Page 42 - VERITAS Vol.2 Issue 2

The fingerprints were analysed on days 1, 7, 14, 21, and 28 consecu-

tively and compared with the control print.

The following scale was used to classify/grade the prints

Visibility Classification Ridge visibility and level-1,2,3 fea-

score of prints tures of fingerprint

value

5 Very good vis- Identifiable friction ridges across the
ibility (sweat print. Classifiable fingerprint pattern

control sample) (arch, loop, or whorl). Core and the mi-

nutiae are visible. Individual scars are

also visible.

4 Good Friction ridges are visible on the por-

visibility tion of the print. Identifiable pattern.
Partially visible minutiae and par-

tial merging of ridgelines. Very less

smudges found.

3 Poor Only two-thirds of the print has visi-

visibility ble friction ridges. Some parts of the

print may be smudged. Partially visi-
ble fingerprint pattern. Less prominent

appearance of minutiae and scars. The

core is visible and less merging of rid-

gelines.

2 Bad visibility Only one-third of the print has visible
friction ridges. Partially or less promi-

nent visible fingerprint pattern. No mi-

nutiae or scars are seen. The core may

or may not be seen. Smudges may be

present all over the print.
1 Blur/No print No print is visible or only the outline

of the print is visible

33 Veritas Volume: 2, Issue: 2