Does anyone have any comments on these pictures?

[tetedur]

Here is the context:

From NYPD's Above Hallowed Ground:A Photographic Record of September 11, 2001 page 11



A crop of the above shot shows a "streak" to the left:



Another crop shows a "streak" going up and other debris in the air:



The streak going down gets lost in the debris, seems to branch and you can pick it up near the bottom of the debris cloud.



A streak goes to the right but is lost in the debris. You can find a streak where the debris is lighter in color:

[Taverner]

1. Honestly those streaks look too perfect to be debris or anything

other than a pen.

[tetedur]

2. I thought someone had written in my copy of the book until I checked it

against the copy on the shelves at the local library. Same picture.

I can't find this picture anywhere on the internet and I've been looking.

This is the closest picture that I can find.

[Taverner]

3. Well it could be brown hair on the lens

It just didn't look like debris flying - it looked artificial

[tetedur]

4. I don't believe it is a hair on the lens.

Look at the picture with the "streak" going up, you'll see debris and little "streaks" against the sky background.

Remember the book was put out by the New York City Police Department photographers.
Why would they publish a picture that was "fixed" or artificial in any way?

[SDuderstadt]

5. What, exactly, do you think the picture proves or suggests? n/t

[tetedur]

6. Exactly? I have no idea what the picture proves or suggests.

It looks like "something" is exploding almost symmetrically leaving really long heat laden trails. I've never seen such a thing before. I don't know what would have been a normal part of WTC 1 that would have exploded like this. Do you have any suggestions for me?

I sure would like to hear from others what they think it might be.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Since the picture is, in no way, supposed to be....

"evidence" or anything similar, I would say the most likely thing is what another poster suggested...perhaps a hair on the lens. I really wouldn't get too worked up about it.

[tetedur]

8. Perhaps the New York City Police Department photographer that risked his life

getting as close as he did to this falling tower was not trying to get "evidence." He was documenting this event and that has meaning.

Why bother to put a picture that has "hair" on the lens in a book solemnly dedicated to those who died that day? How can an observer of pictures like these not see that this is something odd and admit it?

Oh, and thanks for your suggestion about not getting "too worked up."

I guess I'll just sit down and shut up.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Why don't ask him?

It's kinda of useless to ask those of us who can merely speculate. That's why I asked you what you thought the picture proved or suggested. As far as him "risking his lefe to get the picture", how do you know he didn't shoot it with a telephoto lens?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tetedur]

13. I compared at least two pictures from approximately the same point of view

The details in these pictures do not show up in other pictures. Either the resolution of the pictures is better than what you can find on the internet or the photographer is closer to the building. Are there other reasons why these details do not show up on other pictures?

Anyone within a certain proximity to those buildings as they fell were probably exposed to the debris clouds. I consider that having to breathe while exposed to those contaminates a risk to one's well-being. Many who worked to rescue and clean the site are now ill. Some have died.

[jberryhill]

61. "were probably exposed to the debris clouds."

...and you suppose the camera, and the film in it, was not exposed to fine particulate contamination?

[SidDithers]

11. Who is credited as the photographer?...nt

Sid

[tetedur]

12. I'm not sure if the photographs are referenced to the individual photographers

I'll look at the book later on today.

At Amazon I found these names:

Photographers of the New York City Police Department, Christopher Sweet, David Fitzpatrick, and Gregory Semendinger

[tetedur]

14. These are the photograpers listed in the book:

Detective Michael O'Brien, Detective David Fitzpatrick, Lieutenant Anthony Garvey, Detective Charles Parone, Detective William McNulty, Senior Photographer Valerie Hodgson, Photographer Janice L. Sugarman, Photographer H.Keith Manis, Photographer Charles Wisniewski, Senior Photographer Lance F. Karp, Photographer James Mercado, Administrative Manager Walter Taylor, Senior Photographer Douglas A. Campbell, Photographer Raymond Aponte, Photographer Wilhelm Figueroa.

There are no references to individuals who took specific pictures.

Editor Christopher Sweet is on the staff of Penguin Putnam. I cannot find in the book why Gregory Semendinger is referenced on the Amazon site.

[704wipes]

15. Gregory SEMENDINGER

heh

[2rth2pwr]

16. That looks exactly like a sustained Tesla laser.

[hack89]

17. Do you have a reference picture?

or are we suppose to take your word for it?

[2rth2pwr]

18. This theoretically is what it would appear as

[jberryhill]

69. So...

How do you explain the apparent arc in the yellow streak in the OP?

(hint: light travels in straight lines)

[T Monk]

119. light doesn't always travel in a straight line

[Realityhack]

19. It's almost silly to speculate.

These are all crops from the same image correct?

The very first place to start would be to get any other images close in time from the same camera.

What type of camera (and lens) was used?

and on and on.

I think it is fairly clear that whatever is generating these lines is near the camera. Most likely hair or another fiber on or near the lens or on the sensor.

[tetedur]

20. Silly?

What I find silly is the suggestion that the professional photographers with the NYPD published a photograph with hair on the lens.

I guess this is a buggar.

[Realityhack]

22. Why not?

Why wouldn't they? It's not exactly a model shoot. They I don't think they will try to re-shoot the photo or photoshop out unwanted elements.

The photo says a lot about what happened despite any lines.

Oh yeah... or hair follicle?

We simply do NOT have enough information to form reasonable speculations as to what this might or might not be. I posted valid questions that would need to be addressed in order to objectively attempt to answer this question.

