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 Richard Quindry Photography
Work experience:
I’ve been self-employed as a commercial photographer for over 50 years. Photographic specialties include architectural, product, corporate location, and people photography, 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.
Corporations that I’ve done photography for include Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Sunoco, Nike, BASF, DuPont, Exxon Mobil, Firestone, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, GE Capital, Campbell Soup, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Mars Candy, Hershey’s, Nabisco, Royal Bank of Scotland, and several other multinational corporations.
I combine my skills as an advertising photographer and Photoshop expert to create pictures that make people, places, and products look their best for marketing and advertising. My work has received international recognition. In 2008, an eight-page article featuring an interview and 13 of my photographs appeared in Commercial Images, China’s leading commercial photography magazine. I was the only photographer featured in the 128-page issue who was not from China.
My website, Quindry.com, features before-and-after images demonstrating my retouching abilities. According to Google Analytics, my website received visits from 60 countries in 2024.
Training:
While still an engineering major at Penn State, I decided to become a commercial photographer. I switched majors to General Arts and Sciences. I commenced taking what photography courses I could, and any other classes I felt would help me establish a successful commercial photography business. At that time, I began the lifelong learning practice 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, including PhotoStyler, Impos/2, and Colorworks. I started using Photoshop around 1995 and have owned most versions of the program since then. I am now using Photoshop 2026. Some of the additional programs I routinely use to enhance and alter photographs are Adobe Lightroom, Phocus, Zerene Stacker, and many Photoshop plug-ins that add additional functions.
I have been doing digital photography since 2002 and estimate that, aside from the pandemic-related business slowdown, I take over 10,000 photographs a year.
I regularly view webinars on photographic lighting and Photoshop and purchase and study training videos.
In addition to the 200+ books on photography I have read, I have studied over 10,000 pages on Photoshop, including several books and academic papers on the forensic analysis of photographic images.
In 2008, I prepared a written report on 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 instrumental in securing 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 a written report stating my determination that the plaintiff’s photographic prints did not clearly and accurately represent what they depicted, and that the digital files should be examined to 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 give the legal team several facts that didn’t add up. The day before I was to travel to West Virginia to conduct on-site photographic analysis, 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 lying 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 a written report on this, the case was dismissed on technical matters.
In 2013, I provided a written report 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, a written report, and a deposition for Gray, Ritter & Graham in St. Louis for an Illinois case, Ellington vs. Arands Bros., LLC. It involved analyzing images taken by an accident investigator. A couple of photos showed what appeared to be indentations in the road, possibly left by 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. The enhanced image showed marks that clearly appeared to be 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 right of the centerline. It turned out that the small pickup wheels had 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 believed the photographic evidence presented against her clients had been digitally altered. After the plaintiff received instructions to retain her smartphone so the original photos taken with it could be examined by a photo forensic expert, 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 telltale signs 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 the 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 damage to a car resulting from 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, suggesting they were probably altered.
2019 – Condit Csajaghy LLC, Denver, CO
This was a child custody case that involved a claim of child abuse. I provided a written report that the photos provided showing discoloration on a child’s legs were shown not to 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 fluorescent room lighting on the other side.
2020 – Owens & Ross, Eureka, CA
Provided a written report 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 to determine whether there was fabrication of evidence, consisting of five product catalogs submitted by a corporation to the Court. It was a trademark infringement case tried in the Fourth Circuit. The evidence was falsified by altering and inserting images into existing catalogs with an image editing program. I found many instances where this occurred and showed where it was falsified in over 50 exhibits. It was a David-and-Goliath story, with two attorneys working from home against a five-billion-dollar corporation, backed by a nationally recognized law firm with 2,200 attorneys.
A motion for sanctions was made and awarded. The case was dismissed with prejudice.
An article mentioning my part in the case was published in “The American Lawyer.”
2021 – Gray, Ritter & Graham, St. Louis, MO
I was called again by a previous client. They provided me with PDFs of police photos of a car involved in an accident. The trunk was partially sprung open, revealing what could be a red plastic gas can in the shadows. There seemed to be some information printed on the can, but it was illegible, 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 matched the design, logo, and partially visible printing on the can 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 lawsuit between General Electric, the country of Angola, and Aenergy (Angola Energy) to be arbitrated in London before 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.
