Adobe Photoshop Elements. Many standard office programs, including Word, PowerPoint, WordPerfect, Acrobat, and almost all photographic and imaging programs can work directly with standard JPEG files. In order to minimize loss of detail when a file is compressed, I recommend that you always set your camera’s sensor to the highest available megapixel rate and your in-camera compression to “Fine” or “Superfine” and that any later computer processing of JPEG files be stored using the maximum quality, largest file size option. Once you have lost image and color detail due to overly-exuberant file compression, you will not be able to re-acquire lost detail.

For that reason, most high end camera can optionally save the uncompressed raw sensor data in a very bulky form that can later be much more completely corrected. These raw data files, appropriately termed a “RAW” format, are unique to each camera model and standard photographic programs may or may not work with images produced by a particular camera. Except when using some very popular cameras directly supported by Adobe Photoshop or Picasa 2, such as the Canon digital SLR cameras, your use of RAW digital camera files will very possibly be restricted to the capabilities of whatever RAW file conversion program was included when you purchased your camera. At a minimum, such programs will convert the RAW images to JPEG files in your computer. Better RAW file programs, such as the “Image Data Converter SR” program included with the high end Sony DSC-R1 camera, include a wealth of image correction capabilities that do a very good job of correcting over-exposure or under-exposure and color balance, sharpening the image, and reducing image “noise”, which is the digital equivalent of film graininess. The other problem with RAW picture files is that they are huge, on the order of five or six times larger than compressed JPEG files of the same image. Given the increasingly lower cost of high capacity flash memory cards and hard disks these days, this is no longer much of a problem assuming that you do not save absolutely every image that you have ever shot.

JPEG is more than adequate for almost all legal evidentiary uses. However, I prefer to initially work with a RAW file format when available because I can more readily and completely correct any mistakes and also better sharpen any needed fine detail at a later time. Further, if extremely fine detail is important in a particular photograph, then a RAW format is probably better for evidentiary purposes. If necessary, you can always revert later to the original RAW picture image as taken by the camera, something that cannot be done with JPEG photo files. RAW files, if the camera’s internal options are set to low sharpness, can be readily sharpened later using your desktop computer without creating much in the way of “artifacts”, apparent fine detail in a picture that doesn’t really exist in the original subject. JPEG’s compression inevitably introduces a higher level of “artifacts” that cannot be later undone after the file is saved. If you use a RAW photo format, then it is preferable to print any really large exhibits that need to show very fine detail directly from the RAW file if feasible. However, in order to embed a photograph in a word processing document or PowerPoint presentation, you will need to convert it to JPEG using the camera’s RAW file program. These are low resolution uses in any event and small JPEG artifacts are of no consequence.

Most digital cameras include a useful video clip capability that is often a lot more useful in a law office than using a full-blown video camcorder. That’s because digital camera video clips are recorded in directly on to a computer-readable memory card and in a computer-readable file format such as MOV or AVI. You should look for a camera that records video clips at 640x480 resolution, 30 frames per second, for an indefinite amount of time limited only by available storage - cameras that meet these specifications will provide the highest quality and most useful video clip capability.

I prefer cameras that record video clips in Apple’s .MOV QuickTime format because I can edit them using Apple’s $30 QuickTime Pro software and can distribute a free QuickTime video viewer download along with the video clip. Be careful to avoid getting the QuickTime viewer download that includes Apple’s i-Tunes software. Its marketing of iTunes and constant Internet displays will become annoyingly intrusive, at best, in a legal environment. AVI is a standard Windows video format that’s usable by more modern versions of Windows Media Player. My concerns about using the AVI format are that AVI tends to be bulkier than MOV, does not always work with older computers that do not have the most modern version of Windows Media Player installed (such as are more likely to be found within institutional environments such as court systems and insurance companies), and that AVI cannot be readily edited unless you spend the money for a third party program such as Adobe Premiere Elements. Overall, I have found that Apple’s QuickTime MOV format seems to work most facilely in the legal environment.

