(2017-09-02, 09:32 AM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]Here it is. The photo that most clearly reveals the photoshop technique of the 1940's:
Look at the 'levitating' person's left and right feet. The left foot is partly missing, right foot is semi-transparent.
There are other possible explanations. There is obviously some motion blur, more in some parts of the image than in others. But the multiple light sources still need to be taken into consideration. It is possible that the camera shutter was open for a bit longer than the duration of the flash. A modern electronic flash may have a duration in the region of 1/1000 second or often less. That type of lighting can give a very sharp image from the flash, overlaid on an image captured by ambient room lighting, giving rise to some transparency effects. However the type of flash used in the photo we're discussing would light up for much longer than than that, at least 1/30 second or even longer. During that interval, the light will have an attack, sustain and decay analogous to the envelope of a musical note played on various instruments. To take full advantage of the entire light output, the camera shutter would be kept open for some time, during which the same phenomena of overlaying of flash and ambient images occurs naturally.
I should add that I'm only discussing the photography here. I have no opinion on what is taking place in the image. Whether it has a mundane or more exotic explanation I make no comment.
(2017-09-02, 09:32 AM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]Here it is. The photo that most clearly reveals the photoshop technique of the 1940's:
Look at the 'levitating' person's left and right feet. The left foot is partly missing, right foot is semi-transparent.
[Image: levitation%20of%20medium%20by%20Sven%20Turck.jpg]
Is it possible that reflection from another surface e.g. A mirror, occurred during the flash?
To illustrate what I'm talking about, let's look at a modern example.
Take a look at the arm and hand in this section cropped from a larger image. Notice how it appears semi transparent and the building behind is partially visible too.
[
attachment=24]
The full image can be found here:
Will flash freeze the action at slow shutter speeds?
[
attachment=25]
For another example, see the third image on this page:
http://www.exposureguide.com/slow-sync-flash.htm
[
attachment=26]
Having said all that, it needs to be repeated that the typical modern flash has a much shorter duration than the type used in the 1940s. Nowadays we mostly consider the flash to be instantaneous, but the earlier types used a chemical reaction, such as combustion of magnesium wire which is a slower and more prolonged process, so the effects differ in character from the modern examples.
(2017-09-02, 03:19 PM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]Here's another good one illustrating the small 'photoshop' issues of the time. There's a set of legs below the table with head and torso missing above the table:
[Image: Sven%20Turck%20experiment%206.jpg]
Bizarre comment. For that woman's head and torso to have been visible above the table, she'd have needed to be seven or eight feet tall.
Notice the two women in the foreground. Both have their heads either lower than or barely reaching the level of the table top. Notice also the light-coloured headbands which both the men and the women are wearing. One is in fact visible just peeking slightly above the far edge of the table, just where the top of the woman's head would be expected.
Methinks someone is clutching at straws.
The larger shots tend to be more interesting, there's a better chance to identify any possible anomalies:
[
attachment=27]
(2017-09-02, 06:37 PM)Leuders Wrote: [ -> ]I think we can both agree these photographs are bogus. That one though I do not believe was edited in anyway. It just shows a man jumping. The blur on the arm and feet indicate this.
One person says the photo was 'photoshopped' Another person says it wasn't. How is that agreement?
It seems to me more like, come up with an explanation until it is shown to be bogus. Then come up with another story - until that is shown to be bogus. It hardly seems like a sound methodology. More like taking wild guesses and hoping that no-one will notice.
I will repeat though, I have no opinion on what is shown on the photos. I only commented on the photography.
(2017-09-02, 09:32 AM)sbu Wrote: [ -> ]Here it is. The photo that most clearly reveals the photoshop technique of the 1940's:
Look at the 'levitating' person's left and right feet. The left foot is partly missing, right foot is semi-transparent.
[Image: levitation%20of%20medium%20by%20Sven%20Turck.jpg]
His foot is there; just at a weird angle.
None of these photographs have struck me as being manipulated through any special photographic process. The figures in motion are too well-integrated into the rest of the image. And from what little I can find out, I don't have a reason to suspect Turck of being in on any fraud; if there was some committed, he was duped too.
But as I said, photography isn't the way to prove anything here. The medium here could easily be jumping, kicking, throwing, or manipulating objects/himself in all of these shots.