I was called on to analyze these documents to determine whether they were genuine, created in Photoshop, or had forged signatures. I proved they were created by altering the text of a scanned official document with Photoshop and showed how it was done. I also analyzed photos of these documents taken within hours of their creation. I determined that the photos were taken on an upper floor of a specific high-rise apartment building in Luanda, the capital of Angola.
2023 – Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.
I analyzed some photos for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I provided a written report showing that a photo of a facility that made it appear very close to the viewer was, in fact, almost 10 miles away and more closely resembled what you would see through a telescope. Other photos taken from the same location on the same day by the same photographer showed it was barely noticeable on the horizon.
2023 – Bateman Calinendo LLC, Horsham, PA
In a trip-and-fall lawsuit against the Philadelphia Housing Authority, I prepared a written report showing that photos submitted by the plaintiff’s attorney, intended to prove inadequate outdoor lighting of the exterior steps leading from the sidewalk to a house, did not establish any such thing and were not admissible as evidence.
2023 – Meyer | Nave, CA
Mitchell v. City of Hayward
A contractor working on a road for Hayward did half a million dollars in damage to the city’s sewer system. They claimed that photos taken at the work site by the contractor with their cell phones showed that the green paint markings that should have been sprayed on the curb and sidewalk to designate their presence were never applied, and that they should not be held responsible for the damages.
Within a couple of minutes, I was able to enhance the colors in their photos to prove that, indeed, they had been marked. I was able to take pale, not very noticeable markings in a photo showing a rather large area, and intensify the greens in the photos to make them jump out.
During a three-and-a-half-hour deposition from three of Mitchell’s attorneys, I pointed out that photos are not reality. Not noticing spray-painted markings a few inches across and probably an inch wide on the ground where you’re working for three weeks is different from being unable to notice it on a small photo showing an area twenty or fifty feet across, on an iPhone, or even a laptop. If not done well, photos can fail to capture much information. Just because a photo fails to show something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. All my software did was intensify the paint color in the photos, which was already there, but the photos that we were provided as evidence did not show well.
The court date was canceled within days, and an agreement to settle the case was reached.
2024 – Littler Mendelson P.C., Minneapolis, MN
OSHA v. Sabri Properties
A union submitted over 100 photos alleging safety violations at two non-union building sites.
My report revealed that metadata in all images had been altered and that a high percentage of the photos were deceptive due to their distant camera positions.
The case was amicably resolved.
2024 – Mennah Legal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
I was hired to determine whether a photo had been altered. After examining the lighting, shadows, and reflections for consistency, I determined it was not. An “expert” in France determined that it could have been retouched, vaguely referring to his interpretation of error-level analysis, a free method that can be found on the internet, which gives results that are often misinterpreted.
The person shown in the photo claimed that he had been digitally retouched into the photo, and that he had never been seated at a table with a document in this restaurant. I provided indisputable evidence that he indeed had, and the date and time that he was there.
2025 – Phillips-Black, Philadelphia, PA
I was hired to determine if two photographic exhibits taken by a police photographer of a murder victim and the related testimony by a policeman were altered. I determined that, due to improper police handling, the over-magnification of one of the digital images resulted in misleading digital artifacts. These digital artifacts were then incorrectly attributed in testimony to organic matter he claimed to be on the victim’s body.
2025 – Axley Attorneys, Waukesha, WI
A 40-million-dollar wrongful death lawsuit. An engineering firm, working from a previously taken amateur photo that showed a retaining wall a year before its collapse during after a record rainfall and flooding, concluded that the wall was visibly leaning long before its collapse and should have been noticed. Examination of the photo showed that the camera was tilted when the photo was taken and that everything in the photo was leaning, and that when the photo of the complete building was corrected in Photoshop to correct the verticals, that the wall was not leaning. Therefore, the owner of the building was not negligent. Even so, the jury awarded the plaintiff $5 million dollars. The insurance company’s attorney considered it a win.
2025 – Wicker Smith, Naples, FL
A woman was suing a hospital and surgical team for a botched mastectomy. A gruesome close-up “selfie” of the area included a drain tube. I was able to prove that the “drain tube” was composited in Photoshop and that the underlying image was an AI deepfake. The photo was not even of her. Within days after a four-hour deposition with her attorney, he realized that she was using fabricated evidence and filed an Emergency Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.