Mysterious Photo

hblock21

I'm looking for some discussion on the attached photo. Unfortunately it is not very good quality and there seams to be a lot of shadowing or whatever the technical word for it is.
I do not what to give much info on it at the moment, I'd just like peoples opinions on what they think it is, etc.
It is a picture from sometime between the 1910's - 1940's, I cannot give a more precise time scale I'm afraid, I just don't know.
My ancestor is the person sat to the right of the man standing, directly in front of the judge. There is a hat in front of him. Do you think he is actually sitting there or is it an error in the photo? If he is sitting there, what would be his position?

pedroeibar1

It is not “a” photograph, it is a collage of several and if it is supposed to be one photo it is quite fake. With three judges it shows a Superior Court, probably Divisional High Court or possibly Supreme Court. (Length of wig.) The Registrar who sits in front & below the Bench can just be made out in the shadows of the rail that passes through his head. The guy with the hat is quite wrong with the vintage of the person standing. Total fake IMO.

hblock21

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

It is not “a” photograph, it is a collage of several and if it is supposed to be one photo it is quite fake. With three judges it shows a Superior Court, probably Divisional High Court or possibly Supreme Court. (Length of wig.) The Registrar who sits in front & below the Bench can just be made out in the shadows of the rail that passes through his head. The guy with the hat is quite wrong with the vintage of the person standing. Total fake IMO.

I can see the registrar now, very faint. It seams to me that it is two photos on one, maybe another photo was laid on top and with time imprinted itself on this court one?
When you say fake, I presume you mean that the picture went wrong when taken (double exposure) or my above guess. This is a photo from a family collection so it would not have been tampered with.

Thanks for explaining which court it may be. Any guesses as to a decade?

KildareFan

at least one double exposure involved.

hblock21

Is the judge wearing a black cap? Does this mean he is passing a death sentence????
My ancestor is from Tipperary. So could his court be in Tipperary? And was it common for a picture to be taken in court back in whatever decade this is?

Hermy

hblock21 wrote: »

And was it common for a picture to be taken in court back in whatever decade this is?

I didn't think photos were permitted in court.
This isn't a film set by any chance?

hblock21

Hermy wrote: »

I didn't think photos were permitted in court.
This isn't a film set by any chance?

haha!
No, I would not think so. If it was a film set it would have to be been taken within the last 40-50 years because it has been in a box/drawer in my uncles house pretty much all of his (grown) life.

I was looking on wiki about the black hat thing and it makes things if I'm to be honest even more confusing. There is only one known photo of a judge passing the death sentence wearing the black cap in England.
Lets ignore the fact of the double exposure and all that. How in blooming hell would my ancestor have a photo of a judge passing a death sentence, if we presume it is in a court in Ireland.
Could there be any connection to Republican courts and the like?

Sclosages

.

Sclosages

I think it's a photo taken of a painting behind a glass screen. The judges on either side, don't look real if that makes sense?
The glass in front of either a photo or painting, would explain the shadowing, glare and reflection.

smcgiff

Sclosages wrote: »

I think it's a photo taken of a painting behind a glass screen. The judges on either side, don't look real if that makes sense?
The glass in front of either a photo or painting, would explain the shadowing, glare and reflection.

Your ancestor looks out of place, is his reflection appearing in the glass of a picture being photographed?

The person standing in the foreground looks to have mutton chops and an appearance of someone before the 20th century.

Sclosages

smcgiff wrote: »

Your ancestor looks out of place, is his reflection appearing in the glass of a picture being photographed?

The person standing in the foreground looks to have mutton chops and an appearance of someone before the 20th century.

The ancestor certainly looks real - funnily enough the judge in the middle also looks real. It's mysterious alright!

