The Gordon Arnold Competition

[Jack White]

Actually Jack DID alter the Moorman to produce the figure he calls badgeman. How did the alter the image? Simple, he overexposed it to the point that highlight detail was lost. Thats why you can't really find the the corner of the wall (other than guessing) and it's why the "features" of badgeman seem to appear. The overexposure altered the detail edges of the original image. It pretty much makes any "study" of the badgeman image useless.

What Jack did was lighten the image so to better see the images that were in deep shadow. In doing this, the white areas such as the wall are expanded as any photo would do when the contrast and lighting in increased. Does this mean that Jack created Badge Man out of nothing - absolutely not! Many times we have lightened an image of the knoll for instance so to see if something or someone was hidden in shadow. To date in all my experience I have seen images of people degraded by way of this process to the point of no longer being able to recognize what they were - even to the point of vanishing altogether, but I have never seen where the image of a person was created out of nothing by merely adjusting the contrast and/or lighting of a photo.

Bill

Sorry Bill but you are wrong. When you radically change the edges of detail by compressing the tonal rane of an image, you ARE creating somthing new that did not exist in the original photograph. How could that not be true? Look at the "edge" of the wall in the badgeman alteration. Does it bear ANY resemblance to the actual edge of the wall? Of course not. The new "edge" created by the alteration is widely spaced from the original. Now apply that to the "face" of badgeman. Can you now understand WHY badgeman is simply made from nothing?

But all of this disregards the hard truth... and that truth is that the Moorman lens/film/f-stop combination simply cannot reslove the level of detail that was created in the badgeman alteration.

I've explained this more than once. I'll leave it at that.

What Lamson says is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. There was not ONE negative but about twenty, BRACKETED in half-stop

intervals from f4.5 to f22. All show the exact same scene in varying levels of exposure. NOTHING WAS ALTERED.

One negative had the best tonal range, but an acceptable print could have been made from any of about 6 negs;

I simply chose the print with the best tonal range.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

Did Jack shift all or any of the figure images, through inadvertence or happenstance?

Duncan, how do you see this, please; not that it is highly important?

Jack wouldn't move or alter anything, i'd bank my life on that. Can you upload Jack's b/w version and your version both scaled to the same size for comparison with no lines drawn through anywhere on each image. Thanks.

Duncan

Actually Jack DID alter the Moorman to produce the figure he calls badgeman. How did the alter the image? Simple, he overexposed it to the point that highlight detail was lost. Thats why you can't really find the the corner of the wall (other than guessing) and it's why the "features" of badgeman seem to appear. The overexposure altered the detail edges of the original image. It pretty much makes any "study" of the badgeman image useless.

What an asinine accusation for a "photographer" to make. All darkroom photographers try to achieve

an OPTIMAL image with silver-based images. To achieve this they BRACKET exposures and print negs

using test strips, DODGING, and BURNING-IN, as well as various paper CONTRASTS. According to

Lamson, he says these customary darkroom steps are "alterations", as if there is only ONE TRUE

INTERPRETATION. Nonsense!

I BRACKETED the copy negative of the Groden slide (which was extremely dense) at half-stop

intervals from f4.5 to f32 at 4x magnification. This produced three negatives in the "acceptable" range.

The middle one of this group had the best tonal range, so ALL PRINTS of badgeman were made from

this single negative. As with any negative this was a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas

of the negative. In this ONE negative, the very bright smoke and wall lost detail as did the very

dark areas, like the trees and badgeman clothes. However the very dark exposures showed very

clearly that the SMOKE HAD SHAPE AND TEXTURE, and thus was an OBJECT, not an artifact.

My final print was done from the best exposure WITHOUT DODGING OR BURNING-IN.

Lamson is unfamiliar with the work of famed American photographer Ansel Adams, whose test

prints marked with darkroom instructions for dodging and burning in are legendary, and which

are often included in museum exhibits along with finished prints, which are quite different. I guess

Lamson would say that Adams ALTERED all of his photos.

