Photo Error?

hblock21

Are there any experts or enthusiasts here that could give me some advice on the attached photo. There has obviously something gone wrong with the shot and it's difficult to visualise what is the real photo and what has been transplanted on to it.

Can ye have a look please.

I am only interested in the 'what's gone wrong with the photo' etc and not the content. The content is being discussed in the Legal and genealogy forums.

Thanks

Tenshot

Not an expert, but to me it looks like the original courtroom scene is under glass. When the photo was taken, there was a substantial amount of reflection from the glass which is causing the distortion.

The original photo also seems to be slightly torn at the left edge, revealing backing card or wood from the mounting (or even the surface it was placed on).

Kenny Logins

...and the original photo seems to have multiple exposures and some light leak.

Zillah

It looks like a photo taken of an old, printed photo in a picture frame, through a glass panel. The printed photo is soft and in poor condition, hence the tears and warping in it.

So the distortions you're seeing are degradation of the original print and a bunch of light and reflections on the glass of the frame. You can even see an outline of the photographer's head in the lower central area. It's hard to be sure if the excessive whiteness in the left half of the image is all reflections or if that is also degradation in the original print.

It is also perfectly possible that there has been photo manipulation but you'd need forensic examination to prove that.

Zillah

Kenny Logins wrote: »

...and the original photo seems to have multiple exposures and some light leak.

Yeah I'd say that's likely too, there are a few ghostly heads that don't make sense as a single scene.

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

You can even see an outline of the photographer's head in the lower central area.

I'd say thats the OP

Zillah

urbanledge wrote: »

I'd say thats the OP

Oh.

In which case most of the aberration is caused by you, OP :pac:

I had a look at the OP's other thread:
Sorry buddy, the guy that appears to be standing in front of the judge was almost certainly not present. He and the bearded fellow off to the left of the image are almost certainly a second exposure on top of the original scene.

You can tell by the fact that he doesn't have a body and his head is half the size it should be compared to the people he is supposed to be beside.

EDIT: Jaysus, the more I look the more confused I get. I think there might even be three exposures here. The older guy sitting down on the right doesn't seem to fit with either the judges or the guy with his hands on the rail.

Kenny Logins

Ignoring the obvious reflection of the camera, it appears to me that there could be as many as four exposures in that photo.

hblock21

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Ignoring the obvious reflection of the camera, it appears to me that there could be as many as four exposures in that photo.

On the technical side of things. How would this occur?

Kenny Logins

hblock21 wrote: »

On the technical side of things. How would this occur?

I don't know much about film photography, but I think if the film isn't advanced, or jams, you get the images layered on top of each other as opposed to in their own frames.

hblock21

Kenny Logins wrote: »

I don't know much about film photography, but I think if the film isn't advanced, or jams, you get the images layered on top of each other as opposed to in their own frames.

Film Photography?

Do you not think its just a normal photo taken with a camera with exposures?

Kenny Logins

hblock21 wrote: »

Film Photography?

Do you not think its just a normal photo taken with a camera with exposures?

Are we talking about the actual printed photo or the digital photo of that old photo? It's the original printed photo that has the multiple exposures.

hblock21

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Are we talking about the actual printed photo or the digital photo of that old photo? It's the original printed photo that has the multiple exposures.

I'm interested in opinions on the original printed photo that has multiple exposures.

Kenny Logins

hblock21 wrote: »

I'm interested in opinions on the original printed photo that has multiple exposures.

Yep, taken on photographic film of some description (not film in the movie sense).

hblock21

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Yep, taken on photographic film of some description (not film in the movie sense).

The multiple exposures.

Lets say there a three different pictures in this one picture. How did the three end up on one.

Were they all taken the same day on the same camera?

or

Is it possible that 2/3 different photos from different periods combined accidently to make this one photo.

Kenny Logins

hblock21 wrote: »

The multiple exposures.

Lets say there a three different pictures in this one picture. How did the three end up on one.

Were they all taken the same day on the same camera?

or

Is it possible that 2/3 different photos from different periods combined accidently to make this one photo.

Either is possible I'd say.

Zillah

It would be very possible for someone with an older camera, where you had to manually wind on from one photo to the next, to take several photos one after the other, and forgetting to wind on the film after each one. So that each new photograph was being exposed onto the same piece of film. It could be accidental, it could be deliberate.

You could also, however, take several film negatives in the dark room, and print them all out onto the same paper. That would have to be deliberate.

CabanSail

I think there are definitely reflections from the glass in front of the framed photo being rephotographed and that this has occurred twice.

So it's an accidental double exposure and reflections from each exposure. (I think)