One I missed where what where the camera settings especially aperture (you still need the camera type info). This would let you know if any fibers would show up if they where on the outside of the lens vs. on the sensor or rear of the lens.

[tetedur]

23. Do you hold other pictures to the same standard before you

recognize them as a snapshot of an event that really happened?

I don't know who took the picture except that it was one of the photographers from the New York City Police Department. (See list in the above post.) I don't know what camera type or lens the photographer possessed. I don't know the aperture settings. I don't have other pictures from the photographers same roll of film or memory card. I don't know exactly how close the photographer was to the building.

In order to disabuse those of the notion that "hair" is on the lens of the professional's camera, impossible-to-know details will have to be provided. I simply can't do it. You can go on asserting that these details must be provided before you will admit that this is an extraordinary photograph. Common sense tells me different.

Or perhaps it is Pele's Hair.



Only problem is that stuff comes from a volcano. Matter of fact there are several comparisons that could be made between the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings and volcanoes but I'm not going to go there.

I guess my mistake was expecting that I would get constructive suggestions when I asked what others think this explosion might be. I'll have to be more specific in the future.

I posted this in the off chance someone with some explosives experience might be able to suggest what had the tendency to explode in very few directions (4 that can be traced.) What has the power to explode and be un-effected by the energy of the collapse of the building?

[Realityhack]

76. Yes I do.

I do hold other photos to the same standards as far as optical anomalies go.

You never asked about 'explosions' you asked about the fine yellowish lines in a single photograph.

I am not questioning wither the trade center seen falling happened. You will have to see someone else here for that. But I AM questioning wither any meaningful information can be gathered about the lines you pointed out without knowing more.

[tetedur]

82. I appreciate your question about "meaningful information"

"Meaningful information" certainly is in short supply.

I posted this picture to see what it "suggested" to others. I think it is a valuable photograph
of the building destruction. I thought perhaps someone else might think it had special value too.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Umm, it's not like they could reshoot it

Why wouldn't you use a "defective" photo that you can't reshoot. Your premise is flawed.

[tetedur]

25. Your premise that the photograph is defective is flawed. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

26. Then point to the flaw in my premise...

that should be easy.

[tetedur]

27. Your premise is that the photograph is defective.

[SDuderstadt]

28. And your challenge is to explain how it is flawed...

can you answer it or not?

[tetedur]

29. I decline your "challenge."

I don't have the time or desire to even respond to the twisted thoughts of your insult to the professionals of the NYPD or the publishers of Penguin Putnam.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Wtf?

How is this an "insult" to either the NYPD or the publishers? Do you honestly think that some sort of minor defect in the picture would cause them not to use it, especially when they certainly could not go back and reshoot it? And the "flaws" in the photo are so apparent, do you really think they said, "Yup, no one will ever see that and wonder what it is."? Jesus.

It's no surprise to me that you declined the challenge.

[Realityhack]

77. The premis is...

that assuming the yellow lines are from something such as contamination on the lens or sensor, the publishers have three options.

1. Don't use the picture it's not perfect so scrap it.
2. Photoshop out the anomalies, it won't be authentic but it will look nicer
3. Use the photo as is (basic sharpening etc.), it won't look perfect but it is an accurate piece of history.

So SOME people would chose #3.

The above are as far as I can tell facts. Those are the choices, and some people would chose #3


Your premise seems to be that the particular people involved with this photo would never chose #3. and that therefore this MUST be something other than a flaw in the image.

Do you have any evidence of that?

[tetedur]

80. Assuming the photo has contamination as per your premise

there's always option number 4.

4. Print the photo and note the contamination in a caption as they
did in another photo as I have related in this thread twice.

[SDuderstadt]

81. If that's the case, do you also believe they would just omit...

mention of it altogether if they believed it "shows something"? Just because they captioned something in one part of the book, doesn't mean it set a precedent.

[tetedur]

83. I'm sure pictures were chosen with care and because they had meaning.

Some pictures had no captions. They are self-evident.
With a collection like this one is left with an idea of the author's intent.
Your impression might be different than mine.

When I look at this book I feel the overwhelming loss for the city.
They were proud of their city and look what happened to it.
I feel the brotherhood of the rescuers and the clean-up guys. They had a
job to do and they did it. It is a "quiet" book. How can I explain this?

You don't see people's faces until they pulled out Sgt. John McLoughlin. Up to that point, (page 100
in a 190 page book) you just see their backs or they are looking down. The looks on their faces
tell a story too. They really wanted to save someone.

The book isn't about controversy. It is not political. There isn't even a mention of Giuliani.
There are some pictures of the flag but even with those you feel that those were flown to give
these guys courage like they were doing battle on that "hallowed ground."

I don't know if that answers your first question.

Concerning the second question, they captioned the "helicopter blade" picture even though
it was rather obvious what it was. The captions impart information. Precedent? I'm sorry I still can't
figure out what you are asking.

[jberryhill]

112. One of the problems of autism, OCD, and other disorders

...is dealing with inconsistencies.

[Realityhack]

117. Um.

There is a bit of a diference between a large obvious black patch from a helecopter blade and a few streaks of unknown origin.

The fact is as I originaly said quite clearly it is a little silly to speculate on what this might or might not be without more information.

Do we even know if this anomaly shows up in other printings?

I still say it is premature to speculate on what this could be.