Jack

Sigh, why post things that are untrue Jack? What is asinine is your attempt to deny you altered the Moorman. You cannot deny that you altered the Moorman because the results are available for all to see. Simply check the edge of the wall for proof of this alteration. Your attempts to 'optimize" the image created completely new detail edges that did not exist in the original. That sir is a fact. No amount of denial on your part will change the fact that what you did was an alteration of the original.

You did not make "a compromise in favor of the middle-tone areas". You created new "middle tones' that did not exist. In the process you threw away the detail in the original middle and highlight tones, creating new detail edge lines that did not exist in the original. And why do you think there SHOULD be detail in that small area of the Moorman original polaroid. Have you tested the camera/lens/film combination to see if it capable of that level of resolving power?

As for Adams, your once again get it very wrong. And yes, Adams did alter his prints from the original rendering found in his negatives. I'm sure even he would admit it. BTW, my sister in law is the grand daughter of Edward Weston. Edward Weston was a friend and fellow photographer to Adams. I have spoken at length with Cole Weston, Edwards son, before he died a while ago. Cole printed many his fathers negs, and I a blessed to own a few of those prints. During our converstaions we often spoke of the darkroom alteration process. Cole, like his father, like Adam, Like me and ...like you all ALTERED images in the darkroom.

And please don't attempt to lecture me on darkroom processes. I spent first part of my photography career diong high end b/w and color printing. I would venture I have made over a 100,000 b/w prints. Your experience in your home darkroom pales in comparison.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Actually Jack DID alter the Moorman to produce the figure he calls badgeman. How did the alter the image? Simple, he overexposed it to the point that highlight detail was lost. Thats why you can't really find the the corner of the wall (other than guessing) and it's why the "features" of badgeman seem to appear. The overexposure altered the detail edges of the original image. It pretty much makes any "study" of the badgeman image useless.

What Jack did was lighten the image so to better see the images that were in deep shadow. In doing this, the white areas such as the wall are expanded as any photo would do when the contrast and lighting in increased. Does this mean that Jack created Badge Man out of nothing - absolutely not! Many times we have lightened an image of the knoll for instance so to see if something or someone was hidden in shadow. To date in all my experience I have seen images of people degraded by way of this process to the point of no longer being able to recognize what they were - even to the point of vanishing altogether, but I have never seen where the image of a person was created out of nothing by merely adjusting the contrast and/or lighting of a photo.

Bill

Sorry Bill but you are wrong. When you radically change the edges of detail by compressing the tonal rane of an image, you ARE creating somthing new that did not exist in the original photograph. How could that not be true? Look at the "edge" of the wall in the badgeman alteration. Does it bear ANY resemblance to the actual edge of the wall? Of course not. The new "edge" created by the alteration is widely spaced from the original. Now apply that to the "face" of badgeman. Can you now understand WHY badgeman is simply made from nothing?

But all of this disregards the hard truth... and that truth is that the Moorman lens/film/f-stop combination simply cannot reslove the level of detail that was created in the badgeman alteration.

I've explained this more than once. I'll leave it at that.

What Lamson says is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. There was not ONE negative but about twenty, BRACKETED in half-stop

intervals from f4.5 to f22. All show the exact same scene in varying levels of exposure. NOTHING WAS ALTERED.

One negative had the best tonal range, but an acceptable print could have been made from any of about 6 negs;

I simply chose the print with the best tonal range.

Jack

Nonsense? Then please tell us WHY the edge of the wall has MOVED in your badgeman image compared to the Moorman original? If nothing was altered in your copy, the edges of the wall should be in the exact same place as the Moorman original.

If you selected the image with the best tonal range, then WHY are all of the highlights and midtones of the original Moorman blown out in you alteration?

[Miles Scull]

Actually Jack DID alter the Moorman to produce the figure he calls badgeman. How did the alter the image? Simple, he overexposed it to the point that highlight detail was lost. Thats why you can't really find the the corner of the wall (other than guessing) and it's why the "features" of badgeman seem to appear. The overexposure altered the detail edges of the original image. It pretty much makes any "study" of the badgeman image useless.

