Dynamic Imaging

Name: Dynamic Imaging
Brand: Dynamic Imaging

Dynamic Imaging Systems, Inc. (Dynamic Imaging) provides imaging and corrections software for law enforcement and corrections, including mugshot capture and search (PictureLink), mobile inmate tracking (CorreTrak), fingerprint identification (PositiveID+), and facial recognition/case management (FOCUS), designed to integrate with existing JMS/RMS/LiveScan environments.

Est 1993|10 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 229|Website|FTEs 15|HQ Collingswood, New Jersey, US

MarketsPhysical Security Systems

Published Sep 17, 2026

01Common complaints

- Scenarios where alternatives are better - If an agency seeks a full corrections/JMS platform consolidation - Consider a suite vendor like Tyler Technologies Enterprise Corrections where imaging is part of an integrated platform. - If third-party security attestations are mandatory - If procurement requires public SOC 2 Type II / ISO 27001 certificates (or detailed security whitepapers), DIS’s public materials may be insufficient without NDA-based disclosures. - If facial recognition performance is mission-critical - Given at least one documented public-sector statement that PictureLink face recognition did not meet expectations in a DOJ context, agencies should run rigorous pilots and compare results to dedicated facial recognition alternatives. - If an agency cannot support on-prem infrastructure - DIS technical specs indicate Windows Server + SQL Server requirements for CorreTrak (and PictureLink specs reference similar enterprise dependencies). If the agency cannot provision/patch/secure that stack, cloud-native alternatives may be a better fit. - If abundant peer reviews on commercial review sites are required for procurement benchmarking - DIS has limited visibility on Gartner Peer Insights/G2/TrustRadius, which can make peer benchmarking harder. - Current limitations acknowledged by the vendor - DIS documentation does not prominently list explicit limitations. - Features on the roadmap (not yet available) - Not publicly documented in sources reviewed. - Scale limitations (at what volume/size does it break down?) - Not publicly documented; however, technical specs reference SQL Express database size limitations as potentially unsuitable for large sites. - Security or compliance gaps - Security certifications not publicly documented. - Encryption/key management, vulnerability management, and secure SDLC practices are not described in accessible public sources reviewed. - Technical debt or architectural limitations mentioned in reviews - No customer-review platform corpus was found. - CorreTrak release notes imply ongoing fixes around scanning and synchronization. - API limitations or integration constraints - DIS references web services APIs and ODBC connectivity; practical limitations will depend on JMS/RMS vendor interfaces and agency data governance.

Deal disqualifiers: what makes a POOR fit

Agencies requiring cloud-first/SaaS-only deployments with published third-party security attestations.
Agencies needing independently validated facial recognition performance and governance, and unwilling to accept vendor-only claims.
Agencies seeking a single, unified end-to-end corrections suite (rather than multiple integrated components).

02Why they buy

- Competitive advantages validated by customer feedback (not just vendor claims) - Long-term deployments in some agencies (e.g., ~20 years referenced in Guilford County documentation) indicate persistence in certain operational environments and integration depth. - CorreTrak’s App Store rating is relatively high (4.6/5) but is based on a small sample. - Unique features and capabilities competitors lack - DIS’s combined portfolio (mugshot imaging + mobile jail operations + biometrics + facial recognition) may be attractive to agencies that prefer a single vendor for these specific modules without replacing the JMS/RMS. - Differentiation from competitors based on reviews - Limited third-party customer review coverage means differentiation should be validated via references, demonstrations, and pilots. - Areas where competitors clearly have advantages (be balanced) - Suite vendors: broader functional coverage beyond imaging and mobility. - Vendors with published compliance/security packages: clearer auditability for procurement. - Dedicated facial recognition vendors: potentially stronger model benchmarking, governance features, and independent validation—depending on the vendor.

