Jumm... interesting, Calvin. Not what I was expecting, although I think you intended it that way. I'm actually quite interested in forensics and forensics photography. There's an interesting book containing actual crime photos from roughly the turn of the century to the mid twentieth century. It includes images from the Fall River murders (Lizzie Borden) that aren't generally published, as well as photos from many prohibition-era crimes. Photographically, the former are interesting from a historical perspective, marking the earliest efforts of forensics photography. The latter are interesting because of the manner in which they were captured. Generally, the photographer stood atop a ladder and used an 8x10 camera. Despite the relatively poor quality of emulsions at the time, the huge size of the negative meant that only a single photo often sufficed, capturing the entire scene, and allowing for individual enlargement of a single area for greater scrutinization. The all-encompassing image, with harsh flash lighting and incredible detail, is rather startling in tcomparison to today's more prevalent "macro" style.
As an aside, I hope that there are no complaints about your post. It is clearly labeled what the contents will be and the viewer must consciously click on the post to be subject to the content (as well as wait an agonizing length of time for the barely-compressed JPG to load). Hopefully, anyone who MIGHT be offended will excercise their right not to be offended by not clicking on the post. As far as any debates about art vs non-art, I hope it will not be criticized unfairly here, as well. Clearly, just as with any "crime scene" photo, the intent is documentarian, if one not to be taken too seriously. Let's just leave it at that.
