| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Joyce (Tomj)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 - 8:35 pm: | 
|
Takes more time to play games than do the job. Which seems to lead to billing`problems etc, etc |
Tom Toll (Tom)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 - 7:48 pm: |
|
What is absolutely amazing is the fact that 35mm photos can be doctored as easily or more so than digital. What cannot be doctored is a video tape with the date and time counter running constantly. I am using the digital camera and the digital video more and more. If anyone suspects a doctored digital still from me, they have a problem when I show my video of the same thing. The comment that those who would take the time to doctor a photo would be inclined to doctor an estimate. With that I agree. Why would one do that. You can make a decent living just working claims and doing things right, no need to deceive. |
Jim Flynt (Jim)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 - 11:23 am: |
|
Peter, isn't it true that an adjuster who would "doctor" a photo is in all likelihood also going to use that same computer to "doctor" his estimate?
Perhaps then, we should eliminate both potential problems by outlawing computers, estimating software, and digital cameras?
In the alternative, perhaps vendors and carriers should seek to only hire adjusters who believe in and engage in fair, honest, and ethical behavior with a proven history of integrity.
We as a business community, must take every step to police our own so that one or two "bad apples" don't force carriers to take steps which hurt us all. |
Peter Burch (Stormcrow)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 - 11:13 am: |
|
Maybe we should ask not whether digital photos are dead, but should they be. Any computor literate 5 year old could doctor a photo. Eventually the companies are going to find that these photos will not stand up in court and that there may adjusters who are willing to do what they have to so the photo fits the claim. |
John A. Postava (Johnp)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2000 - 2:33 am: |
|
I began this thread about two months ago and it has been great reading all of the wonderful comments made from all CADO readers. We will continue to make the software programs that we (SIMSOL) create, to handle digital photos so adjusters can use the technology and get on with the business of handling claims. Thanks for all of your great responses and I will see you all "somewhere down the road"... |
Tom Toll (Tom)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2000 - 11:13 pm: |
|
Digital photos are not dead. Wife and I use the Sony Mavica F-83. Works great in or outdoors. Flash variables allow good interior shots. We use glossy paper, .54 cents per sheet, but get 4 shots per page with explanation. That gives us 3.10 profit per sheet and they look like 35mm photos. We use a Sony digital camera on commercial losses and can take photos from the video with a device called "Snappy". Works great. We use Microsoft Publisher to print the photos. I made a template for 2 photos or 4 photos per page. We use the HP printers and they kick out 1 page per minute of excellent color photos. The companies are impressed with our photos as is the vendor we work for. We spend a little more money for the glossy paper, but aren't we supposed to be professionals?? |
Don Elkinton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2000 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Still use 35mm. Heard about covering all of flash and cutting out small circle in the middle for 70 series Sony's. Just a thought. |
John Johnson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2000 - 10:50 pm: |
|
I got on the bandwagon 2 years ago and purchased a
Sony Mavica digital. I have never been happy with it taking interior shots simply because of the flash overpowering the lens which results in poor quality photos.I have tried the numerous suggestions of placing tape over the flash, putting my finger over the flash, etc. etc...nothing seems to work. Consequently, I have gone back to my trusty 35mm Cannon AE-1 with its family of assorted normal, wide angle and zoom lenses. Am currently experimenting with scanning the 35mm prints into my computer and printing the scanned images on my HP DeskJet 722-C. Have recently purchased a Pansonic Camcorder and looking forward to using it on assignments.
In all fairness to the Sony Mavica, I have had a lot of luck using it outside. The 10X lens is great for zoom shots. |
MKDCO
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2000 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Big Cat Man,
Thanks for the reply. You put it the way I was trying to come out with. As I said, not sure if it would be clear or make sense.
When you transmit a digital photo attached to E-mail does the receiver print a copy or work the file from E-mail and then print the file and photo's out. The matter of altered photo's is already understood and YES it can be done.
Don't use digital yet but working in that direction as fast as funds allow. |
big cat man
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 23, 2000 - 9:21 am: |
|
What is the question is it if you transmit a digital photo attached to email does the reciever print a copy , or do they work the file from there email and then print it ? IS your other question about whether digital photos can be altered , The answer is yes . Could you repost your question to clarify it. |
MKDCO
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2000 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Here is a question concerning the path of a digital photo. HOPE this makes sense.
When a photo is taken and attached to a file and sent to whomever, does the receiver print the photo along with the report at that time or save it till they are ready to work the submitted file. The concern is altered digital photo's that are recieved by the receiver of the file. Must still be a concern for some Ins. Companies and or legal buffs of the companies.
