V. SPOOKY AND ABSOLUTELY GENUINE MISSING PERSON SHOT:

Think you should check every shot of the women, she is disappearing with every frame.
Gota be a wind up this.
 
You're welcome, as is anybody else, to come and examine the original negative.
Which as I've often said is identical to the first image that I posted...

The full length shot of the lady on her own, was 'cloned' to remove a couple of guests.

PS: I am now starting to wish that it was a wind-up! :bang:
 
2668740940_6d91d34f89.jpg

archway shot from side opposite to line up ie from room originally in the background


2667905101_0fd103d0f3.jpg

oldest section of hotel, line-up took place in the middle of this part


2668633418_c29cacfdfb_b.jpg

Hi-res scan

*I took the first two pix today.

Cheers everybody for your interest (y)
 
Hmm, Okay you've got my attention now. :D


Now I do believe in ghosts and matters of the spirit, having a rather fascinating true story of my own with 3 other witnesses and we all concur.

But as as yet I'm not convinced of this photos authenticity ... I have some issues with the hat and its feathery shadows.

I've looked up close at them and all the feathery bits have 'identical' feathery shadows, they are slightly grey too, but identical so therefore cannot be other paired feathers etc... so they must be the shadows.

Now these shadows seem to be made by a different angled light source to your flash source, which looks as if it where on you camera body? ... the best example being the narrow pair of feathery things in the middle of the hat ..the left of these is a shadow, far to the left and below its maker, ....and made by your flash is was not.

So its a fake. ...possibly, maybe, don't shoot me. :geek:(y)
 
that is soooooooooooooooooooo odd oh ive got goose bumps now!
 
I have had similar experience.
1
When i took a picture of my wife, standing at my mothers grave, which shows my wife and grave, but in the back ground stands a fussed out figure.

2
When finding a Lady friends father he was KIA WWII place of where he fell and died, we took some images of the spot, The lady is in pefect focus except for her left side .the left side was as if some one was standing just beside her.
The weird thing is that both these were the last image on the roll.
 
I have been looking at ( and manipulating ) it in CS3 for awhile if its a wind up I can't spot the join
I also took the liberty of increasing the size for others to look at to see what "they think"

The only other time I saw something like this was in reverse,
A family group taken at an old coaching inn on Dick Turpins route, many many years ago,When the film was developed instead of the grand father clock, they were grouped in front of there was a strong outline of what looked like a "person" in dark clothes, and the "classic" tri-cornered hat :shrug:

here is a link to a larger version ( click to increase the size)
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x195/photo-web/copy_2668633418_c29cacfdfb_b.jpg
edit bugger photobucket dropped the size :bang: but its been "cleaned" anyway
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Hmm, Okay you've got my attention now. :D
Now I do believe in ghosts and matters of the spirit, having a rather fascinating true story of my own with 3 other witnesses and we all concur.
But as as yet I'm not convinced of this photos authenticity ... I have some issues with the hat and its feathery shadows.
I've looked up close at them and all the feathery bits have 'identical' feathery shadows, they are slightly grey too, but identical so therefore cannot be other paired feathers etc... so they must be the shadows.

Now these shadows seem to be made by a different angled light source to your flash source, which looks as if it where on you camera body? ... the best example being the narrow pair of feathery things in the middle of the hat ..the left of these is a shadow, far to the left and below its maker, ....and made by your flash is was not.
Click to expand...

The principal other light source is the wall light, there may also have been a very small amount of daylight coming in from the right, through a narrow high up window.
I repeat the fact that this image is 100% genuine.
Thanks for your input (y)
 
My best guess is that the mother in law was actually standing further right in the photo - directly behind the man to the right which is why she cant be seen - she had just passed the hat to her husband to hold on to or put down somewhere for her.
 
I think the Women is bent down, but holding the hat up so it wont get crushed.
Check out the shadow on the wall, it's not from the man.

