Best lenses for forensic photography?

[AndyW17]

I may have an opportunity to do some work for a law firm doing "forensic" photography. This would not be accident / crime scene photography, but rather images of injury/scarring and such taken some time after the trauma, from what I understand. The requirements would be good color capture, depth/relief capture, large DOF (it's not art photography).

I have not done this sort of work in the past and am reading about it online and looking at the evidence photography certification specs, etc.

I shoot FX and have a Nikkor 70-200 2.8, and 50mm 1.8g, plus a Tamron 24-70 2.8 (macro-capable) and a pair of SB-800s.

What macro lenses would be essential for this type of work? Would the Tamron do the job? Extension tubes?

Can anyone point me to resources or provide their perspective?

--
Andy

 

[Event_shooter]

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2008/01/csi-cameras-today

 

[axcentphoto]

You mention 'Micro' lenses. As a Nikon shooter I would have to recommend their 105 f2.8 VR. All your other lenses look fine. Good Luck.

 

[AndyW17]

Thanks. I will look into that lens. I should also mention that I have a Sigma HSM II 70-200 2.8 MACRO lens with VR that I was planning to sell. I'm sure it's not up to the quality of the 105, but would that serve the purpose? I'll have to get that out and see what it can do on this front.

 

[39matt]

I did Forensic photography for 16 years.

The lens is less important than making sure you scale your images using right angle scales.

We used standard lenses the last being the Nikon 18-70mm.

Lighting is also key ensuring that your images are evenly illuminated.

 

[Robin Casady]

Nikon AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED

Flat field of focus, designed for technical reproduction work. Good field of view when your working distance is too limited for a longer lens.

The Nikon R1C1 flash system would be a good setup for even lighting. You see it used on many of the CSI TV shows. I've used it for close work. However, since you already have two flash units you may want to consider one of the many macro flash brackets available.

 

[AndyW17]

I did Forensic photography for 16 years.

The lens is less important than making sure you scale your images using right angle scales.

We used standard lenses the last being the Nikon 18-70mm.

Lighting is also key ensuring that your images are evenly illuminated.

Thanks - Scales as in these - I'm assuming we're talking about having standard metric references within the images?

Loading…

www.crimesciences.com

 

[ranalli]

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2008/01/csi-cameras-today

Good thing you found an up to date article on the subject.

 

[39matt]

I did Forensic photography for 16 years.

The lens is less important than making sure you scale your images using right angle scales.

We used standard lenses the last being the Nikon 18-70mm.

Lighting is also key ensuring that your images are evenly illuminated.

Thanks - Scales as in these - I'm assuming we're talking about having standard metric references within the images?

http://www.crimesciences.com/StoreBox/rulersandscales.htm

 

[olyflyer]

That's what is used in all the TV series... and the popup flash.

Otherwise you could go for the Nikon 60. It is the best macro lens, light and produce excellent images.

 

[Robin Casady]

That's what is used in all the TV series... and the popup flash.

You need to watch more CSI. They usually use the R1C1 with the flash heads pointed in the wrong direction. ;-)

 

[AndyW17]

Thanks for the suggestions.

My gut says to go for the 105 and not the 60 as it would give me more working room. It's not clear how much really small stuff I would be covering as it's a limited type of forensic stuff. Mostly shots of scars and the like, so I would need to be able to light well to show relief and coloration, from what I've been told. Plus, the 105 could double as a nice portrait lens while the 60 would not do as well as another tool in the box. (But given my other lenses, would the 105 for portraits be different from the 70-200 at 105, apart from LOTS lighter? I know, I should understand this...)

Lighting is also a concern. I have the 2 SB-800's and someone mentioned brackets for those, but that sounds like it'd get heavy. I guess I cannot count on a bounce situation to help me out LOL, unless I can use my stand/umbrella to set the light. In a situation where you're doing macro with a possibly longish lens, but close up, would I need to get radio triggers instead of just using the on-board flash as a commander?

I have to do some experimenting on the wife to document her fictitious injuries. I'm sure she'll be thrilled....

Or, just go the ring light if the bulk of images are going to be of people (at least parts of them), but not things like artifacts.

Thanks for the advice. It's an interesting and unexpected opportunity.

 

[mais51]

That's what is used in all the TV series... and the popup flash.

Otherwise you could go for the Nikon 60. It is the best macro lens, light and produce excellent images.

Big trouble if you use TV drama as a technical reference. I mean they don't have to be real or legally factual - just a make believe show for entertainment.