03Field reports

- Important context on review availability - DIS is not meaningfully present on major commercial review platforms (Gartner Peer Insights / G2 / TrustRadius) in accessible search results as a product listing with reviews. - As a result, the available customer feedback signal is primarily derived from: - App Store ratings and release notes for CorreTrak. - Government procurement/sole-source documents describing usage history. - A DOJ/OIP-released email excerpt referencing PictureLink facial recognition dissatisfaction in one environment. - Employee reviews (Glassdoor) which are not customer reviews but can be a proxy for internal operations/support culture. - Direct quotes from Gartner Peer Insights, Reddit, TrustRadius, G2, HackerNews - Gartner Peer Insights: attempted but inaccessible for DIS-specific product reviews. - G2: no DIS product review page found in accessible results. - TrustRadius: no DIS product review page found in accessible results. - HackerNews and Reddit: searches did not surface relevant DIS discussion threads in accessible results. - What user/customer feedback does exist (with quotes) - CorreTrak App Store ratings (end-user sentiment) - CorreTrak shows a high average rating from a small number of ratings. The page notes: "CorreTrak is a Wi‑Fi enabled mobile jail application…" and release notes show ongoing fixes (e.g., a recent release notes an issue preventing the scanner from launching on certain iOS device models was fixed). - App privacy section lists "Data Not Collected" (as represented in the App Store privacy label; this was not independently verified in this research run). - Procurement-driven statements (institutional context) - Guilford County documentation states that for many years, a critical component for capturing fingerprints and booking photos has been provided by Dynamic Imaging Systems, Inc. through its proprietary "PictureLink" software. This indicates long-term operational use, which is relevant to procurement rationale but is not an independent product quality evaluation. - Negative/critical functional feedback (not a review platform) - A DOJ/OIP-released email excerpt about "mug shot photo lineups for criminal investigations" indicates that the organization "does not currently use the PictureLink system’s face recognition… because it 'does not function in a satisfactory manner.'" This is a specific public-sector statement describing dissatisfaction with face recognition performance in that environment. - Why customers chose this product over alternatives - Evidence from procurement/sole-source narratives suggests core reasons included: - Integration with existing JMS/RMS and large existing image/print databases. - Switching risk and operational continuity (compatibility, long-term use, and proprietary integration). - In some cases, sole-source claims that DIS is the only source and servicer for PictureLink in that environment. - Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons) - Public churn narratives are not readily available in accessible sources. - Specific outcomes customers achieved (with metrics when available) - Vendor case studies are linked from the CorreTrak page (for example, county-level deployments), but detailed metrics were not retrieved from accessible sources in this research run. - App Store change logs suggest iterative improvements (sync performance, scanner fixes) but do not provide quantified operational outcomes. - Deal-breakers and reasons customers didn't purchase - Not explicitly available from review platforms; inferred deal-breakers are discussed in the "When NOT to Choose" section based on documented constraints (on-prem footprint, lack of public security attestations, and at least one documented dissatisfaction with face recognition performance).

Vendor-linked case studies

CorreTrak product pages reference a "Harris County Case Study" and a "Union County Case Study." The contents of those linked items were not accessible during this research run, so outcomes and methodologies cannot be validated here.

Independent/public-sector documentation as quasi-case studies

- Guilford County documents describe long-term operational reliance on PictureLink (multiple years/decades) and emphasize compatibility with existing databases and a sole-source servicing rationale. - A Minnesota IT Services procurement abstract describes a sole‑source procurement for maintenance/support of an integrated system and states that PictureLink was the only commercially available system meeting that agency’s needs according to the procurement justification. This should be treated as a procurement rationale rather than an independent product evaluation.

CRITICAL: Note when metrics are vendor-published without independent verification

DIS’s claim of serving a large number of agencies is vendor-published; no independent audit or third‑party verification was located in this research run.
Case study metrics (where presented) should be treated as vendor‑published unless independently corroborated.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Public sector agencies rather than private companies; practically:
- County jails and sheriff offices managing intake/release and internal movements.
- Agencies large enough to justify on-prem servers, integrations, and ongoing maintenance—typically mid-to-large counties or multi-facility operations.

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest

Law enforcement and corrections (DIS explicitly states this is its focus).

Roles and personas: decision makers AND end users

Decision makers
- Sheriff/Undersheriff leadership
- Jail administration
- County IT / CJIS IT leadership
- Procurement/finance
End users
- Booking officers
- Jail custody staff conducting rounds/counts/movements
- Investigators building photo lineups/mugbooks

Pain points and challenges the product addresses

Standardized, standards-compliant booking photo capture.
Faster access to images tied to arrest/booking records.
Mobile workflows for counts/rounds/checks with audit trails.
Operational compliance reporting and dashboards.

Qualification criteria: what makes a GREAT fit

Agency already uses (or is committed to) an existing JMS/RMS and prefers to add specialized imaging and mobility components rather than replace the core system.
Agency has procurement constraints favoring continuity with installed PictureLink.
Agency has IT capacity to run on-prem Windows Server and SQL Server and manage integrations.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

- Dynamic Imaging Systems, Inc. (DIS) builds software for law enforcement and corrections focused on: - Mugshot/booking photo capture, storage, search, and investigative workflows (PictureLink). - Mobile inmate tracking and jail operations workflows (CorreTrak). - Fingerprint identification workflows (PositiveID+). - Facial recognition for investigative identification with case management (FOCUS). - DIS positions itself primarily as an integration-first vendor that connects into existing Jail Management Systems (JMS), Records Management Systems (RMS), and LiveScan environments rather than a full JMS/RMS replacement.

Target market and market positioning

- Target buyers: county/city jails, sheriff’s offices, police departments, and other public sector justice agencies. - Typical "wedge" use case: agencies that already run a JMS/RMS/LiveScan and need improved image capture, identity verification, and mobile workflows with auditability. - DIS also appears in sole-source justifications and renewals where PictureLink is described as a long-running, tightly integrated component embedded into a broader justice stack.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Dynamic Imaging including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →