Evidence supplied by traditional photography is admissible to the courts so long as it is authenticated and date stamped. This accepted form of evidence is and must also provide proof of authentication and meeting
protocol
being replaced by videographers
being replaced by crime scene reconstruction animation
being replaced by security and surveillance cameras
responsible to provide only crucial photographs of the crime scene

being replaced by security and surveillance cameras

Explanation:

Video is able to show more of how a crime was committed and so is preferred by courts when it comes to criminal and civil proceedings. Photographs on the other hand, can sometimes be taken out of context which can wrongfully implicate a person.

For this reason therefore, the courts are moving more towards video from security and surveillance cameras which has led to these devices being more widely available and used in the world. For instance, London has 691,000 security and surveillance cameras to enable easier crime detection and evidence gathering.

Being replaced by videographers.

Explanation:

I'm not 100%  sure its the answer but I have had this question and I think I got it right!

alright no problem, cool