2668633418_c29cacfdfb_b.jpg
 
That shadow is from the man just to the left of your arrow... the flash was pretty high up. I stood on a chair to shoot this.:|
 
CatB said:
My best guess is that the mother in law was actually standing further right in the photo - directly behind the man to the right which is why she cant be seen - she had just passed the hat to her husband to hold on to or put down somewhere for her.
Click to expand...

[At risk of repeating myself]
The lady in question is 100% certain that she did not remove her hat at all until many hours later
 
Rocket said:
I have had similar experience.
1
When i took a picture of my wife, standing at my mothers grave, which shows my wife and grave, but in the back ground stands a fussed out figure.

2
When finding a Lady friends father he was KIA WWII place of where he fell and died, we took some images of the spot, The lady is in pefect focus except for her left side .the left side was as if some one was standing just beside her.
The weird thing is that both these were the last image on the roll.
Click to expand...

Cheers Rocket..I believe you, but will anybody else??:bonk:
 
1] The shot in question was the very last frame of the entire wedding: shot on 3 rolls of film not digital
2] Reason for this pic was to capture both sets of parents greeting their guests
3] If, as has been repeatedly suggested, the M-I-L had moved out of shot, I could not have failed to notice from my vantage point
4] I would then, obviously, have waited until she returned, before completing the shoot!

Just think about it :thinking:
Cheers.
 
Thanks for the high res scan, I note from the unpacked size within cs3 that the document size is around 2.78 meg, was this the largest resolution you could get from the neg as I was hoping for a resolution closer to around 10 meg. Anyways it's an interesting image, although I would really need a higher res image to work from. In addition could you please post a high resolution scan from the archway shot please.

regards

mark
 
llonen said:
Thanks for the high res scan, I note from the unpacked size within cs3 that the document size is around 2.78 meg, was this the largest resolution you could get from the neg as I was hoping for a resolution closer to around 10 meg. Anyways it's an interesting image, although I would really need a higher res image to work from. In addition could you please post a high resolution scan from the archway shot please.

regards

mark
Click to expand...

Hi, That's the best res. I can offer on the line-up shot, but here is a larger scan of the archway for you, as requested.
Cheers.(y)

2668740940_6d91d34f89_b.jpg
 
Have you spoken to the women? Has she seen the image? can she explain?
 
OK Ivor - the game's up mate, I've had the shot enhanced using the very latest software. :cautious:

ivor.jpg
 
CMcB said:
Have you spoken to the women? Has she seen the image? can she explain?
Click to expand...

I am trying to contact the groom* in this wedding to hear what his mother has to say about this. I already have the fact, from the groom, that his mothers hat was not removed until many hours after this shot.
Cheers..:|

*Groom is ex-directory so its not that simple :thinking:
 
The book seems to be reflecting onto something on the arch, but thats impossible because the arch only has a curtain looking at your digi shot. Also, if that shadow on the arch is from the guy's head, then it wouldn't be consistent with the shadow created by the arch itself around the top. Also, I'm a little confused why you can't get a better scan than that. When i've used film my standard res scans i get at timeof developing are much better than that.
 
CraigDouglas said:
The book seems to be reflecting onto something on the arch, but thats impossible because the arch only has a curtain looking at your digi shot. Also, if that shadow on the arch is from the guy's head, then it wouldn't be consistent with the shadow created by the arch itself around the top. Also, I'm a little confused why you can't get a better scan than that. When i've used film my standard res scans i get at timeof developing are much better than that.
Click to expand...

1] At the time of the line-up pic there was no curtain on any side of the archway
2] The guy's head shadow, on the archway, is slightly more soft edged, probably due to the angle of the wall at that point
3] The film used here was NPH400, and the scan on post #123 is of about one third of the original negative.

Many thanks for your comments.
 
ivortripod said:
1] At the time of the line-up pic there was no curtain on any side of the archway
Click to expand...

I can appreciate and see that. But what I'm asking, is what is the book reflecting on? It can't be reflecting off the arch, but it appears that there is a reflection.

ivortripod said:
2] The guy's head shadow, on the archway, is slightly more soft edged, probably due to the angle of the wall at that point
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the softness of the shadow (which does seem to be too soft compared with the arch shadow). I was referring to the fact that the shadow from the arch caused by your flash would not create a shadow from the man's head in that location.

ivortripod said:
Many thanks for your comments.
Click to expand...

