Given the proliferation of digital photography since the introduction of smart phones with high-resolution CCD sensors around 2006, legal trials increasingly rely on images in the presentation of evidence. Cameras and storage costs are so affordable now that people can install CCTV cameras in their own house and even have ‘dash cams’ in their vehicles recording their commutes in the event of a collision, in order to assign blame. It is common for motorbike and bicycle riders to record video from their helmets in order to record traffic infringements against them. People have quickly become conditioned to take photographs or videos if an event occurs that may have legal consequences, such as antisocial behaviour in public, suspicious behaviour (e.g. loitering, etc) or a traffic collision or workplace accident.

However as an added degree of complication, it is also increasingly easy to manipulate photographs, either as they are taken (via filters, AI image processing software) or afterwards via popular software such as Photoshop and Lightroom. Software on mobile phones can instantly ‘beautify’ a subject or add overlays, remove background objects, change the sky, or merge two or more photographs together, requiring no training or expertise from the photographer.

Consequently, police detectives and legal authorities are increasingly requiring photographic and video still images to be verified by experts in photograph and image analysis. Such experts rely on a detailed knowledge of the “image pipeline” from the CCD sensor to the final digital file in order to inspect and verify images. The process is analogous to ballistics in determining if a bullet came from a certain firearm.

This image pipeline is often broken down into six key areas:

  • Physics: shadows, lighting and reflections
  • Geometry: vanishing points, distances within the image and 3D models
  • Optical: lens distortion, chromatic aberration, inconsistent focus and bokeh
  • Image Sensor: fixed pattern noise and colour filter defects. It helps if the forensic expert has access to the camera that supposedly took the photograph, or at least the camera model so that the same imaging characteristics can be independently verified.
  • File format: metadata, file compression, thumbnails and EXIF and GPS markers
  • Pixel: scaling, cropping, cloned or resaving

Some of these principles will also apply to traditional analogous photography using film and wet developing. Just as there are automated image-manipulation tools, increasingly there are automated imagine-manipulation detection tools, such as algorithms that detect if areas of the photograph have been copied, erased or replaced. Facial recognition, based on geometrical proportions is another process that can be automated. Going forward, this “arms race” between manipulation and detection is set to continue and expand into the use of video footage.

At the bottom of this profile are brief details of a number of the experts that Expert Experts represents. Call our office to discuss your requirements and to obtain a recommendation that suits your needs and budget.

Expertise in Action

Experts in photograph / image analysis will be required to give their opinions in cases where photographic evidence is disputed e.g. it is alleged that an image has been manipulated to disguise or shift culpability. In addition, forensic examination of photographs and their underlying digital data may assist investigators in determining the time of day or location.

Sample Reports

For some fields of expertise we have some sample sections of de-identified reports. Please contact our office if you are interested in a sample.


The overall cost of expert opinion depends on the services required. Some of the key factors that affect the cost of advice include:

  • The need for a view or inspection of a location
  • The quantity of documentary material to be reviewed
  • Whether there are reports of other experts to be reviewed and commented on in detail
  • Whether there is a need for conferences with the expert either in person or by telephone/Skype
Relevant Articles Fake news, hoax images: How to spot a digitally altered photo from the real deal

Image forensic experts have a few tools to spot images that have been tinkered with. Algorithms can spot cloned areas.

Looking and knowing: Jurors and photographic evidence

Courts are now accepting expert evidence using new technological methods for ‘reading’ photographs. New technologies produce new ways of seeing. These technologies purport to mediate between the juror and the image, rendering legible, or visible, what was previously unclear. These techniques are supposed to narrow the gap between 'resemblance' and ‘recognition’. They are supposed to assist the jury to make a better determination of the facts.

Evidence against former police officer ‘intentionally’ tampered with, court told

Evidence against a former Gold Coast police officer whistleblower was allegedly “intentionally” tampered with, a court was told, amid claims that Queensland police pursued a charge against him as a reprisal.

The Reliability of CCTV Images as Forensic Evidence

Forensic evidence originating from CCTV images is admitted as evidence into various criminal courts in Australia and overseas. It is used predominately to identify persons of interest from images captured by CCTV cameras but other forms of forensic evidence and intelligence are also possible. Using a mixed method research design, this study examines the reliability of CCTV images when used as forensic evidence. A range of strategies including case studies, empirical experimentation and phenomenological inquiry is used to investigate the application of this new form of evidence. Understanding the reliability of evidence derived from photographic sources requires a highly complex interdisciplinary and multifaceted approach. This study has found serious reliability problems with the current use of CCTV images when used as forensic evidence. Serious miscarriages of justice are inevitable if the reliability of photographic evidence practices are not more carefully considered and validated.

Relevant Cases Wood v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 1247

The date and timing of photographs used as evidence as to where Caroline Byrne’s body was located at the base of The Gap, a matter that was crucial to differentiating between murder and suicide.

Related Blog Articles

A sample of our experts in Science - Photograph / image analysis

Below are short profiles of a few experts with expertise in this field. Please contact our office to discuss your specific requirements and to obtain a recommendation that suits your needs and budget. Expert Experts are experts in finding the right expert for your needs and you pay no more to use Expert Experts than if you searched and found the expert yourself.

Contact us at or give us a call 1300 72 66 55

Expert Experts sources experts in all disciplines for lawyers, insurers, government and industry across Australia


Since 2001 Expert Experts have been helping clients across Australia find the right expert to address their evidentiary requirements across many areas of law.

Let us help you save time and cost.

Contact Details

P.O. Box 20304
World Square 2004, NSW
Phone: 1300 72 66 55
Fax: 1300 72 66 33