Now do it again assuming the plane is a reflection.
Then go over to the other thread and assume it's a bird, I guess.Now do it again assuming the plane is a reflection.
Nessie reference noted...It's obviously a mini submarine.
I don't mean to be rude to Mr. Robinson, but this all sounds like pure speculation to me. I spoke to an experienced photographer—a professor of photography at Sweden's largest university—and he dismissed Robinson's conclusions as nothing more than amateurish guesswork. Sure, it's fun to play the "guess the size" game, but does it really matter? We know how big an actual Harrier is—that's about the only solid fact we have. We have no clue what lens was used, how the image was cropped, or any other crucial details.Andrew Robinson, senior lecturer in photography at Sheffield Hallam University, performed his analysis at the request of David Clark, PDF attached (version 5.0, June 2024).
Sure, it's fun to play the "guess the size" game, but does it really matter? We know how big an actual Harrier is—that's about the only solid fact we have. We have no clue what lens was used, how the image was cropped, or any other crucial details.
Sort of agree. Robinson did use the space between barbs on the wire as an additional comparator which I thought was quite ingenious; it never occurred to me that there was a "standard" (or at least very common) spacing of 10cm.
To reference Nessie again, and "The Surgeon's Photo" which remains the most famous hoax picture from Scotland, though the Calvine UFO is doing its' best darn it:Why would he do that? Well, first of all, it would probably be second nature. When preparing a photo for publication, cropping and adjusting it for maximum visual impact is standard practice. And beyond that, removing "unnecessary landscape" would be a great way to make the "UFO" appear larger and more prominent in the final print.
To me, this was a reasonably successful effort to hide how small something was with a tighter crop.
So, yeah, cropping can be used to help make a hoax pic look more impressive.
The Wee Beastie hypothesis deserves it's own thread IMO #658To reference Nessie again, and "The Surgeon's Photo" which remains the most famous hoax picture from Scotland, though the Calvine UFO is doing its' best darn it:
That's been my thought all along, although the same could be said of an uncropped photo. If, as has been previously discussed, a number of planes were out to practice low-level flights over a loch, that removes the plane from the "coincidence" category into the "predictable", as each one could have been heard coming and it's just a matter of trying to snap a picture at the right moment. The fence and tree and islet may not have been chosen, but might just have been where they happened to be when they heard or saw the planes coming.The key point here is that dismissing the reflection theory because it would take too many lucky coincidences assumes the case started with someone deliberately trying to capture a hoax photo. But what if it didn't?
Let's assume, for example, that the original image was cropped like this:
I'm no expert on the subject (I'm sure someone with more experience in analog photography can explain this better), but doesn't that depend on the method used to crop the photograph? For example, if someone made duplicate negatives from the cropped positive prints, couldn't that explain the graininess and the slightly out-of-focus feel of the whole scene? (If cropping was a crucial part of the hoax, then faking negatives would have been just as important.) It seems like if creating new negatives from prints is a rather straightforward process:If the Calvine scene was photographically enlarged by a significant amount, wouldn't the film grain also be enlarged?
Sure, the new image would have the grain size/ texture of the film onto which it was transposed, but I can't see how this would hide the magnified grain of the original image.
Frankly, the "disadvantage" of losing detail could actually be an advantage for a hoaxer looking to conceal elements that might otherwise expose the hoax. If that's the case, then what we're looking at is a digital scan of a print of a negative of a print of the original negative.External Quote:The simplest way to duplicate negatives is to make a print and then to photograph the print using a large-format camera (4" x 5" or larger) to produce a copy negative. The advantages of this method are cost and convenience. Most museum darkrooms or local photo labs should be able to do the work with little or no investment in equipment. Further savings may be achieved by using already existing prints for copying. Where no original negatives exist, copying existing prints is the only available option. The disadvantage of this system is loss of detail in both the print and the copy negative. A print always has detail loss and a compressed tonal range when compared to the original negative, and further detail is lost when the copy negative is made.
if someone made duplicate negatives from the cropped positive prints, couldn't that explain the graininess and the slightly out-of-focus feel of the whole scene?
I've contacted a photographic historian specializing in traditional photo techniques. Hopefully, he can clarify things.To be honest, I have no idea.
So I'll happily accept correction, but I think a professionally duplicated negative would be, well, a duplicate for most practical purposes.
Robinson examined the grain in his analysis.
