In Anderson v. State, 724 So. 2d 475, 478 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998), the defendant claimed that his photo stood out because his photo was taken with a Polaroid camera, whereas the other photos in the line-up were commercially developed and printed. Also, the commercially developed photographs had no border whereas the Polaroid picture had a white border. Anderson argued that anyone viewing this lineup would immediately note the difference in the photographic process and that this, standing alone, made it unduly suggestive that Anderson was the principal suspect. The Court reviewed the photos and held that there was no possibility of a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Anderson, 724 So. 2d at 478. The Court found that the existence of a white border on Anderson's photograph did not make that photograph so distinctive as to improperly single it out. Id. The Court also found that the other photographs had minor distinctions in shape and size and showed different backgrounds. Id. We concluded that the minor differences in the appearance of Anderson's photograph were not so distinctive as to improperly single him out. Id.