Fore&c Science Intenzational 41 (1989) 225-235 225

Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ireland Ltd.

THE POSITIONING AND MAGNIFICATION OF FACES AND

SKULLS FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPERIMPOSITION

G.J.R. MAAT
Departmelzt of Anatomy. Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 24925, 13110 Safat
(Kuwaiti
(Received March l&h, 1987)
(Revision received April 5th, 1988)
(Accepted September 5th. 1988)

summcuy

In the identification of persons living or dead, or of skulls, the technique of photographic

superimpo’sition of laboratory images on existing original portraits has frequently been used.
The applicability of the technique and the confidegee in the results have always depended very
much on the professional acceptance and experience of forensic specialists. Defined precon-
ditions, improved methods and clear-cut directions on how to posture the head or the skull and
how to magnify its photographic laboratory image, not only help to standardize and simplify pro-
cedures, but also increase the accuracy and credibility of the resulting diagnoses. A systematic
approach with standard photographic equipment is presented. The validity of the results is dis-
cussed.

Key words: Identification; Photographic superimposition; Persons; Skulls

Introduction

For many years the technique of photographic superimposition of

laboratory images of persons, living or dead, or of skulls on existing photo-
graphic portraits has been widely used for identification. But the proper
depiction of size relationships between objects at different distances from
the camera or observer is controlled by geometric perspective. Conse-
quently, the relative sizes of the parts of a subject depend on their position
(location) in relation to the camera and lens. At the same time the absolute
size of the image depends on the focal length (or magnifying power) of the
lens. Applied methods in the literature range from “fitting in faces” by trial
and error via a series of photographic exposures to conditional superprojec-
tion with the aid of “advanced” double-video-systems [l-3]. Of course, the
reliability of the identification will increase considerably if objective (pre-)
conditio:ns are fulfilled, securing the most true comparison between the labo-
ratory image of the unidentified subject and the original photographic por-
trait. F’reconditions mentioned by previous authors include: (1) The

0379-0738/39/$03.50
0 1989 Elsevier Scientific Publishers Ireland Ltd.
Printed and Published in Ireland
226

preparation of the laboratory image should respect the principles of central

projection [1,4]. (21 The posture of head or skull should correspond to that of
the original portrait [l-11]. (31 The magnification of the laboratory image
should be the same as that of the original portrait [l-12]. Indeed, if all these
preconditions are fulfilled and if by superimposition the laboratory image
matches exactly the original portrait, then the evidence for identity is
strong.

Central projection
To respect the principle of central projection during the preparation of
the photographic laboratory image, the optimal result is obtained if the dist-
ance between the camera and the head or skull approximates most closely to
the distance from which the original photograph was taken. However, in
practice it is frequently difficult to estimate that particular distance. For
such cases, Griiner and Reinhard have shown that photographs may be
matched if taken from distances of 1.5 m or more [4]. Usually, portraits are
taken from a ‘safe’ distance of at least 1.75 m. A useless amateurish close-up
from too short a distance is easily recognized by the distortion of facial pro-
portions.

Posture
Few authors give directions on how to arrange the head or skull to a pos-
ture similar to that on the original portrait. A framework of triangles con-
structed from reference lines [1,4,5,7-91 and landmarks [1,4,5-lo] has been
mentioned in literature, but no directions were given for their use. In addi-
tion, a correction for the relative position of the mandible according to
Bankovski [13], viz. a small opening in the occlusal plane of approx. 2 mm
during relaxation, has also been used [1,5-g]. Finally, a complex geometrical
method has been developed to calculate projection lengths of anthropometric
distances, angles of rotation and inclination, in order to define the posture of
the head or skull with respect to the anatomical frontal plane [lo].

Magnification
Determination of the final magnification of the laboratory image of the
unidentified subject, the last step in image preparation, has always been
required to achieve the best fit with the original portrait. That enlargement
was accepted in which all visible landmarks of the superimposed image cover
their equivalents on the original portrait in the best possible way. Some
authors have calculated the magnification beforehand from known objects on
the original portrait [lo - 121.

Material

Original photographic portraits were available of a bearded male wearing

spectacles taken at the age of 28, and of a missing female taken at the age of
 227

about 18 years. As with the first case, the snapshot of the second case had
probably been made with a standard 35mm single-lens-reflex camera with a
standard lens having a focal length of about 50 mm. Photographic laboratory
images were made with a common 6 x 6-cm single-lens-reflex camera with a
horizontal ground glass for focussing and a standard lens of 80 mm focal
length. Photographic laboratory images of the previously bearded male, now
without beard and without spectacles, and of the skull of the deceased fe-
male, were made at the ages of 39 and 18 years respectively. The age interval
between the existing portrait and the laboratory image of the male was
11 years. In the case of the female the age interval was several months up to
1 year. For photographic processing black-and-white roll films, matt and
transparent printing paper, and an enlarger were used. To position the fe-
male skull an auricular head spanner was used.