It's almost like they cropped it as a homage to a classic UFO photo (the Trent, McMinnville photo).t's rather surprising how well-composed it is
If it's a public forum, please provide a link and some quotes.I posted the picture on a forum for professional photographers to hear what people outside the UFO community thought about it. Interestingly, without any background information, everyone said it looked like a reflection in a lake. Everyone. Some didn't even realize it was supposed to be a "UFO photo"...
To quote Jeran Campanella... Interesting.I posted the picture on a forum for professional photographers to hear what people outside the UFO community thought about it. Interestingly, without any background information, everyone said it looked like a reflection in a lake. Everyone. Some didn't even realize it was supposed to be a "UFO photo"...
I posted the picture on a forum for professional photographers to hear what people outside the UFO community thought about it. Interestingly, without any background information, everyone said it looked like a reflection in a lake. Everyone. Some didn't even realize it was supposed to be a "UFO photo"...
Be fair, that would depend on how much of what is shown is a reflection, assuming any of it is, of course. And that is part of what has been debated here.Except...people can't seem to make up their minds whether its a right way up reflection or an upside down reflection.
Anybody who looks at the light side - dark side of the islet knows which way is up.Except...people can't seem to make up their minds whether its a right way up reflection or an upside down reflection.
Anybody who looks at the light side - dark side of the islet knows which way is up.
We've discussed that already, Scaramanga. You just don't read posts that disagree with you.So why are the clouds upside down ? That's not exactly a minor detail that gets hand waived away.
We've discussed that already
It's not my fault that you are unable to comprehend that reflections of a 3-D object do not look like those of a 2-D object. I tried...No, there was never a satisfactory answer. It was just hand waived away....using cloud types that are not those in the photo. As was the fact that the 'reflection' does not in any way even vaguely 'reflect' the upper and lower halves of the UFO. Once again, hand waived away....using reflections that are at some absurd angle. And on top of that, if the reflection in the photo is the right way up, one also has to explain why there are distant hilltops and trees at the fence line....like you'd expect to see in a photo near Calvine. But again, hand waived away as weeds or plants on the shore of some mythical lake that nobody has ever identified.
It's not my fault that you are unable to comprehend that reflections of a 3-D object do not look like those of a 2-D object. I tried...
I've explained.You'd expect at least something to correspond
I've explained.
You've ignored.
Allow me to reword that. I explained. You failed to comprehend the explanation.No...at no time have you ever explained the utter contradiction of arguing that something looks like a reflection whilst arguing that none of it actually has to 'reflect'. The entire basis of arguing that it is even a reflection in the first place....I mean why even argue such unless it 'looks like' one...gets undermined by all the ' ah...but a reflection doesn't have to reflect' hand waiving.
You failed to comprehend the explanation.
No...at no time have you ever explained the utter contradiction of arguing that something looks like a reflection whilst arguing that none of it actually has to 'reflect'. The entire basis of arguing that it is even a reflection in the first place....I mean why even argue such unless it 'looks like' one...gets undermined by all the ' ah...but a reflection doesn't have to reflect' hand waiving.
Allow me to reword that. I explained. You failed to comprehend the explanation.
We all heard the two of you the first 30 times you had this same argument.
'm asking how does the clear dilemma that I presented get resolved.
it doesn't, because she doesn't see it as a dilemma.
i didnt say anything the 35 other times you raised an objection.I would just add that its odd how we are asked to 'move on' when I raise an objection but not when others do.
The reflection of a 3-D object is just simple optics, with light always traveling in a straight line. I explained it more than once, with diagrams. It is not, as are some parts of the image, open to interpretation or opinion. Scaramanga simply doesn't understand it.just because someone disagrees with something you state, does not mean they dont comprehend you.
That's a misrepresentation of the arguments put forward:Er, yes...I totally fail to comprehend how the discussion effectively goes like this....please explain...
'That looks like its a reflection'
' Well...no...actually no part of the image actually reflects'
'Ah...but a reflection doesn't have to reflect'
'But in that case, how can it LOOK like a reflection ?'
There is a fundamental contradiction at play.
That's a misrepresentation of the arguments put forward:
The reflection of a 3-D object is just simple optics, with light always traveling in a straight line. I explained it more than once, with diagrams. It is not, as are some parts of the image, open to interpretation or opinion. Scaramanga simply doesn't understand it.
Not at all.
The entire reflection hypothesis starts with the supposition 'that looks like a reflection'.
On that basis, there then surely needs to be some aspect of the image that does actually reflect.