The logical investigation into a photographic anommaly (which are quite frequent even uongst professional photographers in published work) is to determine if it is likely caused by something other than the scene THEN investigate what at the scene could have caused it.

[SidDithers]

31. They're pen marks, either on the pic, or on the back of the pic...

which may have been picked up when they were scanned. And that "buggar" is the mark a ballpoint pen makes at the end of drawing a line.

Sid

[SDuderstadt]

32. Now, wait just a minute, Sid....

how dare you malign the "professionalism" of the NYPD or the publishers!!!


(How is my faux indignation? Do I come across as a "truther"? I am working on my impersonation)

[SidDithers]

33. It's coming along...

I assign you to 3 more hours of studying Jefferson's inane no-plane posts.

Keep up the good work :)

Sid

[SDuderstadt]

35. Is there anything else I could do for extra credit....

Mr. J's "no-plane" nonsense hurts my brain.

[tetedur]

37. To be clear about the location of this debris note this picture:

I have put a rectangle around where it is in the sky. It is not the end of a "streak." Fire is being blown ahead of the debris.

[SidDithers]

38. It is the end of a streak...

here's the same pic with brightness reduced, and contrast increased.



It's pretty clear your "streaks" are pen marks.

Sid

[tetedur]

39. Who made the "pen marks"?

a. NYPD
b. Penguin Putnam publishers

Why did they make the "pen marks"?

I assure you the debris in the sky is different from the streaks that are emanating from a focal point. The debris in the sky is being blown away from the dust cloud. The streaks are going in their own direction.

[SDuderstadt]

40. "The streaks are going in their own direction"

Which is even more indicative that they are pen marks. Jesus.

[tetedur]

41. Who made the "pen marks"?

a. NYPD
b. Penguin Putnam

Why did they make the "pen marks"?

[SDuderstadt]

42. Who the fuck knows, Tetedur?

Why the fuck are you asking us?

[tetedur]

44. You kiss your significant other with that mouth?

You are the ones asserting that someone put "pen marks" on this picture. Who else should I ask?
It should be pretty simple.

a. NYPD
b. Penguin Putnam

[SDuderstadt]

46. Show me where we "asserted" that someone put pen marks....

what we said was that was a possibility and even more likely than your supposition it represents something else. My tone with you results from the frustration of you repeatedly asking questions over and over that only the people you're naming could know the answers to. But you keep implying something nefarious when you have NO earthly idea. As I advised you earlier, ask the frickin' NYPD or the publisher. And, in the event you do and subsequently learn the answer is along the lines that Sid and I are suggesting, I predict we'll hear nothing from you.

[tetedur]

48. Refer to your post #40

"Which is even more indicative that they are pen marks. Jesus."

[SDuderstadt]

50. Do you know how to read?

My post is lloking at the evidence to compare which theory is more likely. "even more indicative" isn't concluding anything. It's saying, "A is more likely than B because...". I have never claimed to know what the source of the marks are, however, your hypothesis seems to be the goofiestb if all the theories.

[SidDithers]

45. Can you find these streaks on any other pic...

taken on 9/11?

If yes, then perhaps you've got confirmation that there is something really there.

If no, then you're probably looking at an artifact on a single picture.

Sid

[tetedur]

49. No I can't find these streaks on other pictures. All I can figure is

most internet pictures of the collapses are taken from video or the photographer was not close enough to the buildings. This picture was scanned from a book. The resolution is much higher. More detail is shown even though a book print is not as good as the actual photo.

Compare the windows on the building and you can see what I mean.

[SidDithers]

43. Who made the lines? How the hell would we know?...

Why don't you contact the publisher of the book, and ask them which photog took that pic, then contact that photog, and ask them about the lines.

Let us know what you find out.

Sid

[tetedur]

47. You are the one asserting that the photograph has been

tampered with. Why don't you contact the publisher and the photographer and tell them that you think someone has drawn lines on the picture. I certainly don't agree with you. I would be very embarassed to accuse them of such unprofessional behavior.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Having a pen mark on it....

doesn't mean it has "been tampered with" nor did anyone "assert" that. Ever hear of an accident?

[tetedur]

54. Please see Sid's post #52 and my response #53. n/t

[SidDithers]

52. All I see are the pics you posted...

for all I know, you're the one who drew on the picture.

More likely, however, is that the marks on the picture are accidental. From the look of your OP, it appears that the pics are scanned images of actual photographs (or scans from the book), not original digital images.

There could be any number of causes of artifacts on a picture. It could have been under something that someone was writing on. It could be that someone wrote on the back of the picture.

As I said, if you're really interested in what it is, contact the publisher and the photographer. Get out from behind the keyboard and do some real work.

Sid

[tetedur]

53. If you think I am the one who drew on the picture I would be extremely

easy to debunk don't you think? All someone would have to do is go to their local library or perhaps bookstore and take a look at the fourth picture in this book on page 11. I urge you to do so. Maybe you could get out from behind the keyboard also.

So now the "marks" are "accidental". A photographer takes a picture. He either has a film negative or a digital image. From a negative he can make as many prints as he wishes. He can do the same with a file. Yet in this case, there was just one chance at a picture, it got messed up but they decided to go ahead and print it anyway. Right....

[SDuderstadt]

55. If this really concerns you as much as you claim...

ask the freakin' photographer or publisher. For the life of me, I don't know why you think it will get resolved here.