What Jack did was lighten the image so to better see the images that were in deep shadow. In doing this, the white areas such as the wall are expanded as any photo would do when the contrast and lighting in increased. Does this mean that Jack created Badge Man out of nothing - absolutely not! Many times we have lightened an image of the knoll for instance so to see if something or someone was hidden in shadow. To date in all my experience I have seen images of people degraded by way of this process to the point of no longer being able to recognize what they were - even to the point of vanishing altogether, but I have never seen where the image of a person was created out of nothing by merely adjusting the contrast and/or lighting of a photo.

Bill

What Jack did was lighten the image so to better see the images that were in deep shadow.

That was his plan.

In doing this, the white areas such as the wall are expanded as any photo would do when the contrast and lighting in increased.

Indeed, they were.

Does this mean that Jack created Badge Man out of nothing

Yes, it does. Good point, but I would quibble at "nothing" because Jack did see something, just not a real figure.

- absolutely not!

Oh, yes, it does. That's why the GI Joe/Arnie figure is a midget. See Duncan's interesting analysis.

Many times we have lightened an image of the knoll for instance so to see if something or someone was hidden in shadow.

That's true.

To date in all my experience I have seen images of people degraded by way of this process to the point of no longer being able to recognize what they were

Me too.

- even to the point of vanishing altogether,

That's right.

but I have never seen where the image of a person was created out of nothing by merely adjusting the contrast and/or lighting of a photo.

I believe you have in this specific case: the Moorman photo.

How's the scaling coming along?

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Does this mean that Jack created Badge Man out of nothing

Yes, it does. Good point, but I would quibble at "nothing" because Jack did see something, just not a real figure.

OK Miles, I would appreciate you sharing with us one example out of all the photographic work you have done where an image was created from nothing by merely adjusting the contrast and lighting of a picture? The bottom line is that it cannot be done. Something is either there or it is not. But seeing how you like to respond as if you know better - I am sure that everyone will be interested in showing us how you reached such a conclusion.

I believe you have in this specific case: the Moorman photo.

OK, that is easy to say, but show how that can be done ... one example from where you took a photo and merely adjusted the contrast and/or lighting whereas you created anatomically correct figures ... please - just one! I say that it simply cannot be done and here is your chance to show us that you know something that we don't instead of just saying something that you know little to nothing about.

How's the scaling coming along?

The scaling is coming along rather well. I have been working with Duncan privately so that when the images and their findings are posted - any attempts by a certain someone to disrupt the thread will be thwarted before it ever gets started. My intentions are to educate Duncan on what I have done and why so he can feel that the process was accurately done within the smallest degree of error possible.

Bill Miller

[Craig Lamson]

Just curious Bill, How many times have you worked on lightening images, using film and print material, not digital files? Your digital work simply will not compare, film is a whole different kettle of fish.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Miles Scull]

Does this mean that Jack created Badge Man out of nothing

Yes, it does. Good point, but I would quibble at "nothing" because Jack did see something, just not a real figure.

I have been working with Duncan privately

Bill Miller

Where's a supine Jimmy Durante?

THERE he is !!

Where? OK, Bill, here you go: a little clue.

I have been working with Duncan privately

No kidding!

You & Duncan?

I'll bet you are trying to persuade Dunc about Arnie's elevator shoes.

[Alan Healy]

Alan,

In setting up a quick alternative to the Simkin forum for downloads, I forgot to tell my wife don't shut down the machine.

The link is good: http://66.75.7.97

If it's down, try back later.

Will try to keep it up and running for as long as possible.

chris

I don't want to prevent anyone from using the overlay for what ever purpose they think it may be helpful to them, but if one is trying to use it to show height comparisons beyond the wall - the two photos being taken at different elevations and locations will effect the outcome. The wall matches on the south dog leg, while the shelter is much taller in one photo than the other. The same can be said about the fence because the knoll slopes upward, so when an arrow is put at the base of the fence in one photo - it changes to the next because the two corners do not show at the same location, thus the two points on the fence in each photo are not even the same location.

Bill

Thank you Chris,

I've got them now

Chris,

could you tell us anything you noticed about the positioning of the Crawley photo from your work on the overlay?

We know he used Mary's camera with the same lens & had the focal setting calculated, it looks pretty good to me, not perfect but who needs perfect?

What is perfectly obvious to me, is that Nigel Turner seems to have stood in the place "they" thought Arnold stood, nothing to do with sizing the figure up to Moorman at all.

