Richard Quindry
1034 Campbell Way
Hatfield, PA 19440

(215) 368-9260

Education: 1969 – 1973 BA – Pennsylvania State University

Employment: 1973 – 1974 Substitute teacher, School District of Philadelphia
1974 – present Owner/Photographer at Rich Quindry Photography

Work experience:

I’ve been self-employed as a commercial photographer for 49 years. Photographic specialties include architectural photography, product photography, corporate location photography, and the photography of people, both in the studio and on location. Skills include the use of numerous types of professional cameras, lighting both in the studio and on-site using various types of sources, film and print development, darkroom operation, digital photography, digital and conventional retouching, Photoshop, and many other computer programs for photography, and the ability to calculate the relative position of the sun for any location on earth at any date and time.

Clients that I’ve worked for include Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Sunoco, Nike, BASF, DuPont, Exxon Mobil, Firestone, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, GE Capital, Campbell Soup, The Franklin Mint, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Mars Candy, Hershey’s, Nabisco, Royal Bank of Scotland, and several other multi-national corporations.

While still an engineering major at Penn State, I decided that I would become a commercial photographer. I switched majors to General Arts and Sciences. I commenced taking what photography courses I could, along with any other classes I felt would help me establish a successful commercial photography business. At that time, I began the practice of lifelong learning that I still practice today.

I began programming computers in 1968, and I’ve had a personal computer since before the first IBM PC was manufactured. I started studying and using computer programs to digitally manipulate photos around 1992, using early programs including PhotoStyler, Impos/2, and Colorworks. I started using Photoshop around 1995 and have owned mosts versions of the program since then, and now am using Photoshop 2024. Some of the additional programs that I routinely use to enhance and alter photographs are Adobe Lightroom, Phocus, Zerene Stacker, along with many plug-in applications that add additional functions to Photoshop.

I have been doing digital photography since 2002 and estimate that with the exception of 2020 due to the business slowdown caused by the pandemic, I take over 20,000 photographs a year.

I regularly attend seminars and webinars on photographic lighting and Photoshop, in addition to self-study using training videos that I have purchased.

In addition to the 200+ books on photography that I have read, I have read over 10,000 pages on Photoshop alone, including several books and academic papers on the forensic analysis of photographic images.

In 2008 I prepared testimony as to the legitimacy of a photograph for a case in North Carolina: Carlucci v. KB Homes, et al. 07 CVS 10547 (Mecklenburg County), which my client credited as being instrumental in bringing a swift settlement before trial.

In 2009 I consulted with, did photography for, and prepared a letter for Saul Krenzel & Associates. The Pennsylvania case was Joanne Fiorella v. University City Housing Company, et al. CCP, Philadelphia County, November Term, 2008, No. 000943. I gave written testimony stating my determination that the plaintiff’s photographic prints were not a clear and accurate representation of what they depicted and that the digital files were required to examine them for tampering and produce more reliable prints. The case settled a few days later.

In 2011 I consulted with the Wood Law office in Charleston, WV, on a criminal case. They believed their client was being framed for a burglary, and the evidence was a series of images taken by a “hidden security camera”. The individuals bringing the charges were related to a local official who claimed “he had several witnesses that would testify” that the images showed their client committing the crime. I analyzed hidden data in the photos and the camera’s specs to provide the legal team with several facts that didn’t add up. The day before I was to travel to West Virginia to do a photographic analysis on-site, all charges were dropped.

In 2012 I was hired by John Masterson of Roth Gerber in Casper, Wyoming, to examine evidence that appeared to show a Deacon in the Catholic church in the bed of a parishioner who claimed she was forced into a sexual relationship. I determined that his head was photoshopped onto another man’s body. Before I finished the written testimony on this, the case was dismissed on technical matters.

In 2013 I provided testimony for Joseph P. Simon, an attorney in Kirkwood, Missouri, concerning the case of Phineas. This yellow Labrador Retriever was to be put down for supposedly viciously attacking a young girl. Upon examination of the photographic evidence, I found that the photos of the bite marks were extremely misleading. Phineas won his case.