[Realityhack]

78. Good point re: Scanning

They also look like they could be contamination on the bed of a scanner.

[LARED]

21. Chem trails - nt

[SidDithers]

34. I love it!...

:applause:

Sid

[SDuderstadt]

36. Lately, I've been thinking of actually cloning chemtrails n/t

[poliscifanboy]

56. obviously, its a missile of some kind.

When bush decided to destroy the towers he probably had back up plans incase the explosives did not work.
He must have put the missiles on top of other buildings, then fired them into the buildings as they collapsed, this destroyed all evidence of his evil deeds.
I guess he was just too stupid to realize people may catch them on film.

That is the only logical answer to what the streaks are......either that or its a hair on the lense.

[jberryhill]

57. Did you scan these from a book?

Depending on the printing method, there are any number of things that can cause a streak in color photograph reproduced in print.

Considering that the streak turns a right angle and has higher definition than objects around it, it looks like a printing defect. These things roll off of presses at high speed and aren't manually checked with magnifying glasses for quality control.

There are a lot of photographs from various angles of this event. Does the streak appear in any of them (or indeed does the streak appear in other press runs of the same book)?

[tetedur]

58. Yes this picture is from "Above Hallowed Ground"

A Photographic Record of September 11, 2001 Viking Studio, published in 2002 the Penguin Group, Penguin Putnam Inc. Printed in the USA. I scanned a 600 dpi .tif to study it and also saved the file to a .jpg.

I obtained my copy of a new book through Amazon but from a cheaper bookseller in the Fall of 2007. My local library had a copy and I checked the library's copy against mine to see if someone had written in my book. I found the same streaks in the library's copy. You don't need a magnifying glass to see the streaks in the book. There are no "printing defects" in other pictures.

I guess I'm a little at a loss for words while trying to understand the incredulousness of those with the attitude that somehow those who put together this book are at fault for printing a picture that is "not true". Perhaps it is because I have the book and can see the quality of the extraordinary photos in it. Captions are sparse. The pictures speak for themselves. I see the awesome work these people did. They did it with respect, honor and dignity. They dedicated the book to the 23 policemen who died that day and their families.

It kind of sticks in my craw that anyone would even throw a little bit of dirt on their reputations as professionals because I wanted to try to understand what is in the picture. Instead of suggestions that would inform, educate or suggest a clue as to where to look for info, I found mostly time-wasteful, mean-spirited and arrogant comments.

We are down the road a ways from that day but we still don't understand what happened because our government has chosen to treat us like children who don't have the right to see evidence or have legitimate questions answered. Sometimes I wonder if we are on the same side. I hope we all are on the side of truth. I hope the truth wins.

[SidDithers]

59. Nobody has suggested that the picture is "not true"...

just that there is an artifact on it. You're the one trying to make an artifact into something suspicious.

"Instead of suggestions that would inform, educate or suggest a clue as to where to look for info,"

I think it's been suggested multiple times that you contact the publisher for more information. Obviously, you're not going to get a definite answer asking here.

Sid

[jberryhill]

60. You do understand....

That whoever took that shot was subsequently engulfed in a cloud of fine concrete dust and debris and, more to the point, the camera was.

If it was shot on film, then that dust could wreak all sorts of havoc when the roll was rewound, removed from the camera, and then unwound for processing.

This was not an arranged family portrait by a professional photographer in a studio, and there wasn't a chance to shoot it again.

Who is casting aspersions on anyone's professionalism?

Nobody is throwing "a little bit of dirt" on anyone's reputation, but a whole lot of dirt was thrown on that camera, and depending on what the person wielding it had done up to that point, other dirt could have gotten in. A tiny speck of dust can scratch film, and if it's color film then it can cause reproduction defects of various colors.

[SDuderstadt]

63. Thank you, JB...

That's what we've been trying to tell this poster, but you've done it more succinctly. Many thanks.

[tetedur]

64. If the camera or its media had been contaminated, I think it would have been so noted.

There is another picture in the book taken from a helicopter. There is a black "patch" obscuring part of the scene. The caption reads, "Banking to the right to head back downtown, the helicopter blade came into the frame."

I absolutely believe the photographer was exposed to the "fallout" but they don't relate their hardships or the detailed history of how these shots came to be included in the book.

We know that at least one photographer didn't make it that day, Bill Biggart. This is what was left of his equipment.



(I don't know if the picture is going to display but it is at the Digital Journalist site entitled "Bill Biggart's Final Exposures".)

We do know something of what happened to him.

"Biggart. a photographer, who had worked for an alternative New York picture agency, had been carrying three cameras with him, ... There were two Canon EOS1s film cameras. He was also carrying his Canon D30 digital camera. ...

When Chip East was handed the bag containing Biggart's gear by his widow, Wendy, he was convinced that no pictures had survived. The avalanche of falling debris had blown off the backs of the two film cameras. There were several rolls of film in Biggart's bag; however, the lids of the film canisters had been peeled back, allowing light to fall into the cassettes. Finally, East turned his attention to the digital camera. It was covered by ash. The lens had been sheared off at the flange. But when he opened the chamber that held the compact flash card, it was pristine."

Needless to say, the pictures that did survive are excellent quality.

I find it more implausible that those responsible for this picture were careless with the processing of the film/file than that this picture is what it is. To me it is a picture of something exploding. To you it is hair on the lens or pen marks or an accident or printing malfunctions or dust contamination on media. Okay. You'll not convince me and I'll not be able to get you to discuss what it is that could be exploding in this manner.