Sclosages

The more I look, the more I think that the man with the locks appears to be standing in an 'accused' stand. Given that the central judge appears to be speaking (given the facial expressions), I'd imagine he is delivering a verdict or sentence. I do think it's a painting though and I do think that your ancestor mistakenly appeared in the photo of either a photo/painting and someone with a sense of humour felt it looked like he was in court or something...

hblock21

No its definitely not a painting. These are real people, weather actually all in the same room or not.

Picture of a picture behind glass - yep, that's plausible.

I knew the photo was very interesting not this black cap thing has inflated it abit more.

KildareFan

This is a weird photo - nothing makes sense:
The man with the mutton chop whiskers looks like someone from the 1890s; there is a dog, just below the hanging judge; there's a woman sitting to the right with bare legs from the knees down so she's from around the 1930s or 40s at the earliest;

there seems to be a reflection of curtains on most of the picture; it looks to me that the three judges and mutton chop man are in a photograph, behind glass. The other people are in a room with a big curtain on the far side of the room; the curtain and the people are then reflected in the glass. If you look at the folds, they come down over the judges, but behind the guard on the left. The guard is wearing a collar and tie which wouldn't be worn in the 1890s. The reflected people are wearing clothes that more likely belong to the 1930s or 40s.

There is some kind of wooden structure curving around the ancestor and the hat - almost like a balustrade on a stair case - can you put us out of our misery?

hblock21

KildareFan wrote: »

This is a weird photo - can you put us out of our misery?

I'm afraid not! I don't know anything about the photo. The only background info I can give is that the photo was my g.grandfathers (man sitting). When he came in possession of it I don't know but as he died in 1972 aged in his 90’s, I can only muse he had it for many decades before his death. It has been he my uncles house since, the house my g.grandfather died in.
He was involved in the war of independence and his obit mentions he headed kangaroo courts. But this is obviously not a kangaroo court.
The guy in the lower left hand corner could be the accused?
I agree the man standing in the middle looks out of place by a few decades? and he would not have his back to the judge so is probably another photo or in another position in the court.

pedroeibar1

It is neither history, heritage nor genealogy. It is so wrong it clearly is a stupid, badly formed attempt at a hoax or prank and is best forgotten about. Perhaps you could move it to Afterhours where they can have fun with it?

hblock21

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Perhaps you could move it to Afterhours where they can have fun with it?

No, I'm happy with it here thanks.

Anyway, I think I am resigning myself to the fact that it could be a theatrical production of some kind. It might explain the reason why the man in the middle has his back to the judge, he's facing the audience. Plus the shadowy woman figure in a skirt above my ancestor could be sitting in the audience holding a programme, the white paper you see.

Oh well, for a moment I thought I had something unique!

kildarejohn

hblock21 wrote: »

No, I'm happy with it here thanks.

Anyway, I think I am resigning myself to the fact that it could be a theatrical production of some kind.

Theatrical production seems the most likely explanation. Why don't you post it on the "Theatre & Performing Arts" forum. Somebody there might recognise what play it might be. Searching local newspaper archives might find a review of the play or even a critique of your ancestor's acting.

hblock21

kildarejohn wrote: »

Why don't you post it on the "Theatre & Performing Arts" forum.

Will do, its worth a try anyway.

Menas

OP, what is on the back of the picture. Name of a studio or something? That can give some extra clues.
Your relative looks like a man in his 40s to me. So it would have been the 1920s when his picture was taken. His clothes match that decade IMO.
But the rest of the picture is off.

My guess is that there are two pictures, one of a theatrical production and the second of your relation. Both negatives combined and exposed as one some how.

hblock21

I've asked my cousin to look at the photo again and also glean any further info off my uncle.
Yes, I agree my ancestor looks about 40.

Hermy

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

It is neither history, heritage nor genealogy. It is so wrong it clearly is a stupid, badly formed attempt at a hoax or prank and is best forgotten about. Perhaps you could move it to Afterhours where they can have fun with it?

A bit harsh pedro. At the very least it's a curiosity and to that end I'm very curious to know the story behind it.

