Bernice Moore Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Hi Bill: More questions , please..if you will allow me. Weigman is running towards them...so his camera is trained towards a somewhat side view of the pedestal..so it would show them side by side more or less if she had stepped behind him, would it not.??..similar as to Betzner and this is all within seconds of the last shot fired at the limo...? Would you inform me if this frame, is before or after when he shows the limo passing into the underpass and shows the smoke on the film ? Wouldn't a darker background be even better to show her light dress ? than those with a light background.I thought Zapruder and Sitzman were in the sunlight....? She also was much taller than Mr Zapruder so wouldn't her upper area be showing above him somewhat, if she had somehow been able to maneuver herself behind him. I would think part of her still would be showing..? Isn't the pedestal only about two feet in width..and perhaps approximately four feet in length there abouts..? Marilyn was a big girl, and taller than Mr.Zapruder by several inches and two feet does not sound perhaps enough room for her to have been behind him. ...if I am recalling the measurements properly...but am not sure on this info....I know I have many questions . Thankyou for the previous reply...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 (edited) Hi Bill: More questions , please..if you will allow me. Weigman is running towards them...so his camera is trained towards a somewhat side view of the pedestal..so it would show them side by side more or less if she had stepped behind him, would it not.??..similar as to Betzner and this is all within seconds of the last shot fired at the limo...? Would you inform me if this frame, is before or after when he shows the limo passing into the underpass and shows the smoke on the film ? Bernice - I am not sure which frame you refer to, but let me cover the ones I recall from this thread if I may. The frame from the Wiegman film showing the smoke comes at the very end of the Zapruder film as the limo is entering the underpass. Jack did a composite made up of more than one Wiegman frame to show the pedestal. I don't recall if he posted a single Wiegman frame of the pedestal, but he may have. About 17 seconds passes from the time Betzner took his photo to the moment Zapruder stops filming. Zapruder stops filming about 9 - 10 seconds after the head shot to JFK. These time frames may not be all that relevant, but I thought I'd share them as I go. Once Zapruder and Sitzman go out of view on the Nix film I do not know how they moved around on the pedestal. I know the Bell film pans back towards them after the limo passes through the underpass and it catches Sitzman and Zapruder off the pedestal by that time. The Paschall film shows Zapruder hoping off the pedestal behind Sitzman as I recall. The smoke in the Wiegman film would be in the air during Zapruder's filming, but his camera pans just below the smoke, thus not allowing us to see it. However, there may be a small part of the smoke seen in the Zapruder film around Z419/420, but I cannot be for certain. (see attachment one) Wouldn't a darker background be even better to show her light dress ? than those with a light background.I thought Zapruder and Sitzman were in the sunlight....? She also was much taller than Mr Zapruder so wouldn't her upper area be showing above him somewhat, if she had somehow been able to maneuver herself behind him. I would think part of her still would be showing..? Isn't the pedestal only about two feet in width..and perhaps approximately four feet in length there abouts..? Marilyn was a big girl, and taller than Mr.Zapruder by several inches and two feet does not sound perhaps enough room for her to have been behind him. ...if I am recalling the measurements properly...but am not sure on this info....I know I have many questions . Look at Zapruder and Sitzman in the Betzner image and you will see his coat is dark and he is casting a shadow over most of Sitzman's body, thus making her somewhat dark as well. I have shown these two individuals as they would appear in the Bronson slide in B&W. Notice how dark Sitzman appears in Zapruder's shadow. (see image two) The difference between what is seen in the Bezner photo and the Wiegman film can be best taught by allowing you to see first hand how the Betzner image changes to the point of being lit, contrasted, and blurred to match the same type of circumstances attributed to the Wiegman film. By doing so you can see that two people you started out seeing have now all but vanished just like we see in Dave Wiegman's film. The background behind Zapruder and Stzmen, the exposure of the film, and the motion blur were the factors that made Zapruder and Sitzman seem to vanish. (see animation in attachment three) Sorry I could not post this information last night, but the site wouldn't take an attachment and then it seemed to have gone down altogether. Bill Edited January 5, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 Hi Bill: More questions , please..if you will allow me. Weigman is running towards them...so his camera is trained towards a somewhat side view of the pedestal..so it would show them side by side more or less if she had stepped behind him, would it not.??..similar as to Betzner and this is all within seconds of the last shot fired at the limo...? Would you inform me if this frame, is before or after when he shows the limo passing into the underpass and shows the smoke on the film ? Bernice - I am not sure which frame you refer to, but let me