BUYING A DIGITAL CAMERA:

Digital cameras quickly come and go in a bewildering variety of models from both traditional camera makers and consumer electronics manufacturers. Canon, Kodak, Sony and Fujifilm seem to offer the best models for consumer through upper mid-range digital photography. I would have included Panasonic in the above list but for Panasonic’s use of very “noisy” sensors that tend to degrade the excellent results that one would otherwise obtain from the Leica lenses used by Panasonic. Most better consumer grade digital cameras include both photographic and short but very useful video capabilities. Research any camera models that interest you and be careful to avoid similar appearing cameras that may have radically differing performance. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, Kodak’s high end 8 megapixel P880 looks nearly identical to the 5 megapixel P850 and costs nearly as much, but while the P880 performs very well, the P850's lower optical performance generally disappoints discerning users and would result in lower quality photographically-based exhibits.

General Purchase Considerations: Avoid any camera that does not have a native sensor resolution of at least 5 megapixels (5MP), which is rapidly becoming the minimum resolution for consumer cameras. However, the sheer number of megapixels is not dispositive; some high grade 6 MP cameras with fine lenses and low-noise sensors may produce sharper, better photographic enlargements than noisy 8 MP cameras enclosed in big, flashy bodies with less-sharp high ratio zoom lenses, e.g., “10X” or “12" zoom rations. At least as important as the sheer number of megapixels is the optical quality of the lens and the “noisiness” of the sensor. For example, the 6.3 MP Fuji F10 and F11 seem to produce better images than Fuji’s own 9 MP E900 camera.

As a rule of thumb, digital cameras are at their best in bright sunlight, where almost any 5 MP camera will produce usable pictures up to 8 ½” by 11" enlargements. A better quality 5 megapixel (5 MP) camera with a high grade lens, such as the Kodak z730, when used in bright daylight, can produce decent exhibits up to 13” x 19”, the largest print size made by readily affordable color printers. A good 7 MP camera, such as the Canon A620 or the Sony DSC-V3 can be enlarged a little more before degradation becomes obvious. High grade 8 MP to 9 MP cameras are potentially capable producing usable 20” x 24” prints. I have found that my 10.3 MP large-sensor Sony DSC-R1 can produce usable 24"x36" photographs, assuming that you don’t look too closely, which is better than ANY 35mm camera that I have ever used.

Unless you plan to upgrade to a top grade SLR-style camera within the next 12 months, then a good 7 MP or 8 MP camera is probably your best all around current choice. Current top-end 7 MP, 8 MP, 9 MP, and 10 MP cameras typically cost between $400 and $1,000. I decided that my optimum short-term compromise was to purchase the best possible compact 5 MP camera in the $200 to $250 range that could use my existing SD memory cards and card readers and then later purchase a high-end Sony DSC-R1 camera. More about my personal choices below.

I strongly recommend that you first do a Web search and carefully review several professional reviews of any camera that you are interested in purchasing. Overall, I have found lay user reviews to be unbalanced and not very useful - either breathlessly praising or overly damning. I have found that the best direct professional comparisons were posted at www.imaging-resouce.com, www.dcresource.com and www.dpreview.com. Each of these sites, particularly www.imaging-resouce.com and www.dcresource.com include sample images that allow you to make direct optical quality comparisons between different cameras. I particularly like www.imaging-resource.com. This site includes excellent technical and ergonomic reviews of most higher-end digital cameras and also provides a unique tool whereby you can download and directly compare identical photos taken with two different cameras. www.dcresource.com features identical photos taken by the many different cameras reviewed by the site but in order to make a direct comparison using photographs from this Web site, you will need to download and save the full size sample image files taken with different cameras and then compare magnified portions of those photos using a program such as Photoshop Elements or the Windows XP digital image and fax file viewer.

You should do additional research about the low light capabilities of those cameras in which you are interested. indoor photographic capabilities become more difficult to generalize because there are many more variables which may or may not be handled correctly by the choices programmed into a digital camera. Sensor noise and color balance tend to become critical in lower light situations and built-in electronic flash units vary a great deal. Not all cameras have the inherent ability to fully correct for the very different overall color casts of photographs taken outdoors, when using electronic flash, or under incandescent lighting and under fluorescent lights. Only a few high end cameras include the anti-shake technology that reduces the image blur likely to occur from slow shutter speeds and shaky hands. If good low light capability is important to you, then I strongly urge you to first check the numerous professional digital camera reviews posted on the Web.