Now don't all give an answer at once but please sent it to my E-mail address so I can pass it along to the guy who asked me the question. Thanks |
Tom Toll (Tom)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, March 19, 2000 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Janice and I both have the Sony Mavica 83 cameras. We took hundreds of photos in NC and not one bad photo. Janice uses a HP 93C printer and i use a 2000C HP. We use glossy photo paper with 4 photos and explanation blocks. We use the glossy because it processes a professional looking photo. Yep, it costs more, but what the heck, we are supposed to present professional photos for our vendors and their clients.
I use a Sony video camera on the large losses and complex residential losses. It backs me up if litigation/appraisal is a possibility. You can extract still photos from the video you take by using a piece of hardware called Snappy. No capture board required and the photos are excellent quality. Use a video and you can have many, many, different claims on a cartridge of tape. Just index the end of each segment and make a note on the file and you can buzz right to it. If you have any questions on the video camera, send me an e-mail with your question.
Janice and Tom |
Gale Hawkins
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, March 13, 2000 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Digital photos are dead w/o question it is clear to see based on the run of the mill digital cameras in use today. Below is a paragraph from the current issue of Forbes that explains more about the future of digital.
This year, as new semiconductor plants come on line, digital cameras are expected to pass the 4-million-pixel threshold. That will mean pictures good enough to be hardly distinguishable from those taken with film, even when blown up to poster size. By 2002 or 2003, Ono predicts digital cameras will overtake film in resolution. It will take another couple of years beyond that to match film's "latitude," the feeling of depth in the pictures, he added. At that point, he says, the alliance with the camera companies will mean extra benefits, as lens quality becomes more important.
For the complete article go to http://www.forbes.com/forbes/00/0320/6507078a.htm |
Bill Michel
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, March 08, 2000 - 10:34 pm: |
|
My two cents here: Use a Mavica 81, and really like it except for the fact that if the sun is bright, you are in deep du,du. What you see is what you get. Under low light conditions, you are going to have to have light in order to see something, then you use the flash. Works good at night if you have to get a snap of an intersection.No flash needed here. It takes some adjustment gettingused to, but it is IDIOT-PROOF, okay. I use it for close ups of damaged auto parts on extended warranty claims, and it does a good job. |
Dave
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2000 - 11:00 am: |
|
Leonard,
The better cameras have controls that can be set for different usages. Its the same difference between a 15.00 point and shoot 35MM and a Rolli or Hasselblad, costing 3000.00.
The digital cameras range in price from 60.00 to 2500.00+.
One of the most popular among the adjusting community is the Sony Mavica series, using 3.5 disks.
The upper end of this line , like the 91 has settings which can be used to compensate for conditions, and is also fully automatic. We usually do not have any problems , after reading and understanding the directions, (always a last resort, for us).
The quality of the equipment , coupled with the proper operator usage will dictate the outcome.
Good equipment+proper usage= Great finished Product |
Leonard
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2000 - 8:13 am: |
|
O.K., now you guys are scaring me. I am not a camera buff and have no interest in becoming one. I have no idea what an f-stop is and don't really care. I use a fully automatic Canon Snapshot most of the time and a Canon EOS Rebel II (also fully automatic) in special situations.
I have been thinking about going digital, but it never occurred to me that they were not fully automatic. I have read what ya'll have said and looked at some of the reviews on the net and in the mags and have even looked at a few of them. Even then, I didn't notice any controls (if that's what you call them) to make changes with. What's the poop? |
Harold J. Geoffrey
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2000 - 6:47 am: |
|
The previous post is an excellent way to prevent over exposure. I have also experienced this when I use my flash. I sometime get better results not using my flash at all. The problem with using software programs to touch up your photo's is that we mostly take the photos in an estimating program making it difficut to change and then import to the claim file. What may look good on your screen does not always print well. The key is lighting, next time try taking the several photo's from differant angles or perspectives. Try a close up to illustrate a stain or defect. I would also use a white card next to the stain to illustrate staining or color shift. Through trial & error and knowing your equipments limitations will assist you in the future on similar losses. |
Dave
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2000 - 11:22 pm: |
|
The camera should be checked for proper aperture setting if you are over exposing.
Sometimes it is better to under expose and then brighten the photo, or do the reverse, shoot the way you are and darken the picture with software, like Adobe. Try not using the flash on the interior and see what happens.
Another way to resolve the problem , if you are using a SONY Mavica, is to place a piece of black electrical tape across the center of the flash, eliminating about 1/2 of the area.
Also , if this happens all the time, shoot one and then check it, if you can, easy with SONY. |
GNewman
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2000 - 10:35 pm: |
|
I started using digitial photography last year . Once I bought a new printer I could not be happier with the results . However there is one problem I cannot seem to overcome . Without fail everytime I take a shot of a white ceiling to show stains ,cracks , etc. , I get what looks like flash rings or some type of discoloration . I am not sure what the proper term would be but the pictures of ceilings almost always turn out bad . Does anyone else have this problem ? If so , any suggestions on how to cure this problem . Any info would be helpful . |
Jim Flynt
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2000 - 4:59 pm: |
|
You're also saving a trip to Walmart to drop off film, a trip back to pick it up, and standing in line to pay. I figure that is a minimum of one hour a day, and our time is worth something which can be measured in dollars.