You're welcome :)
 
Is it me being nitpicking but those look like 2 different archways.

In the original picture it looks like theres a dark brown door and frame on the side away from the photographer, door opens away from us. That would explain the reflection from the book.

And most importanly, take a look at the arch, in the original picture it looks roughly finished and round, in the digital pic with the curtain it looks more angled and much nicer finish to the stone/plaster.

They could be the same arch but taken from either side, so the digital picture would have been taken from the other room to the original. There's no way they are identical framings.

:shrug:
 
lepster74 said:
Is it me being nitpicking but those look like 2 different archways.

In the original picture it looks like theres a dark brown door and frame on the side away from the photographer, door opens away from us. That would explain the reflection from the book.

And most importanly, take a look at the arch, in the original picture it looks roughly finished and round, in the digital pic with the curtain it looks more angled and much nicer finish to the stone/plaster.

They could be the same arch but taken from either side, so the digital picture would have been taken from the other room to the original. There's no way they are identical framings.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes it is the same arch taken from the other side, I did point that out on post #123..
Thanks :|
 
Looking at the various pics of the hat there is something not right. Where are the white feathers in the pic on her own? If she is stood so close to the arch would the back of the hat not be bent by the arch itself (given it is huge) or is this why it seems slightly low. I am also not convinced that the hat is quite high enough given the first picture.
MIL's i know would be stretching to be in the pciture not hiding...

Actually how much of her would be in the pic if she was there - my PS skills are not good enough but I do not think that much if i tried to put her in - I am not saying she has been PS out.

Is there a shot through the arch the correct way taken from the same spot so we can see what it is like without the people - ie what is in the background??

Are there any other pics of the MIL & hat?

All this said I have not laughed so much at a strand in a while...it's not like this on Fred M!
 
Back again - it is not the same arch - where is the curtain rail and if it was shooting back through there seems not to be as much space on the LHS in the weding photo as in the digital image..or have i missed something???? Not that this helps with the missing MIL.
Of course the next question is where was she straight after the photo was taken - folk would have to move out of the way to let the hat past in such a small space - which is another possible reason for removal.. sorry just getting ito this...

What does the FIL say...??
 
ivortripod said:
Yes it is the same arch taken from the other side, I did point that out on post #123..
Thanks :|
Click to expand...

Oooops!

The text where you explained it must have disappeared like your M.I.L in the original pic.

My apologies. :bonk:
 
pauld said:
Looking at the various pics of the hat there is something not right. Where are the white feathers in the pic on her own? If she is stood so close to the arch would the back of the hat not be bent by the arch itself (given it is huge) or is this why it seems slightly low. I am also not convinced that the hat is quite high enough given the first picture.
MIL's i know would be stretching to be in the pciture not hiding...

Actually how much of her would be in the pic if she was there - my PS skills are not good enough but I do not think that much if i tried to put her in - I am not saying she has been PS out.

*Is there a shot through the arch the correct way taken from the same spot so we can see what it is like without the people - ie what is in the background??
**Are there any other pics of the MIL & hat?
Click to expand...

Hi,
*It was impossible take a shot from the same spot earlier this week as the line-up room was full of equipment and furniture. It is a very small room.
**Post#45 shows lady with hat and husband taken some time earlier that afternoon.
And there were no white feathers in the hat

I would say that all the stuff about image alteration via PS etc. is only of academic interest, as the original unretouched neg. is 100% identical to the original scan on my first post.
Many thanks for your comments,
Cheers.
PS: I haven't spoken to the Mil or the Fil since the wedding, if I knew where they were, I certainly would :|
 
Which would have been,
'Can you please just remove my hat and make me a new print?'

If the MIL had left her hat with her husband holding it, that's the first thing I would have expected her to ask me to do.

No one has ever suggested that...:shake:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top