cover the ones I recall from this thread if I may. The frame from the Wiegman film showing the smoke comes at the very end of the Zapruder film as the limo is entering the underpass. Jack did a composite made up of more than one Wiegman frame to show the pedestal. I don't recall if he posted a single Wiegman frame of the pedestal, but he may have. About 17 seconds passes from the time Betzner took his photo to the moment Zapruder stops filming. Zapruder stops filming about 9 - 10 seconds after the head shot to JFK. These time frames may not be all that relevant, but I thought I'd share them as I go. Once Zapruder and Sitzman go out of view on the Nix film I do not know how they moved around on the pedestal. I know the Bell film pans back towards them after the limo passes through the underpass and it catches Sitzman and Zapruder off the pedestal by that time. The Paschall film shows Zapruder hoping off the pedestal behind Sitzman as I recall. The smoke in the Wiegman film would be in the air during Zapruder's filming, but his camera pans just below the smoke, thus not allowing us to see it. However, there may be a small part of the smoke seen in the Zapruder film around Z419/420, but I cannot be for certain. (see attachment one) .................................. Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Wiegman clear frame showing the smoke and limo. It occurs after Wiegman has run past the first lamppost but before he gets to the second lamppost. Of interest are the cars and motorcycle pulled over to the south curb...NOT SEEN IN OTHER FILMS OR PHOTOS. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 The Wiegman clear frame showing the smoke and limo. It occurs after Wiegmanhas run past the first lamppost but before he gets to the second lamppost. Of interest are the cars and motorcycle pulled over to the south curb...NOT SEEN IN OTHER FILMS OR PHOTOS. Jack Jack - If you watch the Wiegman film carefully you will see that Dave Weigman is still in the center lane of traffic and has not started running anywhere at that time. It is because of this that the frame you posted looks so good. Just prior to that frame, Wiegman had his camera pointed at the ground over the cars door panel - then he shifts to a position outside of the car. The center stripe dividing the missdle of the street and the North lane is visible near the front fender of the car. The first frames when the camera rises to look down Elm Street is the frame you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 Figuring the timing sequence of Wiegman frames to determine whether Zapruder and Sitzman should still be on pedestal. You decide. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 (edited) Figuring the timing sequence of Wiegman frames to determinewhether Zapruder and Sitzman should still be on pedestal. You decide. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jack - No one is saying that Zapruder is not on the pedestal at that point. What has been repeatedly said here is that the Weigman film is heavily contrasted and shows motion blur, which has made Zapruder and Sitzman blend into the background. If you cannot understand the technical reasons for this - then just watching what happens to them in the Betzner photo when put under the same conditions as the Wiegman film should make the point clear to you. You seem to keep raising issues as if something is wrong here, but motion blur in a B&W image is not conspiracy, but rather a normal occurence that does to people in the diatance who are seen against a dark background. In the Betzner photo below I simply show Hugh's photo with blur added, which made Zapruder and Sitzman disappear and then I contrasted the image to match Wiegman's film. The sequence can be seen in the animation and the result is self explanitory. Edited January 5, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 Figuring the timing sequence of Wiegman frames to determinewhether Zapruder and Sitzman should still be on pedestal. You decide. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> which has made Zapruder and Sitzman blend into the background. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is basic in photography that a VERY LIGHT object IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT (like Sitzman's dress) will STAND OUT in BRIGHT CONTRAST against a DARK BACKGROUND. It will NOT "BLEND IN". This is elementary. Anyone who says it will "blend in" is attempting deception...or does not understand photography. Decide for yourself. Do not be misled by uneducated unsupported dictates. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 (edited) It is basic in photography that a VERY LIGHT object IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT(like Sitzman's dress) will STAND OUT in BRIGHT CONTRAST against a DARK BACKGROUND. It will NOT "BLEND IN". This is elementary. Anyone who says it will "blend in" is attempting deception...or does not understand photography. Decide for yourself. Do not be misled by uneducated unsupported dictates. Jack Jack, I agree that Sitzman, when standing over near the Hesters was in direct sunlight, but on the pedestal she stood in Zapruder's shadow. Please look at her in this Bronson image and explain to everyone why her light dress is so dark if she is in direct sunlight. The same can be said of her in the Moorman photograph. Sitzman's dress is in the shade being cast by Abraham Zapruder. Her right shoulder near the neck and her face does look light where the sun is shining on it, but when motion blur equal to that of the Wiegman film is applied to her in the Moorman