Thanks anyway for helping keep the thread kicked. Maybe someone is seeing it and also thinking this is something of a mystery.

[SidDithers]

65. Have you contacted the publisher yet?...nt

Sid

[jberryhill]

67. "To me it is a picture of something exploding"

...which "something" managed to turn a right angle and appear in front of the dust cloud rather penetrating into it.

I'm going to guess that you don't have personal experience in film photography or processing.

You are perfectly capable of tracking this down with the folks who published the book and made the photographs. Drawing a conclusion of your own because a random selection of people on an internet message board could not satisfy you, is not a valid research technique.

Take, for example, the famous "angle cut column photograph". There are reams of speculation about that photograph, and I was surprised nobody ever asked the photographer about the circumstances of the photograph until I tracked him down and found out that he was working for an union organization for the purpose of documenting the work of steel workers doing clean up at the site.

Even if you can't find the photographer (and you can certainly ask anyone on the list in that book who shot that picture), another thing you might consider doing before drawing a conclusion is consulting someone with specific expertise in color photography and publishing processes and ask them their opinion.

Doing things like that is what constitutes "research". Looking at a streak on a photograph and saying "I think it's X" is merely stating an uninformed opinion. You might as well tell us what the Rorschach blots "really are".

It is only a "mystery" as long as you refuse to actually conduct something in the way of actual research into the question, which you apparently do not want to do.

[SDuderstadt]

62. Jesus...

no one is casting aspersions on either the photographer or the publisher. But it's far more logical to believe there is some sort of defect in either the photo or the book then to propound it into some sort of sinister "what could this possibly be" insinuation, as if there is more to be discovered about how the buildings came down. Maybe Bush sent a special "orange death ray" into it.

In the meantime, you can end this silliness by enquiring of the people who actually put the book out rather than belabor it here, asking people for ideas, then claiming we are trying to malign the photographer or publisher by answering your silly question.

[tetedur]

66. Here's another question I've been pondering.

Those who do not think that these "streaks" are something exploding, what are they afraid of admitting?

Or is it just an absolute refusal to entertain the notion that anything exploded at the WTC? Do they so resolutely believe that this is a fire/gravity driven structual failure that they cannot let into their minds for a second that something, anything in the building blew up?

In order to dismiss the reality captured in a photograph any and every other possibility can be accepted without proof or plausiblity of any of it.

Show me some other picture published with hair on the lens.
Show me some other picture published that someone marked up with a pen.
Show me some other picture published that was accidentally marred.
Show me some other picture published that the colors were messed up in the printing process.
Show me some other picture published where the film media was dust contaminated and then we will compare the two. I know I would find that very enlightening.

But here I am trying to figure out what is in other people's heads rather than my origin concern.

Like the sinking of the "Titanic", people will study the events of 9/11 for years to come. Unlike the "Titanic" there is no evidence to visit at the bottom of the ocean. We just have our pictures and the concerns in our heads.

[jberryhill]

68. You want to see scratched negatives?

A couple of things you might note in these two photographs. First, the general orange/yellow appearance of scratches in the film base. Take a look at 35mm filmstock some time. Note the range of color in the base material.

Second, in the first photograph, note how the scratches are not as apparent in the dark portion of the photograph. (that "lighter color" debris in your OP, btw, is a sun flare from the coated optics on the lens - the picture is backlit)

Third, notice how the scratches in the second photograph appear in the foreground, i.e. "in front of" any object in the picture. Now notice how your yellow streak doesn't go "into" the dust cloud, but appears in front of it.

[tetedur]

70. Is the second picture from a business that fixes photographs or negatives?

Is that the purpose of this group of pictures at
www.springhillphoto.co.uk/images?

Steam-lorry-2-scratched-Web.jpg


Steam-lorry-2-repaired-Web.jpg


They certainly did a good job. I knew already that scanned pictures can be fixed with software that's around these days. Do you know if they fixed a print of the lorry or did they have to fix the negative? The context would be very helpful.

Was the first picture you posted used in a demonstration of some sort? Was it repaired?
The scratches on your first photo in the dark area can be seen even at this resolution on my crusty old monitor. They look slightly lighter than the dark background.

The "streak" in the WTC photo that goes to the right (toward the sun flare), "starts" (i.e. at the "cross"), disappears in the debris cloud, (is "lost") and just about lines up (if you imagine an arc trajectory) in the sun flare. I agree the streaks are in front of the debris cloud except where I couldn't trace them even looking at a 69mb file.

The streak that goes up seems to fade in the bright sun as if it is arcing away from the point of view of the camera. The tip of that streak is larger than the streak itself. I couldn't find a similar characteristic in your scratch samples.

The streak that goes down is also lost but seems to branch or separate and ends before it gets beyond the debris cloud. The colors on that streak seem darker and more complex than the background debris cloud. My point might be hard to discern from the crop I have posted.

I do appreciate your post. Your pictures certainly demonstrate how colors show up on a scratched photo. However, if the WTC photo was scratched I would think someone had to scratch it artistically. Perspective was used. The arcs are perfect as if, well, something is flying through the air. I don't think it was randomly or artistically scratched.

If I accepted your premise that the WTC picture was scratched, it certainly would be good to know why the photographer or publishers didn't fix this photo in an otherwise perfect volume of important photos. And "only they would be able to tell me".