Plus you avoid the ever present, and sometimes event, of having Walmart or some other photo finisher losing your film or getting yours mixed up with someone else's! (The nude photos from New Jersey of the honeymoon couple were interesting that one time though!) |
Harold J. Geoffrey
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2000 - 2:13 pm: |
|
There is a considerable savings in using digital photo's of about 20-50 cents per photo depending on your equipment. Little or no equipment wear and flexibility. The key is to produce good photo's and know your equipments limitations. In 35mm format the benchmark is clear unlike digital in which quality varies per individual. As stated in the earlier posts we need to be consistant in providing good photo's or the industry will prohibit or limit thier use. |
murray
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2000 - 11:04 am: |
|
Just a thought if you have to print the photos from digital what are you realy saving in hard dollars ? time? storage? mailing ? What is the true value of the photos you take? court cases ? show what you see? limit fraud? because the insurance company tells us to? |
Scott A. Wiens
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 9:48 pm: |
|
I think by reading the comments on this discussion it is easy to see that Digital Photos are here to stay. I think John raises a good point regarding quality of pictures. A digital photo is only as good as the quality of the camera, the resolution is it taken in, the color setting of the computer, the type of printer, the quality of the print mode, and the quality of the paper it is printed on. The great thing is that all one has to do is look back 2 or 3 years ago and see what kind of equipment was available then and then look at the present. It won't be long until the quality will be at the level of the 35mm.
I also like Harold's comment about taking 35mm pics but not developing them in the outside chance of litigation. I have heard more than one adjuster say they follow that procedure.
Scott |
cfdeaton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Digital photos and digital storage are changing the way business is done. Digital photos are not going to go away because of digital storage. There will still be uses for other imaging processes, but digital, in some form, will be the most used.
In regards to claims, digital probably will see more use in auto damage claims, run of the mill residential property claims and less in liability. Court testimony is and has always been based on the testimony of individuals. If you are willing to testify that images were not altered then some will have to testify that in their opinion the images were altered.
Companies will make the same decisions as to what adjuster to hire. The ones that do an acceptable job will be retained and used again and the ones that consistently produce bad results, whether that be bad images, bad estimates or are just consistently bad tempered, well we all know who it is that doesn't work.
Digital in many forms is changing the world we live in and digital imageing is part of it.
This web site is, in a sense, digital imageing. |
Harold J. Geoffrey
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 1:32 pm: |
|
I too, believe that digital photo's have problems. I almost never use them in a liability loss to eliminate the possibility of the manipulation argument being raised. I cannot comprehend why this would be an issue since there is no valid motive an independant adjuster would do so. I have in cases in the past taken both digital and 35mm but did not develope the film. I kept the film in the file in the event the file went into litigation. I still use digitial photos in most of my property losses. I use a sony dsc f55 and an Alps dye sublimation printer for my photo's. The Sony has Carl Zeiss optics and a rotating head to facilitate tight or cumbersome locations. It's small enough to fit into your pocket. The disadvantage is that the storage media is memory sticks as oposed to disk. A memory stick can hold in excess of 250 photo's, more that most of use can use in one day. It also has MPEG movie capabilities. Image size can be as high as 2.1 mega pixals or 1600 X 1200 resolution.
My printer is an ALPS, resolution is up to 2400 DPI Ink and does not smudge when wet because it is wax. Photo's are great, closest I have seen to 35mm. The ink cassettes are inexpensive about $20 for a 125-150 photos and uses regular paper. The printer is small and is only sold at Comp USA. I do not reccommend this being your only printer as it is costly to do just black and white. I use my HP 3100 laser jet, excellent machine(fax, scanner, copier, printer) very dependable. Cost: Sony camera $600-800 plus accessories, Alph Printer $550.00 , HP 3100 $600-750 toner cartriges run around $65 for 2500 prints. |
Tom Weems
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 11:56 am: |
|
How soon we forget. Until just a very few years ago, polaroids were the rule. There are still some companies out there that use them. The worst digital photo I ever took is better than polaroid. Sheeesh Digital photography is the wave of the present, not just the future.
My buddy that owns my hometown photo store told me that he has lost almost all of his business customers for developing. The hobbiest is the only user left for the most part. This trend will continue, and he is not happy about it.
If is up to us to turn out the best product we can. Remember, we are professional photographers too. Along with legal expert, social worker, computer guru, construction expert, etc... |
Clint Bell
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 11:39 am: |
|
I have a Sony FD81, which cost me dearly, I also use a HP-895-CXI printer and quality paper.
