I make scans of documents in case I lose the original paper versions of the documents, and also normally put the resulting scans under version control. A lawyer told me this is considered "secondary evidence", as in, for example, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/secondary+evidence. I.e.
A reproduction of, or substitute for, an original document or item of proof that is offered to establish a particular issue in a legal action. Secondary evidence is evidence that has been reproduced from an original document or substituted for an original item. For example, a photocopy of a document or photograph would be considered secondary evidence.
My question is whether, assuming the original document contains color, it is worthwhile to do color scans or not.
On the one hand, making color scans occupies more disk space, and is generally a slower process. And putting files under version control is more problematic if the file size is larger. Color scans also do not make for great B&W printouts.
On the other hand, given a color scan, one can make color printouts, and these color printouts might make for more convincing fascimiles of the original than a B&W printout would.
So, my question is, does a court prefer color scans / color printouts vs B&W scans of original documents, or not? My location is in India, but I won't attempt to make this India specific. If anyone cares at all, hopefully there is some international concensus about this.