This is just an example of an explosion. I just wanted to show the way "little comets" sometimes arc as they are blasted from the main part of the explosion.

[jberryhill]

72. "certainly would be good to know why the photographer or publishers didn't fix this photo "

"Fix" the photo?

If the negative had a defect, there are good reasons not to alter a print of a photograph from something that is supposed to be a documentary collection.

So now you are saying they should have altered the print? Is that your point?

if the WTC photo was scratched I would think someone had to scratch it artistically

Thus rendering it a certainty that you have no direct experience with film photography, printmaking, and publishing.

Once again "research" is not looking at stuff and saying "I think X". Why don't you take your scans and the book to a professional photographer and speak to him or her about it.

did they have to fix the negative

Oh, I gotta hear you explain how to fix a scratched negative.

No, you use digital techniques on a digital image made from the negative. It used to be that one would actually use a fine tipped brush and pigments on the inevitable dust spots and other defects apparent in an enlargement print. On the negative, these things are microscopic.

[tetedur]

73. No, remember I'm the one saying that the photo is true.

What I said was:

"However, if the WTC photo was scratched I would think someone had to scratch it artistically. Perspective was used. The arcs are perfect as if, well, something is flying through the air. I don't think it was randomly or artistically scratched."

I think it would be very, very difficult to scratch a negative artistically. Who would do that? Why would they do that? But your post's subject line was "You want to see scratched negatives?" And then you showed some photos that were scratched. That's why I asked if a negative could be fixed.

It is easy to add or subtract from a digital file and there are very skilled people who could. But again why?

Unless the negative or the original digital file is damaged, there would be no reason to publish a "messed up" picture. If the negative had been scratched they could have noted that, the way they pointed out that an aerial shot included part of a helicopter blade.

I was looking for the context to your scratched photos and I found the reference to the picture and the same picture "fixed". I only meant that a photo can be fixed, not that this WTC photo should have been fixed. Sorry for the mis-statement or misunderstanding.

[jberryhill]

74. And even more research you can do....

"The arcs are perfect"

The one heading into the cloud meets up with another artifact of the same color that is vertical, and is not an arc.

But when you say they are "perfect", what do you mean. Have you plotted out the arc, fit an equation to it, and determined that it is either parabolic or a parabola in perspective, such as you would expect from a object following a gravitational trajectory?

No, you haven't, because just like actually consulting an expert in photography or anyone associated with the photograph itself, you are not willing to put out any actual research effort beyond saying "I think it looks like X".

I think it looks like a photographic defect, and when I have more time I will show you how the non-uniformity of the line is consistent with the type of abrasive scratch in photographic film that one gets from a tiny particle of irregularly shaped grit between the film and the pressure plate of a camera. I used to get those all of the time from my bulk loader.

But nobody cares what you "think" or what I "think". Get off your ass and do some research. It is well-noted here that "tetedur thinks it is something exploding, and not a photographic artifact". BFD.

[SidDithers]

75. Thanks for those pics...

Scratched negatives seem much more likely to me now, than the pen mark idea that I was floating upthread.

But it's readily apparent that we're looking at an artifact, and not actual streaks across the sky.

Sid

[SDuderstadt]

71. Jesus, this is frustrating....

As I have said before, since the photographer cannot go back and reshoot the scene, it's kinda silly to claim that a defect in the picture would result in anyone in the process going, "Nope. I will only print the picture if it is perfect". I think my premise makes perfect sense to anyone here with the exception of you. And you can certainly disprove my premise by simply enquiring of someone actually involved in the process.

No offense, but it's your kind of "thinking" that makes the "truth movement" the laughingstock that it is.

[Realityhack]

79. WHO INSULTED ANYONE!?!?!

Saying that there may be an artifact in a photo that someone Chose to leave there is in no way dispariging.

You seem to think a professional photographer always takes perfect shots and never gets anything on their lens/sensor/film/etc. during photojournalism at a major disaster site. The only person being insulted is you and you are doing it to yourself.

[tetedur]

84. It's not about me.

I've tried to explain my objections to the idea that this is a photo that
contains artifacts that were not real things that happened in that moment in time.
If you don't understand my point by now, why I stand in defense of the integrity
of the NYPD photographers, I don't think more explanation will make it any clearer.

The streaks have been variously described as hair, pen marks, accidents, chem trails, a laser,
printing defects, dust that scratched the negative, and, by you, contaminants on my scanner.
Some of these suggestions aren't worth anymore refutation than has already been discussed.
Some are not worth a response at all.

I only wish that those who want to argue or refute or insult or mock had as much integrity
as I believe the NYPD photographers demonstrated by publishing their book. If "refuters" had
integrity, they would have something to say to those "on their side" when, for instance, they suggested
that the marks were made by a pen. At least Sid Dithers took that "back".

I realize that you cannot, for the sake of instruction or argument, hold in your mind the idea that
this picture is a record of what really happened. However, it exists and it is unexplained.

[SDuderstadt]

85. And it's unexplained because you keep asking those of us who cannot answer the question...

hint: ask the freakin' photographer or publisher and quit flogging this!

[AZCat]

86. That's pretty fucking stupid.

Linking the integrity of said photographers to the mentioning of various phenomena as possible causes for the streaking seen in the photograph is a stretch, to say the least. More worrisome is your claim that "this picture is a record of what really happened." This is, of course, illogical. Photographs routinely exhibit transients or atmospherics that did not actually appear but are instead consequences of the physics of optics or of contamination (either of the lens or the film). Anybody who has ever cracked a book on photography would know this. I imagine that the photographers who took the images in the book are cognizant of these issues and if you merely took the trouble to contact them would be happy to pontificate on possible causes of the "mysterious" streaks.