 

[D610 User 1867]

The requirements would be good color capture, depth/relief capture, large DOF (it's not art photography).

AndyW17 wrote:

My gut says to go for the 105...

The 105mm macro has an extremely narrow DOF at close range, even at f/22 the DOF is less than 1 cm. You can download the lens manual from Nikon's website, there's a DOF chart in the back.

I would think the 70-200mm would be the perfect range, and you have the flexibility of a zoom.

 

[AndyW17]

The requirements would be good color capture, depth/relief capture, large DOF (it's not art photography).

AndyW17 wrote:

My gut says to go for the 105...

The 105mm macro has an extremely narrow DOF at close range, even at f/22 the DOF is less than 1 cm. You can download the lens manual from Nikon's website, there's a DOF chart in the back.

I would think the 70-200mm would be the perfect range, and you have the flexibility of a zoom.

Thanks - lesson learned. Check the specs and understand them. I actually have two of the 70-200's right now. I have an older sigma version (HSM II 2.8 VR macro) which I'm going to try out before forking out any cash.

 

[Robin Casady]

The requirements would be good color capture, depth/relief capture, large DOF (it's not art photography).

AndyW17 wrote:

My gut says to go for the 105...

The 105mm macro has an extremely narrow DOF at close range, even at f/22 the DOF is less than 1 cm. You can download the lens manual from Nikon's website, there's a DOF chart in the back.

I would think the 70-200mm would be the perfect range, and you have the flexibility of a zoom.

Thanks - lesson learned. Check the specs and understand them. I actually have two of the 70-200's right now. I have an older sigma version (HSM II 2.8 VR macro) which I'm going to try out before forking out any cash.

The 105mm Micro-Nikkor will have the exact same DOF as the 70-200mm @ 105mm.

 

[chuxter]

Thanks. I will look into that lens. I should also mention that I have a Sigma HSM II 70-200 2.8 MACRO lens with VR that I was planning to sell. I'm sure it's not up to the quality of the 105, but would that serve the purpose? I'll have to get that out and see what it can do on this front.

 

[AndyW17]

Thanks. I will look into that lens. I should also mention that I have a Sigma HSM II 70-200 2.8 MACRO lens with VR that I was planning to sell. I'm sure it's not up to the quality of the 105, but would that serve the purpose? I'll have to get that out and see what it can do on this front.

 

[chuxter]

Thanks. I will look into that lens. I should also mention that I have a Sigma HSM II 70-200 2.8 MACRO lens with VR that I was planning to sell. I'm sure it's not up to the quality of the 105, but would that serve the purpose? I'll have to get that out and see what it can do on this front.

--
Andy

Both the Tamron and Sigma lenses w/ "MACRO" labels are not actually macro lenses. Their marketing heads liked that term better than "close focusing". :-(

A REAL macro lens is designed quite differently. One of the BIG differences is that a REAL macro lens doesn't focus too close, because the lens then becomes an impediment to getting light on the subject!

In addition to the Nikkor 105mm lens, which is excellent, also consider the Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 105mm. Both are quite good.

Light will be your biggest headache. I suggest a light designed for macro work, such as a "ring light". They can be either small flash tubes or LEDs. If your pictures of injuries will involve the face of humans, consider that a flash going off can be quite disturbing. There are a LOT of special setups for dentists that you should look at. Google is your friend...

Ha - yes exactly. "Close Focusing" is what it is. The Sigma will allow me to get closer to my subject (3') and still focus than the Nikon version (4.6'). The micro nikon 105 is 12".

Would that mean the closer focus of 12" is going to yield a larger image on the sensor than taking the same thing with the 200mm at 3'?

And I hear you on the ring light. Thank you.

You are welcome. I have a couple of Sigma lenses that are labeled "MACRO". They are good lenses but not in any way a true macro lens.

Be aware that some LED ring lights have a poor color temperature. "White" LEDs are actually UV LEDs with a phosphor in front that gets excited by the UV and radiate a collection of colors. Sometimes, the phosphor doesn't have much red. You can find good ones, but you have to ask the right questions.

--
Andy

 

[merops]

...

Ha - yes exactly. "Close Focusing" is what it is. The Sigma will allow me to get closer to my subject (3') and still focus than the Nikon version (4.6'). The micro nikon 105 is 12".

...

Remember that the 12" is from the subject to the sensor plane. The working distance (from the subject to the front element of the lens) is only half that (in the case of the Nikon 105 mm).