In 2014 I provided photogrammetric analysis, written testimony, and deposition for Gray, Ritter & Graham in St. Louis for an Illinois case, Ellington vs. Arands Bros., LLC. It involved the analysis of images taken by an accident investigator. A couple of photos revealed what appeared to be indentations in the road by what could have been a wheel. The insurance company claimed they were oil marks. They claimed the driver was on the wrong side of the road before he was killed on a two-lane road by a truck carrying a combine which sheared off the top of the pickup he was driving and killed the driver. Enhancing an image showed marks that clearly looked like there was a disruption of the road’s stone surface. Calculations revealed that the two marks were approximately 5.9 inches apart and 38 inches to the centerline’s right. It ended up that the wheels on the small pickup had wheels with a 6″ width (which I did not know when I made the measurements). The case was settled shortly before trial. I learned that the client was thrilled with the settlement.

In 2014 I also provided consultation and analysis for a Las Vegas attorney, Jennifer Pandullo. She felt that photographic evidence provided against her clients was digitally altered. After the plaintiff received instructions that she had to retain her smartphone so the original photos taken with it could be examined, she “lost” her phone about a week later.

In 2015 I was hired by attorney Michael Regan of Shelburne, VT, concerning skid marks in an accident case on Long Island. He was concerned that one set of photos showed skid marks, and another set taken later by another collision investigator did not show all of the skid marks. He purchased the same model camera on eBay, and I took a collection of photos of a skid mark where I live. I demonstrated that at certain angles to the sunlight, skid marks were not visible in photos, even at close distances.

2016 – Zenaida Lockard, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Southern District of Ohio
I analyzed an image and testified in federal court, showing that a photograph presented by the prosecution was not an original out-of-camera image. I pointed out tells in the picture that proved it had been composited from two or more images and therefore was not an original photo.

2016 – Brad Cooper and Associates, Philadelphia, PA
A dispute over property line for liability. I changed the perspective from an image depicting a sidewalk after repair to line up and ghost over a photograph of the same sidewalk before repair taken from an entirely different angle. This formed an exhibit for a settlement conference.

2017 – Garcia Law, Key West, FL
Smith vs. Hertz Corp.
I analyzed and enhanced a series of photographs of body damage to a car due to an accident.

2018 – Cantey Hanger LLC, Fort Worth TX
I provided a report that photographs depicting drug use by hospital employees were fabricated using images of those pulled from their Facebook page with drug paraphernalia photos from other sources added in an image editing program.

2019 – Dunlevy Law Group, Decatur, GA
I analyzed a few photos of zoning notice signs in a land-use dispute. I found highly suspicious date stamps on the images that showed that they were probably altered.

2019 – Condit Csajaghy LLC, Denver, CO
This was a child custody case that involved a claim of child abuse. Photos provided showing discoloration on a child’s legs were shown to not be injuries at all, but merely misleading color shifts in the image that were caused by one side of the legs being lit by the light from the blue sky coming through a window on one side and interior room lighting on the other side.

2020 – Owens & Ross, Eureka, CA
Provided testimony that showed that a document was forged. Words were added to a scanned document by using an image editing program.

2020 – 2022 Bohn & Battey, PLC, Arlington, VA
I was called on to see if there was the fabrication of evidence submitted to the Court by the other side, by altering and inserting images with an image editing program. It was a trademark dispute tried in the fourth circuit. I found many instances where this took place and showed where it was done in over 50 exhibits. A motion for sanctions was made and awarded. The case was dismissed with prejudice.

2021 – Gray, Ritter & Graham, St. Louis, MO
I was called again by a previous client. They provided me PDFs of images taken by police of a car that was involved in an accident. The trunk was partially sprung open and revealed what might be a plastic gas can in the shadows. There seemed to be some information printed on the can, but nothing readable, even at high magnification. I was able to enhance the photo to the point of not only making the information readable but also revealing a partial logo. In addition to providing the enhanced photo, I searched the internet and found the matching gas can. The manufacturer’s name and photos of the can for sale, clearly matched the design, logo, and printing on the can partially visible in the trunk. All of this was completed in about one hour.

2023 – Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY
This case involved a 1.1 billion dollar lawsuit between General Electric, the country of Angola, and Aenergy (Angola Energy) to go into arbitration in London by a tribunal of judges. It involved what was believed to be a forged order of turbines to provide electricity to cities. These documents bore an official government seal and an official’s signature.