[tetedur]

87. Thanks in advance.

You said:
"Photographs routinely exhibit transients or atmospherics that did not actually appear but are instead consequences of the physics of optics or of contamination (either of the lens or the film)."

Can you point me to other published pictures with these anomalies that are so "routine?"

[jberryhill]

90. This one actually has a few....

Quite a few dust images and at least one scratch in the negative that I can find.

[tetedur]

94. Do the dust images in this picture call into question

the reality that one man has a gun pointed at another man's head and he's pulling the trigger?

[jberryhill]

91. Another famous photo

Negative scratch left on foreground wall.

[tetedur]

96. Does the scratch call into question the fact that a girl

is standing at the window?

[SDuderstadt]

102. Try to stay on topic...

Your claim was that photos with defects do not get published...Berryhill just proved you wrong.

[jberryhill]

93. One of the most famous photos in US history

Take a look at the cloud in the upper right.

There are also some negative scratches going across the entire image.

[tetedur]

95. Does the scratch call into question the fact that

soldiers are raising the flag?

[jberryhill]

101. You asked whether it was common that photos are published with defects

Yes, many of the most famous photos of all times have any number of artifacts on them.

You have demonstrated you know nothing about photography, and you wasted your entire day instead of consulting anyone in a position to know anything about the streaks on the photograph in question.

I had my own darkroom and engaged in a film photography for years as a hobby, and those streaks look like a defect to me.

You think they look like something else.

You asked for "comments" and then started bickering about the comments.

Why not do some research and resolve the issue in your mind. You won't. Because you don't want answers.

Yeah.... the headline in papers that week was "MARINES RAISE FLAG ON IWO JIMA - EMULSION SCRATCHED AND DUST ON NEGATIVE"

[tetedur]

109. I started "bickering" about the comments? Wow.

Did I not have the right to respond? Am I supposed to sit down and shut up when someone says
I might be the one that drew streaks on a photo I scanned?

[jberryhill]

111. Be sure to let us know...

...when you have tracked down either the source of the photo or consulted with a professional photographer.

Till then. Bye.

[jberryhill]

97. This one has what look like processing chemical bubbles on the negative

Very famous photo of Mt. St. Helens erupting....


Look near the top center, and to the left of the upper part of the tree on the left. Then, you'll see that there are defects all over this photo.

[tetedur]

99. I see the defects. Do you have one like this with streaks? n/t

[jberryhill]

98. Large piece of crap on this famous photo

Down at the lower right.



Something nasty happened to that negative down at the lower right.

And just like your "arcs", the color of the defect tends toward yellow/orange, and is clearly in the foreground. It can't be ejected from the debris cloud, because it comes down in front of a tree that is miles from the erupting Mount St. Helens in the background.

And you know what all of these collected photos have in common? They were documentary action shots, and not multiple studio, still life, or placid landscape art shots for a coffee table book, that could be taken several times.

[tetedur]

106. That is a good example. Point taken.

I would have thought it was a dead tree that the trunk of which is obscured by other growth
and not given it a second thought. And just to confirm they published that in a book?

I know it wasn't my original, exact, precise request for proof and I'm not trying to move
the goal posts, but do you know of an example where there is some real question about
what is happening in a picture and the defect puts the subject into question?

Admit it, if this was the WTC and I posted this picture



you would have said that those ejections were defects if they were yellow like this:

[jberryhill]

110. Yes, published in several

There are a very limited number of photographs of Mt. St. Helens erupting, and some of the best were recovered from the camera of the scientist who died taking them.

No, I would not have said they were defects because of the way that they integrate with other parts of the image, and the structure of the scratches themselves. Your yellow "ejection" is not coming from within the debris cloud, but passing in front of it, and its definition is different from the grain structure apparent in the photograph (although part of the problem is that you are scanning a halftoned image from a printed page, and not from a photograph, but the grain structure is still apparent). You've also ignored the right angle intersection with a similar artifact. All of your pictures of eruptions and explosions have a plurality of radiating ejecta, not a single line of varying density which differs from the apparent resolution and focus of the image itself.

I have seen a LOT of scratches on negatives, but was never a professional photographer.

I'm willing to bet you NEVER engage in a competent investigation of yoru own question, and that's sad.

[tetedur]

120. A note about Mt. St. Helens

Before this thread disappears in to the ether, I have a small point to make
concerning the claim (the above post "Large piece of crap") that there was
something "nasty" in the Mt. St. Helens negative in the lower right. While I agree the "something nasty" is in the foreground, I disagree that the so-called
"something nasty" is a defect on the negative.

At first, I thought that the "defect" was a tree, but I was puzzled by the arc to the left of the "tree."

Easily, I found who took this photo. Please refer to these pictures by Gary Rosenquist.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/Landslides/MSHSlide.html

or here: http://home.planet.nl/~monique.schilders/rosenquist.html

These are small but, in the lower right, what I called a "dying tree" is visible in most of the pictures.

The following is a close up crop of one picture from Gary Rosenquist’s sequence in:
Mt. St. Helens the Volcano Explodes by Prof. Leonard Palmer.