Method

The principles of the procedure are explained and illustrated primarily on

the basis of material from the male subject. All anthropometric reference
points and landmarks mentioned are those described by Martin-Saller [14].
The starting point in the procedure of photographic identification is an exist-
ing original photographic portrait, whether print or negative.

step 1
With the aid of a negative, an easy to handle matt print is made of the
original portrait. Dimensions of the print should be at least 9 x 12 cm.
Subsequently, the posture of the head on the original portrait is analyzed
with respect to the plane of projection, viz. the plane of the printed image,
and not with respect to the anatomical frontal plane of the individual. The
posture is characterised by three components of rotation. Component I: rota-
tion on a.horizontal axis parallel to the image. Usually this component is
interpreted as ‘bending the head forwards or stretching the neck back-
wards’. Component II: rotation on a vertical axis, also parallel to the image.
Usually t.his is interpreted as ‘turning the face sideways’. Component III:
rotation on an axis perpendicular to the printed image. This will be interpre-
ted as ‘rolling the head sidewards’. The latter component needs no analysis,
as the rotation is parallel to the plane of the original portrait and to the
plane of t.he laboratory image in preparation. It can be corrected by rotating
the print.
In general, the amount of rotation of any component can be analysed
exactly by marking the positions of three relevant anthropometric land-
marks in the plane of projection, viz. on the matt print of the original portrait
of step 1. The relative positions of these landmarks can be further accen-
tuated by reference lines through each, parallel to the axis of the rotation-
component to be analysed (Figs. 1 and 2).
Fig. 1. Existing original photographic portrait of a male, 28 years old. A framework of horizontal
and vertical reference lines is shown together with their landmarks. Step 1.2 and 3.

Step 2
Analysis of component I, ‘bending of the head’, is best shown by choosing
three landmarks: one or two from the anterior part of the head and one or
two from the posterior part of the head. Through these landmarks, parallel
reference lines are drawn horizontally on the matt print of step 1.
For instance, in the identification of a person, whether alive or dead (Fig.
11, one anterior line through the subnasale, and two posterior lines, one
through the superaurale and one through the subaurale, mark component I.
In the case of a skull (Fig. 41, one posterior line through the porion, and two
anterior lines, e.g. one through the nasion and one through the nasospinale
are suggested. Only those craniometric landmarks can be used which are
near the cephalometric landmarks of the original portrait.
Fig. 2. Photographic laboratory image of the individual shown in figure 1 at the age of 39 years.
Step 4 and 5.

step 3
Analysis of component II, ‘turning of the face sideways’, is effected by
choosing three landmarks: one or two anteriorly, and one or two posteriorly.
The related reference lines should be drawn vertically parallel on the matt
print of step 1. The chosen landmarks do not have to be the same as those of
step 2.
For instance (Fig. 11, one anterior line through the pronasale, and two pos-
terior lines, e.g. through left and right ektocanthions mark rotation-compo-
nent II. In the case of a skull (Fig. 41, three lines can be chosen out of those
running through the nasion, gnathion, gonion, porion and the orbitale super-
ius [15].
Step 4
The resulting reference-framework with its landmarks and lines from
steps 2 and 3, all drawn on the original portrait of step 1, are transferred to
the ground glass of the laboratory camera.
This can be carried out either directly by tracing the reference framework
with ink while viewing through the camera [5], or indirectly by a photo-
graphic negative or a positive transparency of the framework laid on the
ground glass of the camera. It is essential in the preparation of an indepen-
dent photographic laboratory image, that the original portrait is not used.

Step 5
Viewing the marked ground glass of step 4, the person or skull to be
matched (identified1 is positioned according to the preconditions set by the
reference-framework with its landmarks. This is facilitated by marking the
landmarks on the head or skull with ink. The photographic laboratory image
is recorded from a distance of at least 1.5 m and preferably from (approxi-
mately) the same distance as used for the original portrait.
The position of the head or skull now corresponds to that of the original
portrait (Fig. 21.

Step 6
With an enlarger, the negative of the laboratory image of step 5 is super-
imposed on the original portrait of step 1 so that two distant landmarks of
the negative fit their counterparts on the original portrait. At that magnifi-
cation a positive transparency of the negative of the laboratory image is
made.
The magnification of the laboratory image is the same as that of the
original portrait, at least between the two selected points.

