It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What do you see in this picture?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by camouflaged
 


That's really strange that you can't see the images, because they are there, I even opened it in a different browser to make sure it's not something in that line, even logged out (in the other browser) I can still see the images. That is so odd. ATS doesn't allow us to remove images uploaded to ATS, specifically for this reason, if people were to remove their image, and they used the image in a post, then the post would no longer make sense after the image was removed as the image would be gone, hence the images are there, I have not removed them.

Here's a direct link to my post on your thread: Directly to my post containing images

Try opening in a different browser, it might be your browser. For example, my browser doesn't show my own image I chose for my signature, hence I removed it from my signature, the image itself is still there. I'll try posting links to the images themselves as well, because if you don't see them in the thread, no amount of reposting it in the thread is going to help:

Little girl
Background people
Whole image sharpened

I hope that helps. Still odd that you can't see them.




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Have a look at this negative immage



I think you can clearly see the girls arm, and her shape get darker the further to the right it is. Especially at head height. This proves motino blur.

(I used the origonal large file. Either scroll to the right, or right click the immage and select "view immage" on the drop down. This will put it into a full window.)
edit on 13-10-2011 by Shamatt because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Two possibilities. Double exposure or motion blur caused by a kid running across the shot.

I see nothing paranormal about it.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Two possibilities. Double exposure or motion blur caused by a kid running across the shot.

I see nothing paranormal about it.


I totally agree .
It would only take a 1 second exposure time to creat this image . See how the boy is not in focus ? This suggests a slightly longer exposure which is difficult to keep the camera still , when hand held .

In my opinion , it is just a poorly exposed shot and the girl just happened to be running behind the boy . Nothing paranormal at all .


edit on 29/05/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/05/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/05/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by tpg65

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Two possibilities. Double exposure or motion blur caused by a kid running across the shot.

I see nothing paranormal about it.


I totally agree .
It would only take a 1 second exposure time to creat this image . See how the boy is not in focus ? This suggests a slightly longer exposure which is difficult to keep the camera still , when hand held .

In my opinion , it is just a poorly exposed shot . Nothing paranormal at all .


Actually - these old film cameras would not have had the option for a 1 seccond exposure. Well, I am making an assumption actually - I am presuming an old autmatic from the quality of the shot. This would have been taken at about 1/60th of a second. Possibly 1/30th but that would be unusual. The focus is on the tree behind th boy which also makes things harder. If this had been a fixed focus camera which were very popular in the day this would not have happened. They use smaller apertures and slower shutters to cope. A bit like a pin hole camera, in which everything is in focuse due to the tiny effective apperture. The fact that the boy is not focused shows there was probably a focus ring set to the wrong setting. So there was probably also an apperture ring and a shutter speed dial. Ummm - so probably not the automatic camera I had origionaly thought. Should I be thinking out loud like this? lol

Ummmmmm - I need to go away and think about this again.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 


It is a daytime photo taken in the sunshine. Really , really doubtful that it was a long exposure of any kind.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Shamatt
 


It is a daytime photo taken in the sunshine. Really , really doubtful that it was a long exposure of any kind.


It's unlikely there was any automatic exposure control on the camera at this time.

Manual setting.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Shamatt
 


It is a daytime photo taken in the sunshine. Really , really doubtful that it was a long exposure of any kind.


Yes. I said in my post I reccon about 1/60th. That would fit with the technology of the time.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Shamatt
 


It is a daytime photo taken in the sunshine. Really , really doubtful that it was a long exposure of any kind.


Yes. I said in my post I reccon about 1/60th. That would fit with the technology of the time.
V

I quoted wroNg post. My response was actually to guy with dr who avatar.

Looked like he thought exposure time was set automatically rather than a manual setting

Apols



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Shamatt
 


It is a daytime photo taken in the sunshine. Really , really doubtful that it was a long exposure of any kind.


Yes. I said in my post I reccon about 1/60th. That would fit with the technology of the time.
V

I quoted wroNg post. My response was actually to guy with dr who avatar.

Looked like he thought exposure time was set automatically rather than a manual setting

Apols



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stellify
 


No probs. I am still rethinking this immage. The fact that the boy himself is so out of focus (And only partially due to motion blur - look at the tops of his shoulder - small ammount of motin blur present.) and the tree is well focussed points to a better camera than the simple auto I first assumed was in use.

If we could know what camera was used that would actually be a great help OP

Thinking thinking thinking.......... back soon! lol



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Another example of people getting spoiled, this time with regards to modern day high speed shutters found in all digital cameras.
They see an old picture pf a blurred image, which is clearly the result of a slow shutter, and they automaically assume it's a freakin' ghost.

BOO!



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Ok try this:

Nothing automatic or point and shoot with this camera. Assume it is a fully manual 35MM SLR, which was the most prominent camera in this era. Correct me if I am wrong but there were no automatic cameras at this time? Only a manual camera, or a point and shoot were available. Or I guess somewhere in between with a few settings, even if not all of them, being manually selectable.

Focal plane is at the tree. The boy is not moving, but rather the see-saw is held with him in the up position. The distance to the boy from the camera is such that the other “rider” could be out of view, or the photographer may even be holding the boy aloft. Thus the apparent motion blur on the boy is due to camera shake and depth of field. Now assume the shutter speed to be a bit longer. This accounts for the over exposure, and the blur on the boy. The girl in question could then have been running by as the shot was taken, and caused her to be blurred out. This would make the people behind her at the bench blur as well, as she was passing in front of them during the exposure. Also the apparent camera shake and depth of field would blur them even more. And add to this they were probably not sitting still themselves, further adding to their blur.

This covers everything other than the girl perfectly. The question is what shutter speed would be necessary to get the blur on the girl in this way, and would that speed still fit with the rest of the picture. This we can probably never answer without knowing the model of the camera to see what settings were possible. However I have to lean toward the motion blur idea myself. Indeed it is a very strange picture as all the rest of the components all add up perfectly. However the amount of blur on the girl seems to me to be out of synch with the rest of the picture. Suggesting a longer than normal exposure time. This is backed up by the camera shake and the over exposure of the rest of the picture, but I do not know what kind of exposure time would be needed to get this much blur on the girl.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join