In all test cases, Bluestar Forensic outperformed luminol in detecting trace amounts of blood. The carpet showed the best results for both reagents, and the vinyl tile and the ceramic tile also showed strong reactions. The most obvious difference between the reagents on these surfaces was the strength of the chemiluminescence in the second spray of the Bluestar Forensic. The majority of the reactions occurred in the areas where the blood had been cleaned with only water. The bleach removed any traces of the blood from the majority of the surfaces. The washing and drying of the 100-percent cotton blue T-shirt did not interfere with the intensity of the luminescence for luminol or Bluestar Forensic. Bluestar Forensic's most obvious advantage over luminol was its ability to produce a visible reaction without requiring complete darkness. In dim lighting, luminol was measurably less intense. At crime scenes where establishing complete darkness is not possible, Bluestar Forensic has a distinct advantage over luminol. Bluestar Forensic also had advantages over luminol in terms of ease of mixing and good intensity after the initial spray. The test surfaces were maple wood, Olefin carpet, vinyl tile, ceramic tile, a new blue 100-percent cotton T-shirt, and a new dark blue CoolMax (polyester) shirt. As a control sample, two vinyl sheets were smeared with water containing bleach. The article describes the chemical preparation of the luminol and the Bluestar Forensic and the photography techniques used. 2 tables, 12 figures, and 8 references