Step 7
As in step 6 the transparent laboratory image is superimposed on the
original portrait of step 1 (Figs. 3 and 41. Congruity is tested by the study of
all landmarks, contours, naevi, scars, etc. One should be aware of age-
dependent changes. A flip-over can be made.

DiSCUSSi0l.l

Even if the first precondition, the principle of central projection, is

respected, the rule of a minimum photographic distance of 1.5 m is important
[4]. In practice, if too short a photographic distance is used to make the labo-
ratory image, the contour of head or skull does not fit into the original por-
trait. The contour differs and the peripheral parts of the head are missing
while the facial proportions fit well. This is because at a smaller distance a
more anterior part of the head is recorded (Fig. 51. In such a case the ears
are obscured by the cheeks. An increased photographic distance dramatically
improves the result.
 231

Fig. 3. Superimposition of laboratory image of Fig. 2 on original portrait of Fig. 1. Step 6 and 7.

For the second precondition, the posture of the head, previous workers
have used a framework of triangles constructed from reference lines to
record spatial orientation [1,4,5,7-991. Such a framework requires a centering
point in the midline of the face and two symmetrical landmarks as angular
points. The present framework uses parallel lines in two perpendicular direc-
tions through any suitable landmark, and offers a simple step by step analy-
sis of the posture of the head in the plane of projection, i.e. the print.
Symmetry of landmarks is not required. Unless the original portrait is that
of a toothless aged person, the importance of the relative position of the
mandible is negligible [13]. Another method, a system of geometrical calcu-
lations defining the anatomical posture of head and/or skull and its projec-
tion [lo], complicates the procedure unnecessarily by not marking directly on
the prints: the method did not produce central projection as the position of
the camera was found by trial and error.
 232

Fig. 4. Superimposition of laboratory image of the skull of an 18-year-old female on he r original

portrait, also taken at age of 18 years.

1
?t
level of
contour
4
camera
t
camera

Fig. 6. View from above. Diagram explaining why photographs taken from different distances
show different contours of the head. Short-distance photographs do not show coronal contours
and portions of the head.
 233

The achievement of the proper magnification for superimpositioning is

also basic to correct evaluation of identity. The larger the separation of the
two relevant landmarks in step 6, the more accurate is the magnification of
the picture. If relatively small dimensions such as the incisors are used for
references, a wide range of magnifications appears acceptable [lo- 121. The
relative size, not the natural one, of faces and/or skulls is required for
accurate superimpositioning. Although individual characteristics of the face,
such as naevi, scars, etc., should not be used for positioning and determina-
tion of magnification, they are of great value in the final step of identifica-
tion (step 71[16]. They make the diagnosis conclusive, because they represent
the unique details of an individual. Even uniovular twins differ in their
naevi. After proper superimposition, retouched portraits can be detected
immediately. One should avoid the use of age-dependent characteristics [16].
Finally, the examination of all the latter features is much easier on photo-
graphic prints than with video images with their limited resolution.
For photographic laboratory images of skulls, the accuracy of the eventual
diagnose;3 will be less than for persons, as many characteristics are missing.
Head and face proportions, derived from anthropometric landmarks, and
contours provide the chief evidence. Support comes from age and sex deter-
mination of the skeletal remains. If additional recorded pathological changes
of bones or other peculiarities, e.g. teeth, can be confirmed, the identification
may be conclusive. Otherwise phrases such as ‘the skull could very well
have belonged to . . . ‘; or, ‘the skull could definitely not have belonged to
. . . ’ must be used. Finally, only a limited number of cephalometric land-
marks o:f the head lie close to the craniometric landmarks of the skull.
Small adaptations can be made to make them ‘equivalent [14]. Suit-
able combinations of cephalometric-craniometric landmarks are: nasion-
nasion; ;subnasale-nasospinale; gnathion-gnathion; (gonion-gonion); highest
point on the lower border of the eyebrow-oribitale superius [15]; tragion-
porion.
The hypothesis underlying this procedure of analysis is that, if a head or a
skull has been positioned and magnified according to independent data pre-
dicted by an existing original portrait (steps 5 and 61, the resulting photo-
graphic laboratory image only fits every detail of that original portrait if the
identification is correct. Given the individual variability in head proportions
and facial characteristics, it is unlikely that someone else will also meet all
the demands of step 7 after this strict procedure.