Turner et al never noticed the size difference & still don't today, but Crawley did.

That's why he puts all these characters way back in the car lot.

I say he puts them back there, if they were real he would.

Since Craig has now posted in this thread I wonder if he wouldn't mind giving us his honest opinion of the value of Chris's overlay above?

I know you probably think that we are all wasting our time here Craig but could you just pretend that the Arnold figure was a possiblity for a minute & comment on how Nigel Turner is three times the size of that Arnold figure in an overlay when almost everything else seems to line up?

Can we take anything positive away from a comparison like this in your opinion?

Thank you

Alan

Alan, I've not really been following this discussion so I don't have the background. However in the overlay, its clear that the recreation has problems, the biggest is that the film in the camera was not flat. You can see evidence of that in the warping of the curb. I'm really suprised that no one else has simply taken the lens from a model 80 polaroid and placed it on a view camera to shoot recreations. I've done this and it works great, allowing you to shoot almost the entire image circle cast by the lens onto any 4x5 film of your choice. In fact, just the other day I shot that setup using modern 100iso 4x5 film and took a photograph of a human head at 100 feet, just to see how much the lens would resolve. Interesting results...I'll get around to posting them sometime.

Anyways, people are differnt sizes for one and size changes of person in a photograph due to changing distances from the camera can either be calulated or proven by experiment. That would be my suggestion, either do the calculations or experiment. As for the size difference in the recreation photo, it could be he was too close to the camera, or was bigger thana Arnold, or Arnold simply is not in the Moorman. I go for the latter.

Thank you for the straight forward input Craig.

Can I just pick up on one thing?

You said before in another thread how Crawley used film that had near to twice the resolving power that the film in Moorman's camera had(I hope that's worded correctly) & I understand the significance of that.

Now, you just said used a "modern 100iso 4x5 film" for your test on a person's head at 100 feet.

Was the film you chose for that test significant to this very subject in anway?

Maybe I'm reading too much into your words but if so, what film available today could be used to come closer to Mary's set up?

Also Craig, I'm aware how confident you are that three figures that detailed & small could never be picked on film by Mary's camera from that distance.

It crosses my mind everytime I see these figures now so, your words haven't fallen on deaf ears.

I just hope that if someone like yourself does find the time to reacreate that set-up of Mary's accurately, they will do a honest job with no preconceptions & like you said, experiment.

Thanks again.

Alan

Edited September 1, 2007 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

Just curious Bill, How many times have you worked on lightening images, using film and print material, not digital files? Your digital work simply will not compare, film is a whole different kettle of fish.

Craig,

I appreciate what you are saying, but I have had photographers tell me that I am correct on this - Jack and Groden being two of them. In fact, I welcome you to show me any different so I'll know better. And while I am not an expert in your field by any stretch of the imagination ... I got hands on experience in school exposing negatives and making prints, so I'm not totally oblivious to all this. I would also bet that maybe the people at MIT had some background experience in this area as well.

Bill

[Chris Davidson]

Not sure what happened, but move down to post 384.

chris

Edited September 1, 2007 by Chris Davidson

[Chris Davidson]

Alan,

In setting up a quick alternative to the Simkin forum for downloads, I forgot to tell my wife don't shut down the machine.

The link is good: http://66.75.7.97

If it's down, try back later.

Will try to keep it up and running for as long as possible.

chris

I don't want to prevent anyone from using the overlay for what ever purpose they think it may be helpful to them, but if one is trying to use it to show height comparisons beyond the wall - the two photos being taken at different elevations and locations will effect the outcome. The wall matches on the south dog leg, while the shelter is much taller in one photo than the other. The same can be said about the fence because the knoll slopes upward, so when an arrow is put at the base of the fence in one photo - it changes to the next because the two corners do not show at the same location, thus the two points on the fence in each photo are not even the same location.

Bill

Thank you Chris,

I've got them now

Chris,

could you tell us anything you noticed about the positioning of the Crawley photo from your work on the overlay?

We know he used Mary's camera with the same lens & had the focal setting calculated, it looks pretty good to me, not perfect but who needs perfect?