image, then she dissappears with Zapruder. You may also notice that I made the image of Sitzman near the Hester's into a B&W print like that of the Wiegman film and added the motion blur ... does she not fade out! Next I show Sitzman's dress in Zapruder's shadow as seen from the Betzner photograph. I show it both in a light version and again in a contrasted version much like Wiegman's film. I then add the motion blur - do you not see what happens? You simply cannot take a clear image and compare it to a contrasted image that is blurred and think that the two images should show the same things. I cannot see how to make these illustrations any simplier for you. (please remember to click onto the images for a larger view) Bill Edited January 5, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 (edited) Hi Bill: More questions , please..if you will allow me. Weigman is running towards them...so his camera is trained towards a somewhat side view of the pedestal..so it would show them side by side more or less if she had stepped behind him, would it not.??..similar as to Betzner and this is all within seconds of the last shot fired at the limo...? Would you inform me if this frame, is before or after when he shows the limo passing into the underpass and shows the smoke on the film ? Bernice - I am not sure which frame you refer to, but let me cover the ones I recall from this thread if I may. The frame from the Wiegman film showing the smoke comes at the very end of the Zapruder film as the limo is entering the underpass. Jack did a composite made up of more than one Wiegman frame to show the pedestal. I don't recall if he posted a single Wiegman frame of the pedestal, but he may have. About 17 seconds passes from the time Betzner took his photo to the moment Zapruder stops filming. Zapruder stops filming about 9 - 10 seconds after the head shot to JFK. These time frames may not be all that relevant, but I thought I'd share them as I go. Once Zapruder and Sitzman go out of view on the Nix film I do not know how they moved around on the pedestal. I know the Bell film pans back towards them after the limo passes through the underpass and it catches Sitzman and Zapruder off the pedestal by that time. The Paschall film shows Zapruder hoping off the pedestal behind Sitzman as I recall. The smoke in the Wiegman film would be in the air during Zapruder's filming, but his camera pans just below the smoke, thus not allowing us to see it. However, there may be a small part of the smoke seen in the Zapruder film around Z419/420, but I cannot be for certain. (see attachment one) .................................. Bill <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Wiegman clear frame showing the smoke and limo. It occurs after Wiegman has run past the first lamppost but before he gets to the second lamppost. Of interest are the cars and motorcycle pulled over to the south curb...NOT SEEN IN OTHER FILMS OR PHOTOS. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ******************************************** Hi Bill & Jack : Thank you for the photos and explanations..and the gif, and all appreciated. Sorry I did not make myself clear,last evening I referred to the Weigman's that both you and Jack posted, tinted red, and thanks for sharing the timing also..that does help as it all becomes confusing..I believe some are working on that area, for all so perhaps in the future we shall have a timetable, as I do not think one is available at present.? So if I have read this red Wiegman frame correctly they would be, Zapruder in front to Sitzman being behind him in that frame, if I could see them,as Wiegman's view was more of the side of the pedestal coming down Elm....but because of the blurr I do not.. I understand that he was running and pausing as he leaped off the car, at the corner of Houston and Elm, I believe he states he did so as he heard the second shot, there may be other views in the Wiegman that have not been looked at too closely ,one is the frame, that Jack has found and posted that reveals the bikes and cars stopped on the left on Elm,as the limo goes under..but are not found in others....too bad so much was so very blurred. Bill...The Betzner lit, contrast and blurred does show how objects are changed and can be wiped out...in some photos...appreciated...but I always was under the impression that a very light object only became lighter, but I do not know anything about this area, that you have pointed out to me...but thanks for taking the time and doing so. I must admit I am lost on the Bronson slide.....I do see people,her two legs,and perhaps his right leg to the left on the pedestal, but it appears to me that she looks as though she is in front of him, and her dress is so very dark..and she was wearing beige.....I have studied this photo many times, in looking for Marilyn, but this one does confuse me.. The smoke to me in Wiegman is quite clear, but had not seen the possible smoke in Zapruder for a long time. In the future at some time when convenient, would it be possible for someone to post the Pascall frame, of them descending from the pedestal. Or is it just available on the film, perhaps.? Now I do not see any sign of them in the second Wiegman frame to the right that Jack has attached above...now in this one I do see the sun is quite bright on the pedestal, and the shadows in contrast very dark and I would think they should be shown, to some degree as this appears to be at the same time that the limo is travelling into the underpass...and it appears to be clearer ..but ? I believe that Zapruder stepped down from the pedestal about ,perhaps 13 seconds after he stopped filming and I thought the Weigman film would have shown them even though the frames are not that sharp...he did start filming as he ran perhaps some three to four seconds after the second shot....and Marilyn stated that she stood atop the pedestal without Zapruder, awhile and when she looked around he had gone.......But in her statement with Professor Thompson that changed and she stated that she had gotten down after the limo disappeared into the underpass and she ran down the hill and seeing that Wiegman would be right there at that time and filming I had thought and hoped I would have seen her in the Wiegmans, but??and I have not been able to find her in the many other photos taken of the south side at that time.... I do see her and Zapruder in some,and in Bell as she turns and goes into the Pergola..and he walks away but we do see him then walking into the Pergola in Altgens I believe it is, but if the Bell was taken around 10 seconds after they they got down, then I should be able to find them in the Wiegman I have thought, but?? I do see them in some photos, in others I am not sure, and yet again in some, I do not...I do realize the tumultuous chaos that must have broken out as the assassination occurred....and the scrambling by the photographers for their photos and films..most seem to be,either very dark shadows or very bright light..nothing much was grey apparently or just right in otherwards..It is just that in this Sitzman area to me there is inconsistancy in the photos..that's just my opinion.. as I have been looking for her in all, for some time now...and I still am...... Thankyou both Gentlemen for your time,and your photos, and your work and remarks, much appreciated...... B Edited January 6, 2005 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I believe some are working on that area, for all so perhaps in the future we shall have a timetable, as I do not think one is available at present.? I'm not sure what time table you are looking for, but as I said before - Zapruder filmed the limo going into the underpass, so the Wiegman film showing the same thing means he is filming as Zapruder is on the pedestal. In the best images the 6th floor Museum has - Sitzman's legs can be seen over the pedestal as she is getting off of it. The Paschal film shows the pedestal immedately after Sitzman's dismount and capture's Zapruder hopping down. The Bell film picks up immediately after that moment with them both walking away from the pedestal momentarily. So if I have read this red Wiegman frame correctly they would be, Zapruder in front to Sitzman being behind him in that frame, if I could see them, as Wiegman's view was more of the side of the pedestal coming down Elm....but because of the blurr I do not.. You got it exactly right. The same thing happened to their image in the Wiegman film as it did to their image in the Betzner and Moorman photo after I added motion blur. I understand that he was running and pausing as he leaped off the car, at the corner of Houston and Elm, I believe he states he did so as he heard the second shot, there may be other views in the Wiegman that have not been looked at too closely ,one is the frame, that Jack has found and posted that reveals the bikes and cars stopped on the left on Elm,as the limo goes under..but are not found in others....too bad so much was so very blurred. Bernice, I think you will find that Woegman said he started filming as the shooting was going on. He didn't go over the door panel until the car had just about made it's complete turn. It is true that a motorcycle stopped and it can be seen in several photos. I think Jack is in error for thinking the press car stopped because in the Couch film around the 20 second mark I can see it rolling slowly along with its door open while the car behind it pulls into the wouth lane to overtake it. Play Groden's copy of the Couch film and see if that is not the case. Bill...The Betzner lit, contrast and blurred does show how objects are changed and can be wiped out...in some photos...appreciated...but I always was under the impression that a very light object only became lighter, but I do not know anything about this area, that you have pointed out to me...but thanks for taking the time and doing so. You are welcome. As I showed with the Moorman Bronson and Betzner photos - Sitzman was not in bright sunlight because Zapruder was casting a shadow over her. I must admit I am lost on the Bronson slide.....I do see people,her two legs,and perhaps his right leg to the left on the pedestal, but it appears to me that she looks as though she is in front of him, and her dress is so very dark..and she was wearing beige.....I have studied this photo many times, in looking for Marilyn, but this one does confuse me.. Jack's misreading of Zapruder and Sitzman's body positions probably caused some of your confusion. Look at Sitzman's leags and left arm in Moorman or Betzner and not how that applies to Bronson's slide. Her elbow is bent and her hand appears to be on or near her hip. Her right hand is on Zapruder's back as she is holding him steady because of his Vertigo. The smoke to me in Wiegman is quite clear, but had not seen the possible smoke in Zapruder for a long time. I didn't know anyone had noticed the smoke in the Zapruder film before now. In the future at some time when convenient, would it be possible for someone to post the Pascall frame, of them descending from the pedestal. Or is it just available on the film, perhaps.? Mark Oakes has some blowup work on the Pachall frames on his DVD. I believe it is being