It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: intrptr
Like I said, have to rule that out, first. How can that horizontal line extend to the right of the image across the photo? Because it occurred during developing (imo).
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: intrptr
Like I said, have to rule that out, first. How can that horizontal line extend to the right of the image across the photo? Because it occurred during developing (imo).
Yeah, that's problematic.
In fact, the whole photo seems to have very odd areas of contrast.
originally posted by: intrptr
Especially your star trek enterprise 'enhancement'.
originally posted by: intrptr
If you feel like it, Try enhancing the image to highlight the two horizontal streaks across the page. One goes right thru the artifact, another is below it a bit. Theres also what 'looks to be' a thumbprint on the left side, middle.
originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: FamCore
"It looks like the Norwegian spiral and other "rockets" we've seen"
Which all reality-based people realize WERE rockets.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: intrptr
If you feel like it, Try enhancing the image to highlight the two horizontal streaks across the page. One goes right thru the artifact, another is below it a bit. Theres also what 'looks to be' a thumbprint on the left side, middle.
There's also a kind of darker "shadow" of the object in question slightly to the right about 2 o'clock. It's very dim. Here's an inverted image to bring out the horizontal lines a little better to the right (in front) of the object:
originally posted by: 3n19m470
After looking at and thinking about rockets my whole entire life... i bet Everything will start looking like rockets to me!!
originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Are there any photographers on ATS, who can offer an explanation for this picture?
originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Are there any photographers on ATS, who can offer an explanation for this picture?
I've developed a lot of film and a lot of different types of film and have never seen a mark such as this. So to say it's a defect/consequence of the developing process and to have it repeated on more than one frame in nearly the same spot would be almost impossible.
originally posted by: GovernmentSauce
As for the image being a concern because of a lack of others in the sequence, though, I'm not as sceptical. It's the millenial generation who pioneered the proliferation of endless day-to-day photography, not the generations before. Photographic film and development costs were expensive, unlike the modern ephemeral digital medium. Members of the general public were likely to be more spartan in their photographic habits than professionals of the day, or of the public today, principally because of the cost factor.
originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
originally posted by: GovernmentSauce
As for the image being a concern because of a lack of others in the sequence, though, I'm not as sceptical. It's the millenial generation who pioneered the proliferation of endless day-to-day photography, not the generations before. Photographic film and development costs were expensive, unlike the modern ephemeral digital medium. Members of the general public were likely to be more spartan in their photographic habits than professionals of the day, or of the public today, principally because of the cost factor.
That is a very true point. My Grandmother's camera took roll film and you only got 8 exposures from it. I'm sure she portioned out those 8 shots very sparingly. I remember myself using up frames sparingly such as when I photographed the bus drivers for my senior yearbook back in 1978 and took only one shot. They asked why I only took one and I said because I got the shot. Back then Tri-X only had 20 frames, not that many, really. That famous shot of Che Guevera? The photographer had two frames left on the roll and decided to just rap off a couple shots of Che to finish the roll. Only two frames with Che in them? Che was probably just a very explainable rocket.
originally posted by: intrptr
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: intrptr
If you feel like it, Try enhancing the image to highlight the two horizontal streaks across the page. One goes right thru the artifact, another is below it a bit. Theres also what 'looks to be' a thumbprint on the left side, middle.
There's also a kind of darker "shadow" of the object in question slightly to the right about 2 o'clock. It's very dim. Here's an inverted image to bring out the horizontal lines a little better to the right (in front) of the object:
Coool. Other 'drops' of emulsion became visible too. The streaks are from handling. Overall the whole picture is very poorly rendered. Look at the fogginess, the contrasts of the original. Its a washout.
originally posted by: JimOberg
originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
originally posted by: shawmanfromny
Are there any photographers on ATS, who can offer an explanation for this picture?
I've developed a lot of film and a lot of different types of film and have never seen a mark such as this. So to say it's a defect/consequence of the developing process and to have it repeated on more than one frame in nearly the same spot would be almost impossible.
I missed the part where the image was repeated on another frame, please show me.
originally posted by: JimOberg
I think you've backed yourself into a corner with that theory, because IF we accept the years-later family lore of the photographer actually seeing the object first and THEN grabbing a perfectly-centered shot of the building, do we then have to assume he took no further shots because he didn't want to waste film? And accepting the claim he went downtown to get a picture of the building's decorations, can we accept that it was purely by accident the object lined itself up to provide the perfect background shot the photographer originally intended?.