Jellybaby1

Very curious photo and I've been following the thread hoping for some inspiration. I would go along the lines of a theatrical performance. Possibly a photo taken through glass with people reflected in it. I am almost thinking it might be a play being viewed on an early television set, perhaps the neighbours called in to watch it - the lady and gent on the right seem to be dressed up for visiting! But then maybe my mind is just working overtime. In my childhood, my mother used to invite relatives who had no tv in to see the Christmas programmes on our old b/w television.

hblock21

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I am almost thinking it might be a play being viewed on an early television set, perhaps the neighbours called in to watch it

Yep, that's not a bad explanation. Might explain the image of the big harp looking thing (maybe the back of a chair) imprinted on the shot. A reflection on the tv glass screen.

Can ye see the radiator? behind the judges chair? If it was a production in a hall, surely a stage would not have a radiator in the middle of it? But obviously back then maybe production companies made use of other buildings, etc to run a play.

What about the white slender looking object in front of the first judge? Is it a quill pen? One could say that this is a prop as quills went out of use in the late 1800's? Evidence to suggest that this is a drama.

pedroeibar1

Hermy wrote: »

A bit harsh pedro. At the very least it's a curiosity and to that end I'm very curious to know the story behind it.

Not harsh, Hermy, honestly blunt perhaps.:) OP has said he has no backstory, so ......

There are far more interesting things to be curious about. TBH I don’t understand why anyone could get worked up over something that is such a crude hoax. Anyone back in the pre-Photoshop days with a very basic knowledge of photography could easily knock out something far more sophisticated. For example it could have been done by multiple exposures with a camera or with different negatives and an enlarger during the printing process. Think for example of the ‘fairies hoax' which was done by two little girls and is a far more ‘professional’ effort.

Everything is wrong about the posted photo;e.g. scale, composition of images, positioning and number of people, dress, whiskers, black cap, over-printing of images, photo of a High Court/Central Criminal Court in session, etc. etc. If the guy in the dock is the defendant (as purported) he would not have his back to the bench and would not be on that side. A reflection is a mirror image, so it cannot be a reflection. Daft........

Hermy

Okay so. If it is a hoax who made it and when, and why did it end up in hblock's Uncle's possession?

Sclosages

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Not harsh, Hermy, honestly blunt perhaps.:) OP has said he has no backstory, so ......

There are far more interesting things to be curious about. TBH I don’t understand why anyone could get worked up over something that is such a crude hoax. Anyone back in the pre-Photoshop days with a very basic knowledge of photography could easily knock out something far more sophisticated. For example it could have been done by multiple exposures with a camera or with different negatives and an enlarger during the printing process. Think for example of the ‘fairies hoax' which was done by two little girls and is a far more ‘professional’ effort.

Everything is wrong about the posted photo;e.g. scale, composition of images, positioning and number of people, dress, whiskers, black cap, over-printing of images, photo of a High Court/Central Criminal Court in session, etc. etc. If the guy in the dock is the defendant (as purported) he would not have his back to the bench and would not be on that side. A reflection is a mirror image, so it cannot be a reflection. Daft........

Do you think the reflected people should have their backs turned? You make no sense mate.
Find a framed picture/photo with glass over the front. Take a photo. See what happens.

kildarejohn

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Very curious photo and I've been following the thread hoping for some inspiration. I would go along the lines of a theatrical performance. Possibly a photo taken through glass with people reflected in it. I am almost thinking it might be a play being viewed on an early television set, perhaps the neighbours called in to watch it - the lady and gent on the right seem to be dressed up for visiting! But then maybe my mind is just working overtime. In my childhood, my mother used to invite relatives who had no tv in to see the Christmas programmes on our old b/w television.