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges J.H. Lens and J. Hall for the photography,
Mrs. M.E.F. Hall for correction of the English manuscript, J.D’ Almeida his
secretary and A. Honders of Rijkspolitie, District Utrecht, The Netherlands.
234

Glossary of Cephalometric and Craniometric Landmarks

Ektocanthion The point at the outer commissure of the eye fissure.

Ektoconchion The point on the lateral margin of the orbit marking
the greatest breath, measured from maxillofrontale.
Gnathion The lowest median point on the lower border of the
chin.
The lowest median point on the lower border of the
mandible.
Gonion The most lateral point on the mandibular angle.
The most lateral point on the curve marking the
transition between body and ascending ramus of the
mandible.
Maxillofrontale Where the prolongation of the anterior lacrimal crest
crosses the maxillofrontal suture.
Nasion The point in the middle of the nasal root.
The point in the middle of the nasofrontal suture.
Nasospinale The level of the lower margin of right and left nasal
apertures, projected to the midline.
Orbitale superius The highest bony point on the upper margin of the
orbit.
The highest point on the lower border of the eyebrow
1151.
Porion The most lateral point on the roof of the external
auditory meatus.
Pronasale The most protruded median point on the tip of the
nose.
Subaurale The lowest point on the free margin of the ear lobe.
Subnasale The apex of the angle where the lower border of the
nasal septum and the surface of the upper lip meet.
Superaurale The highest point on the free margin of the auricle.
Tragion The notch on the upper margin of the tragus.
Tragus The prominence in front of the external opening of
the ear.

References

1 R. Helmer and 0. Griiner, Vereinfachte SchHdelidentifizierung nach dem Superprojek-

tionsverfahren mit Hilfeeiner Video-Anlage. 2. Rechtsmed, 80 Wi’7) 183- 18’7.
2 R. Helmer and 0. Grfiner, Schiidelidentifizierung durch Superprojektion nach dem Verfahren
der elektronischen Bildmischung, modifiziert zum Trickbild-Differenz-Verfahren. 2.
Rechtsmed, 80 (1977) 189-199.
3 R. Helmer, Bildanalyse per elektronischer Bildmischung. Ktimidis tik, 40 (1985) 7 - 8.
4 0. Griiner and R. Reinhard, Eine photographischen Verfahren zur Schiidelidentifizierung.
D&h. Zeitachr. Geriehtl Med, 47 (1959) 247-258.
5 0. Griiner and G. Schulz, ijber eine Vereinfachung der photographischen Schiidelidenti-
fizierung. Beitr. GerichtL Med, 26 (1989) 132- 137.
 235

6 A. Malinowski and R. Porawski, Identification einer unbekannten Leiche mit Hiife sogen-
annter “Superprojektion” und anthropologischer Indices. D&h. Zeitschr. GerichtL Med, 60
(1967) 142- 148.
7 G. Schulz, Zur Methodik der photographischen SchHdelidentifizierung bei Verwendung
eines IJmkehrfarbfilms. Arch. KriminoL, 158 (1976) 15- 17.
8 G. Vogel, Zur Identifizierung unbekannter Toter. I. Krimiuulistik, 21 (1967) 630-634.
9 G. Vogel, Zur Identifizierung unbekannter Toter. II. Kriminulistik, 22 (1968) 187- 189.
10 P.A. Janssens, Chr. Fr. Hiinsch and L.L. Voorhamme, Identity determination by superimpo-
sition with anthropological cranium adjustment. 0.~~7, 5 (1978) 109- 122.
11 P. Chandra Sekharan, A revised superimposition technique for identification of the individ-
ual from the skull and photograph. J. Ctim&.ol Law, CtiminoL Police Sci. 62 (1971) 107-
113.
12 J.J.I. McKenna, N.G. Jablonski and R.W. Fearnhead, A method of matching skulls with
photographic portraits using landmarks and measurements of the dentition. J. Forensic
Sci, 89 (1984) 787 - 797.
13 J.M. Elankovsky, Die Bedeutung der Unterkieferform und-stellung fir die photographische
Sch&MdentifizieIzcng. Thesis, Frankfurt/Main, 1958.
14 R. Martin and K. Saller, Lehrbuch der Anthropologic. Bd. 1, Fisher Verlag, Stuttgart,
1957.
15 L.G. Farkas, Anthropometry of the Head and Face in Medicine, Elsevier, New York, 1981.
16 H.-J. Hammer, H. Hunger and D. Leopold, Zur Anwendbarkeit morphologischer Gesi-
chtsmerkmale bei der Identification. Krim. Fore&s&e Wise., 44 (1981) 111- 120.