What is perfectly obvious to me, is that Nigel Turner seems to have stood in the place "they" thought Arnold stood, nothing to do with sizing the figure up to Moorman at all.

Turner et al never noticed the size difference & still don't today, but Crawley did.

That's why he puts all these characters way back in the car lot.

I say he puts them back there, if they were real he would.

Since Craig has now posted in this thread I wonder if he wouldn't mind giving us his honest opinion of the value of Chris's overlay above?

I know you probably think that we are all wasting our time here Craig but could you just pretend that the Arnold figure was a possiblity for a minute & comment on how Nigel Turner is three times the size of that Arnold figure in an overlay when almost everything else seems to line up?

Can we take anything positive away from a comparison like this in your opinion?

Thank you

Alan

Alan,

Far right side doesn't register, but is the same size. (pergola, wall)

The first gif labeled (Pergola Shift) shows the pergola difference. Parallax effect

The second one ( Comparison.gif) is both pictures aligned. Everything looks good even the steps.

[Chris Davidson]

Alan,

In setting up a quick alternative to the Simkin forum for downloads, I forgot to tell my wife don't shut down the machine.

The link is good: http://66.75.7.97

If it's down, try back later.

Will try to keep it up and running for as long as possible.

chris

I don't want to prevent anyone from using the overlay for what ever purpose they think it may be helpful to them, but if one is trying to use it to show height comparisons beyond the wall - the two photos being taken at different elevations and locations will effect the outcome. The wall matches on the south dog leg, while the shelter is much taller in one photo than the other. The same can be said about the fence because the knoll slopes upward, so when an arrow is put at the base of the fence in one photo - it changes to the next because the two corners do not show at the same location, thus the two points on the fence in each photo are not even the same location.

Bill

Thank you Chris,

I've got them now

Chris,

could you tell us anything you noticed about the positioning of the Crawley photo from your work on the overlay?

We know he used Mary's camera with the same lens & had the focal setting calculated, it looks pretty good to me, not perfect but who needs perfect?

What is perfectly obvious to me, is that Nigel Turner seems to have stood in the place "they" thought Arnold stood, nothing to do with sizing the figure up to Moorman at all.

Turner et al never noticed the size difference & still don't today, but Crawley did.

That's why he puts all these characters way back in the car lot.

I say he puts them back there, if they were real he would.

Since Craig has now posted in this thread I wonder if he wouldn't mind giving us his honest opinion of the value of Chris's overlay above?

I know you probably think that we are all wasting our time here Craig but could you just pretend that the Arnold figure was a possiblity for a minute & comment on how Nigel Turner is three times the size of that Arnold figure in an overlay when almost everything else seems to line up?

Can we take anything positive away from a comparison like this in your opinion?

Thank you

Alan

Alan,

Far right side doesn't register, but is the same size. (pergola, wall)

The first gif labeled (Pergola Shift) shows the pergola difference. Parallax effect

The second one ( Comparison.gif) is both pictures aligned. Everything looks good even the steps.

[Chris Davidson]

Alan,

In setting up a quick alternative to the Simkin forum for downloads, I forgot to tell my wife don't shut down the machine.

The link is good: http://66.75.7.97

If it's down, try back later.

Will try to keep it up and running for as long as possible.

chris

I don't want to prevent anyone from using the overlay for what ever purpose they think it may be helpful to them, but if one is trying to use it to show height comparisons beyond the wall - the two photos being taken at different elevations and locations will effect the outcome. The wall matches on the south dog leg, while the shelter is much taller in one photo than the other. The same can be said about the fence because the knoll slopes upward, so when an arrow is put at the base of the fence in one photo - it changes to the next because the two corners do not show at the same location, thus the two points on the fence in each photo are not even the same location.

Bill

Thank you Chris,

I've got them now

Chris,

could you tell us anything you noticed about the positioning of the Crawley photo from your work on the overlay?

We know he used Mary's camera with the same lens & had the focal setting calculated, it looks pretty good to me, not perfect but who needs perfect?

What is perfectly obvious to me, is that Nigel Turner seems to have stood in the place "they" thought Arnold stood, nothing to do with sizing the figure up to Moorman at all.