The TV theory does not hold up, because up to recent years B&W TV pictures had strong horizontal lines that would be very clearly visible in a photo.
For similar reasons it cannot be a copy of a newspaper photo, if it was, there would be a pattern of dots.
So that leaves 4 theories for how the photo was made-
1. accidental or deliberate double/triple exposure on one negative
2. two or more negatives combined together with an enlarger in the darkroom
3. first photo was mounted under glass and then a photo was taken of it, resulting in reflections on the glass.
4. its just one photo which was taken through glass giving reflections
Personally, I favour no.1

Sclosages

kildarejohn wrote: »

The TV theory does not hold up, because up to recent years B&W TV pictures had strong horizontal lines that would be very clearly visible in a photo.
For similar reasons it cannot be a copy of a newspaper photo, if it was, there would be a pattern of dots.
So that leaves 4 theories for how the photo was made-
1. accidental or deliberate double/triple exposure on one negative
2. two or more negatives combined together with an enlarger in the darkroom
3. first photo was mounted under glass and then a photo was taken of it, resulting in reflections on the glass.
4. its just one photo which was taken through glass giving reflections
Personally, I favour no.1

Is there a photography forum on here? I suspect they may be the experts required here to give the OP a starting point? I'm sure a photographer could look at this and explain elements.

hblock21

Sclosages wrote: »

Is there a photography forum on here?QUOTE]

Should have thought of that before, but this is the reason I posted it in the first place - to get ideas and opinions.

It's all very interesting reading everyone's differing opinions on what's going on, etc. I have posted the photo in the legal forum too and I have to say I'm surprised how they have taken it, some of them really are of the opinion that it could be real. But for the time being I'll stand closer to the posed / theatrical performance side of the room until such time other info (if anything) becomes available.

Sclosages

hblock21 wrote: »

Sclosages wrote: »

Is there a photography forum on here?QUOTE]

Should have thought of that before, but this is the reason I posted it in the first place - to get ideas and opinions.

It's all very interesting reading everyone's differing opinions on what's going on, etc. I have posted the photo in the legal forum too and I have to say I'm surprised how they have taken it, some of them really are of the opinion that it could be real. But for the time being I'll stand closer to the posed / theatrical performance side of the room until such time other info (if anything) becomes available.

Good combination - the legal end and photography. You'll figure it out.
Genuinely - thanks for sharing! I personally find it fascinating.

MoodeRator

this photo actually looks legit to me The only reflection I see is of someone in a pink t shirt that taking the photo if this picture that is in a glass frame

Jellybaby1

kildarejohn wrote: »

The TV theory does not hold up, because up to recent years B&W TV pictures had strong horizontal lines that would be very clearly visible in a photo.
For similar reasons it cannot be a copy of a newspaper photo, if it was, there would be a pattern of dots.
So that leaves 4 theories for how the photo was made-
1. accidental or deliberate double/triple exposure on one negative
2. two or more negatives combined together with an enlarger in the darkroom
3. first photo was mounted under glass and then a photo was taken of it, resulting in reflections on the glass.
4. its just one photo which was taken through glass giving reflections
Personally, I favour no.1

Hmmm, ok, I'll give you that. With my theory thrown out I will now have to go with a photo of an old photo through glass, and double exposed with something more recent reflected. Hope you get the mystery solved, I'd love to know what it really is.

Sclosages

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Hmmm, ok, I'll give you that. With my theory thrown out I will now have to go with a photo of an old photo through glass, and double exposed with something more recent reflected. Hope you get the mystery solved, I'd love to know what it really is.

I'm totally with you on that.

Pretzill

My theory fwiw...and I do find it interesting and somewhat historically relevent. Is that it's a photo taken in a cinema - of an old film - old cinemas particularly rural ones would have doubled as stages too - hence the curtain affect. The extra people at the side and the faded head behind the guy sitting with the hat are simply reflections ... the screen would have caused glare but not the tubey effect of a tv and let's face it few had tv's in those days.

Also I get a feeling I recognise the black capped judge and mutton chops - so it might be a known movie or B movie of the day!

Hermy

Perhaps it might be worth posting in the Movie forum so.
There's a dedicated thread here.