The above shows that these "defects" are, in fact, trees. Because the example from http://www.driever.nl/foto/achtergronden/ag.html is not clear in the lower right area perhaps one could think that the branches are just scratches.

I found the context for the earlier example of scratches
found here: http://tinyurl.com/5zxs96
I did find that the photographer, for his own artistic reasons, scratched the film.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35968619@N00/sets/72157594476759259/
"Experiments with film
Collection of negatives I have scratches using various impolements (sic) (old watch cogs, sewing needles, etching points..) The theme: altered self, pro realization of frailty... "

Perhaps all this proves nothing to many of you. It proves to me that there are a lot of people out there ready to lecture others about doing the "research" but they may be unwilling to do their own "research" before they make their assertions.

And another thing:



Happy Fourth of July!
Peace. Out.

[jberryhill]

121. What's remarkable is....

...that you still haven't bothered to track down any information on the photograph with which you have problems, but you believe that others are supposed to do your work for you.

[AZCat]

114. It looks like jberryhill has adequately fulfilled your request.

He has my thanks for taking the time to do it right. I have a number of images that qualify, but they are not digital.

[tetedur]

88. Some pictures have anomalies. Some pictures do not have anomalies.

Therefore this picture has anomalies.

Have I correctly captured the logic of your position?

[SDuderstadt]

89. AC said nothing remotely like that...

your comprehension of Logic is as bad as your comprehension of photography.

[tetedur]

92. Here's my logic. Please correct me. Thank you.

Some pictures have defects.
Some pictures do not have defects.
All pictures of historical import with defects are not published unless they are noted as such.
(I will assume this is true until someone shows me different.)
Some pictures with defects are published for other purposes i.e., when historical precision is not an issue.
This picture is not noted as having defects.
This picture is published.
Therefore, this picture does not have defects.

[SDuderstadt]

100. First of all, arguments don't have that many premises...

secondly, the third premise makes this an "argument from ignorance" and the part in parentheses after it is an example of "trying to shift the burden of proof". The entire argument is illogical.

I would seriously recommend you actually study logic before venturing into it.

[jberryhill]

104. You would have liked this guy

...back in usenet days, there was this guy at NASA named Charles Packer, who would regularly publish interesting "analyses" of photographs in the New York Times and other places.

His method of analysis was to find things he didn't understand, and then conclude that the photo was faked and, therefore, much of the news was fake.

I don't know what he did at NASA, but he had never wielded a camera, knew virtually nothing about geometry, optics, or perspective, and would point out the strangest things. He sent me a compilation of his "work" once, since I enjoyed his odd take on the daily news.

Here's a sample:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.headlines/msg/d72a6a1e192ac0ab?dmode=source

One that really stuck out in my mind was a school bus crash in, I think it was Texas, where the bus plunged into a quarry and landed upside down in several feet of water. The NYT ran a photo of the bus being pulled out of the quarry by a crane.

There was no visible dripping or gushing water from the bus, so good old Charlie concluded the entire event was a fake.

Really weird guy. If he's around these days, I'm SURE he's a no-planer. He'd eat this stuff right up.

Here's a classic:


CP> Consider these two photos manufactured,
CP> more or less, by the artist Scott
CP> McFarland:
CP>http://tinyurl.com/36lhwm
CP>http://tinyurl.com/33j3fq
CP> I'm interested in how he put different
CP> skies behind essentially the same trees,


The look to me like two photos taken in different seasons (spring and
autumn). There are more differences than just the skies. Look at the leaves!


Well, yes and no. The image that
appears to show autumn, with the
center tree having what seems to be
red leaves, also contains a bush (to the
left of the righthand shed) that still
has the same white blossoms that it has
in the other image, titled "Early
Spring". Exactly what is natural and
what is artificial in these pictures
is subtle, and this subtlety apparently
is part of the artist's game.

At any rate, I'm following Kai's
suggestion and studying the Magic
Wand to learn if it can help me
with a project that's not quite
so mischievous!

--
Charles Packer

Now, look at those pictures.

[SDuderstadt]

105. People like Packer and Tetedur need....

to learn Occam's Razor.

[jberryhill]

103. Point 3 is dumb as dirt /nt

[tetedur]

107. I will modify point 3. Is this better?

Old point 3:
"All pictures of historical import with defects are not published unless they are noted as such."

New point 3:
All published pictures of historical import with defects where the defect calls into question what is happening with the subject should be noted.

I will also correct point 4:

Old point 4:
"Some pictures with defects are published for other purposes i.e., when historical precision is not an issue."

New point 4:
Some pictures with defects are published and the defect is not noted if the defect does not interfere with or call into question the subject.

[SDuderstadt]

108. I give up....

are you really trying to learn Logic? You have too many premises.

If you are, try this:

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/main.html

[jberryhill]

113. Why don't you get in touch with someone who is actually in the publishing field

1. Find someone familiar with photography and publishing.

2. Tell them how you think they should do their job.

3. Let us know how that works out for you.

[SidDithers]

116. Have you contacted the publisher yet?...nt

Sid

[Realityhack]

118. Bad logic

"Some pictures have defects."
Absolutely true.

"Some pictures do not have defects."
Very few if you get super picky but Yes this is also true.

"All pictures of historical import with defects are not published unless they are noted as such.
(I will assume this is true until someone shows me different.)"
There is absolutely no basis for such an assmption. Anything flowing from this unfounded assumption is likely to be flawed.

[AZCat]

115. Thank you. n/t