sold through James Tague's web page. In another thread, Denis has put up some Paschall frames and maybe he will post the ones of Zapruder getting off the pedestal there. Now I do not see any sign of them in the second Wiegman frame to the right that Jack has attached above...now in this one I do see the sun is quite bright on the pedestal, and the shadows in contrast very dark and I would think they should be shown, to some degree as this appears to be at the same time that the limo is travelling into the underpass...and it appears to be clearer ..but ? Once again ... it is the pedestal that is in bright sunlight. Zapruder is in dark clothing and Sitzman has Zapruder keeping the sun from reaching her. There should be nothing seen in the Wiegman frame that is not seen in the Betzner or Moorman photo after I added motion blur. It is just that in this Sitzman area to me there is inconsistancy in the photos..that's just my opinion.. as I have been looking for her in all, for some time now...and I still am...... I think the better you learn the photographs/films and the times at which they were taken - things will make a lot more sense to you. Good Luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I'd like to interject a couple of things related to photography and the way film works if I may. I'm not taking sides or trying to create ill feelings -- just sharing some general comments that may help to explain *some* of the things we're seeing in these pictures. * Film, in general, is less sensitive to light than the human eye, and has a lower range of acceptable intensities (luminance) than does the human eye. Simply put, below a certain amount of light, the films response will be minimal, while the human eye can still function quite well. Likewise, above a certain amount of light, the film will be, in effect, saturated while the human eye has no problem dealing with that amount of light. We typically need a flash indoors to take a picture (although our eyes can see just fine). Likewise, if we allow too much light on the film outdoors ("overexpose") the entire picture will wash out. EYE: Pitch Black *--------------------------------------------------------------------------------*Blindingly Bright FILM: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Underexposed *--------* Overexposed. . . . . . . With this in mind, one must setup their camera so that the *majority* of the scene they are photographing falls within the acceptable luminance range of the film. This is accomplished using three different factors: 1) f-stop (the size of the camera's aperature, and also determines depth of field) 2) shutter speed (how long the aperature is open 3) speed of the film (faster film needs less light to react, but is more grainy) You have to decide what portion of the scene to set your camera for. If the photographers in question set their cameras for a bright, sunny day, it is not surprising at all that darker areas are lacking details. Note that most simple, "amateur" cameras have a fixed aperature that is usually quite small (f=22 in many cases). Less light gets in, so they bias toward bright, outdoor scenes. * The intensity of falls off inversely proportional to the square of the distance. The greater the distance, the less the intensity -- but by a power of 2, not in a linear fashion. Distant objects are more likely to appear dark on film even if our eye can see them. * Most Black & White film does not respond evenly to all colors. B&W tends to be very responsive to blue and much less responsive to red. This is why many black and white photos do not show much cloud or sky detail. The intense blue washes out (overexposes) that area of the scene. Various clothing may 'show up' better than others on B&W film. Taking all this into account leads me to several comments: 1) Those areas on the grassy knoll that appear VERY dark in pictures would NOT have been that dark to witnesses' eyes. 2) Dark, hidden areas in the Dal-Tex building as shown in Altgens probably didn't look like that to the witnesses' eyes. 3) Film-based movie cameras tend to need a lot of light, and are going to be biased toward accurate representation of brighter scenes. 4) Knowing the grain characteristics of the film/movie film we're looking at might help determine what "murky" areas might contain real, salvageable information and which are just chemical "noise". (B&W film tends to have a finer grain than color film). Just some items to consider when looking at these pictures. Regards, Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 (edited) Frank...as a photographer more than 50 years, I can say that the generalities you list are largely true. However, they are somewhat misleading. You make no distinction between film and paper. An extremely wide range range of tonal values is registered on the original film. In the darkroom, the technician has to decide whether to print for highlights or shadows, or do dodging or burning in. What you say applies only to STRAIGHT PRINTS. The negative may have an exposure range of 20, but a straight print from the negative may have a range of only 10. Thus a print made "light" may show grays from 1-10, while a dark print may show grays from 10-20...so the technician usually splits the difference, printing it for grays from 5-15...or chooses to dodge or burn in for greater tonal range. Also printing papers come in various contrast grades (1-5) which affect the tones of the final print. The same is true of color film. Very dark areas may contain detail not visible in original (see attachment). Jack Edited January 6, 2005 