Turner et al never noticed the size difference & still don't today, but Crawley did.

That's why he puts all these characters way back in the car lot.

I say he puts them back there, if they were real he would.

Since Craig has now posted in this thread I wonder if he wouldn't mind giving us his honest opinion of the value of Chris's overlay above?

I know you probably think that we are all wasting our time here Craig but could you just pretend that the Arnold figure was a possiblity for a minute & comment on how Nigel Turner is three times the size of that Arnold figure in an overlay when almost everything else seems to line up?

Can we take anything positive away from a comparison like this in your opinion?

Thank you

Alan

Alan,

Far right side doesn't register, but is the same size. (pergola, wall)

The first gif labeled (Pergola Shift) shows the pergola difference. Parallax

The second one ( Comparison.gif) is both pictures aligned. Everything looks good even the steps.

It's not perfect, but awfully close, discounting the parallax affect.

chris

BTW, many thanks to Robin for figuring out a solution to our posting problems.

That was the most important discovery of all.

[Craig Lamson]

Just curious Bill, How many times have you worked on lightening images, using film and print material, not digital files? Your digital work simply will not compare, film is a whole different kettle of fish.

Craig,

I appreciate what you are saying, but I have had photographers tell me that I am correct on this - Jack and Groden being two of them. In fact, I welcome you to show me any different so I'll know better. And while I am not an expert in your field by any stretch of the imagination ... I got hands on experience in school exposing negatives and making prints, so I'm not totally oblivious to all this. I would also bet that maybe the people at MIT had some background experience in this area as well.

Bill

I'm not impressed with Jacks knowlege of photography. As for Groden, I agree with Healy, if he has something to say HE can say it. I don't really care what he tells you. Tell him to come here and we can see if his stuff holds water. What do the people at MIT have to do with it. They GUESSED it might be a person. But I've not seen ANY of you deal with the resolution issue, simply because you can't. If it were possible to obtain an image as sharp as "badgeman" the picket fence would be tack sharp. It is not. As for showing you, the badgeman work tells the entire story, All you need to do is look at the retaining wall. Game, Set and Match. Deal with the science and physics of this and not your emotional attachment and you might get to the truth.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Miles Scull]

Just curious Bill, How many times have you worked on lightening images, using film and print material, not digital files? Your digital work simply will not compare, film is a whole different kettle of fish.

Craig,

I appreciate what you are saying, but I have had photographers tell me that I am correct on this - Jack and Groden being two of them. In fact, I welcome you to show me any different so I'll know better. And while I am not an expert in your field by any stretch of the imagination ... I got hands on experience in school exposing negatives and making prints, so I'm not totally oblivious to all this. I would also bet that maybe the people at MIT had some background experience in this area as well.

Bill

I'm not impressed with Jacks knowlege of photography. As for Groden, I agree with Healy, if he has something to say HE can say it. I don't really care what he tells you. Tell him to come here and we can see if his stuff holds water. What do the people at MIT have to do with it. They GUESSED it might be a person. But I've not seen ANY of you deal with the resolution issue, simply because you can't. If it were possible to obtain an image as sharp as "badgeman" the picket fence would be tack sharp. It is not. As for showing you, the badgeman work tells the entire story, All you need to do is look at the retaining wall. Game, Set and Match. Deal with the science and physics of this and not your emotional attachment and you might get to the truth.

Believe MIT said that "imagination" was required to posit a shooter in BM's spot.

Myers:

On February 24, 1985, Josiah THOMPSON sent MACK and WHITE several MOORMAN prints "one of them originating from THOMPSON's rephotographing of the original carried out in February 1967" to use in their studies of Badge Man. [29]

By early March, 1985, MACK and WHITE had engaged the services of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California under the auspices of former HSCA photo expert Robert SELZER. [30] According to SELZER, MACK made his request through the JPL public information office, which allowed SELZER to examine the materials without charging a fee. SELZER told author Richard TRASK that he received a whole series of "extremely grainy and noisy" copy prints. The JPL ran various types of linear computer filters on the images in an attempt to suppress noise and enhance detail. In the end, SELZER said, "We felt the noise was too high to do anything with - to do anything useful." [31]

-- http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_2.htm#31