My photos are still "grainy" and exterior photos are somtimes very dark. I like the freedom of a digital, but have never been able to get 35 mil quality. The manual spent little time on this subject. Any suggestions: ie; photo program, usage, etc. Thanks in advance. |
Dick Benson
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 11:36 am: |
|
Digital Photo’s on they way out, I don’t believe so. I see two reasons that this will not happen.
1) The insurance industry is getting into the arena of paperless files, electronic transfer and the like. This step would be asking them to take a step backwards. Good luck on that one.
2) Convince me that 35 mm photo’s cant’s be “adjusted”.
Yes its true that the government agencies may require a 35-mm photo, the digital photo is not dead. In my opinion, it is just coming into its own. I would agree that there is a great deal of difference in the camera’s, printers, and the paper being used; the end product can rival a 35-mm photo. The digital photo is a change from 35 mm, as it was from black and white to color, from Polaroid’s to 35 mm.
I have been using digital photos for 5 years. I have never had an insurance co. complain. I have never heard a complaint from a government agency. I do realize that they are not universally accepted, but this evolution is inevitable in my opinion. If I am asked to take 35 mm pictures and told that digital photo’s are not going to be accepted, then, if I want that assignment opportunity I must accept giving 35mm photo’s to that client- but NO I don’t believe the digital photo is dead.
I have been using a Kodak camera, with a HP2000 printer and a bright white paper. Remember that your printer can only print out a certain quality. Sometimes you can over buy in one area and short yourself in another. Also remember; in the electronic transfer of photo’s the pixels are more important because electronic transfer does not limit pixels as a printer would. As was previously stated, purchase the proper equipment, but also know when to upgrade your equipment. As professionals we should carry both a digital camera and a 35-mm camera. Most will also have a video camera as well. Just my 2 cents worth. |
R.D. Hood
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 10:42 am: |
|
Since 1997, used SONY MVC-FD7 & and in 99 Use Sony MVD 91, both set to fine, use 94+ bright , 24 # paper and HP 890C and HP 970 CSE printers, with USB cable connections.
To date have received "0" complaints from any vendor/NFIP/WYO carrier.
We all suspected that this issue would be brought to light , when the lawyers got involved, always happens.
You are correct John, we must use the best equipment we can to avoid these problems, poor quality by some can afffect the industry, as in "One bad apple".
Also, on any loss that is suspect as to coverage, cause, or has representation, the file is also photographed with 35MM as a backup. What's a roll of film worth, in lieu of court time? |
cfdeaton
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 9:26 am: |
|
I use a Sony Camera,set on fine mode, an HP 2000c printer and use 24 lb 98 brightness paper; I carry a video camera and video tape and verbally scope any loss I think needs the treatment. I also take a lot of photos. Some I send to the company and some I don't, but I keep all of them. I am making the change to a HP color laser printer this year. |
Ron Smith
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 8:58 am: |
|
I use a Sony digital camera set on fine mode with an HP 895 printer set on the best quality and I use only 90 brightness or better paper. This combination has worked well for me and I save my floppy disks for a year after the inspection before I deep six them. |
John Postava
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 7:04 am: |
|
Yesterday this writer spoke with an upper level contact in the flood industry. This servicing company claims manager is planning to no longer accept digital photos on ANY FILE for any of the several WYO carriers they service. Several reasons were given; (1) the OGC (Office of General Counsel) dislikes digital photos due to the possibility of alteration (even a child can use editing software tools to change images), (2) Federal claims examiners can not "see" damages to the extent that claims can be paid with certainty from the examination level, and (3) the lack of uniformity in the quality of the photos.
If this one servicing agency proceeds with their plans not to accept digital images, I believe the other NFIP/WYO vendors will soon follow.
Is the digital photo, at least in the flood claims arena, doomed to go the way of the dinosaur? I hope not, but I do see their point.
During Floyd, our cat adjusting division had over 50 adjusters working up and down the East Coast. We received some great looking digital photos and we got some pathetic images that none of our examiners could decipher. We had to ask adjusters to return to the losses and re-take photos.
Unless independent and cat adjusters use only the BEST cameras, printers and paper, digital photos will be slowly driven out of the property insurance claims business.
Jim, Dave and Roy say it best - if you are serious about this business, get the BEST tools you can afford to make YOUR WORK PRODUCT the best it can be. And if you can't afford the best, save a little bit longer until you can!
The technological future of this business is in the hands of you, the frontline, field adjuster. If s/he submits a professional closing report (with exceptional digital images) to the carrier, the carriers will slowly adopt the same standards for their staff adjusters and the bar is then raised for the claims industry as a whole.
For those CADO member who submit true, 35MM-like, digital images (you know who you are!), help the others and post your photo imaging configurations (camera, printer, paper)so they can improve the quality of their images and help reinforce the perception of digital image as a reliable one for the property claims business. |
|