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Jack, I certainly wasn't trying to be misleading in what I posted, only to point out that film does not have the luminance capabilities of the eye. This is true for slides, negatives, and prints. Your point is well taken on prints vs. negatives or slides -- Print film, in general, is more forgiving on an overexposure than slide film, while slide films will (generally) render more useful recoverable data in the low-light areas. The amount of useful recoverable data is, however, finite and is a function of the delta between the scene's luminance range and the exposure. When the technician creates a print from a negative, another narrowing of the range occurs, and a decision on exposure (of the print) is made again. Even the original development process can skew the centerpoint of the luminance range if the technician pushes or pulls the negative/slide by an f-stop or two. ** A key point that comes out of this is that if one wants to perform photographic analysis of these images, it is vital to start with the best possible source and to understand the nature/behavior of that source. If one starts with a poor-quality scan of a print of a negative, compresses that image with a lossy compression algorithm like jpeg, then attempts to digitally zoom the image, the results will be useless. (Please -- nobody take offense. I'm not referring to anyone's work specifically with this comment.) Regards, Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 6, 2005 Author Share Posted January 6, 2005 Jack,I certainly wasn't trying to be misleading in what I posted, only to point out that film does not have the luminance capabilities of the eye. This is true for slides, negatives, and prints. Your point is well taken on prints vs. negatives or slides -- Print film, in general, is more forgiving on an overexposure than slide film, while slide films will (generally) render more useful recoverable data in the low-light areas. The amount of useful recoverable data is, however, finite and is a function of the delta between the scene's luminance range and the exposure. When the technician creates a print from a negative, another narrowing of the range occurs, and a decision on exposure (of the print) is made again. Even the original development process can skew the centerpoint of the luminance range if the technician pushes or pulls the negative/slide by an f-stop or two. ** A key point that comes out of this is that if one wants to perform photographic analysis of these images, it is vital to start with the best possible source and to understand the nature/behavior of that source. If one starts with a poor-quality scan of a print of a negative, compresses that image with a lossy compression algorithm like jpeg, then attempts to digitally zoom the image, the results will be useless. (Please -- nobody take offense. I'm not referring to anyone's work specifically with this comment.) Regards, Frank <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Frank...no offense was intended; you are obviously well versed in photography. I was only pointing out that most of your original posting covered generalities, which may not be applicable in specific instances, especially when it comes to darkroom work. I agree that the best possible image should be used when possible...but that must be tempered by saying that one must use what one has; in the 60s and 70s, most images I analysed were from the WC volumes or books and magazines because NOTHING ELSE WAS AVAILABLE. Much of my most important work was from such sources. In the 70s and 80s I began to get better copies from Penn Jones, Mary Ferrell, Gary Shaw and Robert Groden, and was able to make much better progress. I eventually was able to copy originals, such as Moorman and Towner, and a set of Groden's Zapruder frames. The better the originals, the better the analysis usually; however, frequently a very good halftone is "good enough". May I ask about your background in photography? Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Agbat Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Hi Jack, I've been interested in photography since my first visit to a darkroom well over 30 years ago (sheesh -- it doesn't seem that long ago!!). Honestly, though, I only credit myself with about 15-20 years of "serious" photographic experience. I took lots of pictures (some good, many bad!), not seriously studying or excelling at either the art or the science side of photography. However, I had a bit of a 're-birth' in the photographic field in the mid-late 1980's when I had the opportunity to work on some imaging-related research projects. These projects forced me to improve my understanding of light, optics, and the various methods we have for image capture (film, ccd, etc). I've since focused, admittedly, more in the technical/scientific side of imaging than in the art of taking "good" (aka artistic composition, etc) pictures. **** I've often thought that something of great value to the research community would be a repository of ultra high-quality scans/digitizations of the photographic and film evidence. I know that this could be a monumental task, and probably not one that could or would ever be "complete." I, for one, do not have any idea how to gain access to the original negatives/slides/images, etc. Nor do I know the feasibility of even approaching such a challenge. Perhaps some folks with more experience in this area could comment (should this be a separate thread? I don't want to hijack our discussion of the missing windows....) Regards, Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now