posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:31 PM
As a photographer, and a journalist, I would love to know more about what kind of film was used here. It looks to be a higher than usual ISO, at least
800, but it could be push processed too. Whatever it was, it was shot with a very high shutter speed, hence the "floating foot" in the first one.
It's shot in a fraction of a second, a very minute fraction at that. Usually the standard for a hand-held camera is that it must be shot at 1/60th of
a second for the shutter speed for it not to be blurry overall. The faster the shutter though, the less motion blur there is.
Back in university, when I was shooting sports, it wasn't uncommon to shoot at 1/1000th of a second or even faster. That is probably what we're
seeing here, maybe not quite that fast, but still it's quick. Now for a photo to be shot this fast with film, as this was, it has to be a higher ISO
speed to compensate too. The higher the ISO the more grain in the shot, as we see here too, which can lead to some odd detail loss in interesting
It also has to be noted that these shots were done long before digital photo editing of any kind. Photoshop was decades away, as were any computers
powerful enough to do photo-manipulation. Airbrushing photos was a work of art back at this point, as were the other major photographic editing
"tools" such as burning and dodging which involve over and under exposing various parts of the photograph while making prints. It cannot be stressed
enough how incredibly skilled a photo editor had to be back then.
Therefore, it's quite normal to see much more glaring errors in photo-manipulation from this and earlier eras. From a photographer's standpoint I
see nothing that is abnormal for the time, save the fact that the photographer just happened to have the absolute perfect film, which again is
probably a less-used higher ISO speed compared to what was generally used in political photojournalism at the time.
I cannot speak to the realities of gunshot wounds and the lucidity of RFK in the moment, as I am no expert in that at all, except to say that I have,
in my experience as a journalist in battlefields, seen people completely aware and in a panic, such as it appears RFK is here, after being shot and
sustaining horrible wounds. Shock is a terrifying state of mind to anyone who has been in it, and there are many different effects it has on
So to sum it up, the weird thing I see here is that the photographs are of the quality they are, it sticks out to me a bit that it was so well done.
However, I am not completely familiar with the circumstances of where RFK was to be that evening, his schedule would of course have been given in
advance to reporters, so I cannot say for absolute certain that the film shouldn't have been there either.