Try to get a camera with the lowest sensor “noise” level that fits your budget and your needs. Sensor noise is critical, especially when taking pictures in low light levels – high sensor noise produces lower quality photos similar in appearance to photographs made with fast, grainy 35MM film. The sensors used on almost all consumer grade cameras, regardless of the rated number of megapixels, are invariably physically small and prone to serious noise problems, particularly in the 8 MP to 9 MP range, although there are exceptions to this dolorous rule of thumb. The 7 MP sensors used by Sony and Canon are highly regarded as are the 6 MP and 9 MP Fuji HR sensors and the physically large 10.3 MP APC sensor that Sony uses in its top end DSC-R1 camera. Larger sensors usually produce better, lower noise photos and for that reason are used in all professional grade digital cameras. However, cameras incorporating large sensors, and the lenses that fit them, are substantially more expensive. Indeed, the Sony DSC-R1 is one of the few high-megapixel large sensor cameras that you can buy for under $1,000 including high grade zoom lens.

The optical quality of a lens can be difficult to gauge ahead of time unless you examine expert reviews, sample images, and lens resolution charts often posted on various digital cameras review sites on the Web. Again, there are some useful rules of thumb. Zoom lenses with a low zoom ratio, generally not greater than 3X or 4X, are usually sharper and crisper than high ratio 10X or 12X zoom lenses. For most legal work, you will not use higher zoom ranges anyway. High-end consumer grade lenses made by Canon, Zeiss (used on Sony cameras), Leica (used on upper end Panasonic cameras) and Schneider (used on better Kodak cameras) generally produce excellent images although you should also take high sensor noise on Panasonic and 5 MP Kodak cameras into account. “Digital Zoom” capabilities generally should be disabled and not used at all – the resulting photos will typically lose too much quality.

Other desirable and useful digital camera features include:

1. Accurate automatic modes and the ability to control sensor sharpness, contrast and color saturation. The default settings on most digital cameras are high in contrast, resulting in photographs that look like high-contrast slide films with overly-dark shadow areas and washed out highlight detail. Only the Sony DSC-R1 provides some differential contrast control in shadow and highlight areas. RAW files can sometimes be adjusted to provide differential contrast in shadow, mid-range and highlight areas. However, regardless of the camera that you use, there is no salvation for any image that has been over-exposed to the extent that the highlight detail has been lost. Film cameras have the same limitation.
   
2. Optional manual exposure, detailed camera setup, and focus modes. I really like the Kodak z730 in this regard. It offers more manual controls than many cameras costing more than twice as much, including useful advanced settings such as controlling the type and area of the auto focus and varying exposure metering from very tight spot metering to wide area metering, allowing you to vary how the camera might respond to unusual lighting and focus situations.
   
3. Unless you have substantial photographic experience, buy a camera that is easy to use, with simple controls and menus. The high end Kodak P880 camera produces images that are almost as good as the Sony DSC-R1 but the Kodak P880 can be very easy to use while the Sony’s controls can be bewildering at first, especially if you do not have substantial prior photographic experience.
   
4. Fast response times – too many digital cameras tend to react far slower than 30-year-old mechanical 35mm film camera, which can be a real irritant.
   
5. 640 x 480 full frame video clip capability using, if possible, Apple QuickTime .MOV format (easy to edit with inexpensive Apple software and allows you to provide a free Apple stand-alone video viewing program for the Court’s use, eliminating concerns regarding whether the Court’s computer has the appropriate Windows Media Player installed). Where possible, try to get a camera that shoots at a full 30 frames per second to avoid potentially jerky video. Slower frames rates, such as 12 or 18 frames per second sometimes cause jerky replays.
   
6. If possible, get a camera that uses inexpensive standard digital data cards and rechargeable batteries. Cameras like the Canon A620 that use rechargeable AA batteries can also use standard off-the-shelf AA alkaline batteries in a pinch. However, rechargeable Lithium Ion batteries are excellent and last longer. It’s best to always carry a spare fully charged set of batteries.

Next month, I will discuss specific digital cameras that I liked or found wanting.

Back to Top

---