Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[Sam Flynn]

I'd go with that, Limehouse - in fact, I see not so much a "blurred" background as a "washed-out" one. This could have been due to over-exposure or subsequent bleaching of what was already a light part of the photograph.

[John Bennett]

I don't know what my opinion is worth as I am not a very gifted photographer or even very technically minded but to me, the blurring of the buildings in the background could be due to sunlight pouring through a gap in the buildings and hitting the buildings that seem to face into the court, or could possibly be due to smoke from a bonfire or chimmney - or even mist.

The buildings in the background are not blurred, Limehouse. In fact you can see a circular window in them.

I am looking at the photo now. (Not the original, obviously)

[Ally]

Because for whatever reason I have received two PMs in two minutes on the subject, I thought I needed to clarify something.

I have no problem whatsoever with AP questioning the validity of this photo. Indeed, I believe that anyone who is willing to believe in its validity based solely on someone else's say so is lacking in both intelligence and logic, and therefore, it is only smart and reasonable to question the validity of the photo.

My problem is in the arguments AP is using. Trying to make a case for the photo being a fake based on its focus, when he admits he's never actually seen the thing, is as stupid as believing it is real without ever having seen the thing. If you haven't been allowed to view it, you should be reserving judgment. It is not a matter of attempting to discredit someone's work, but not being gullible enough to swallow what others tell you without being allowed to view the evidence and form your own opinion.

[Limehouse]

I don't know what my opinion is worth as I am not a very gifted photographer or even very technically minded but to me, the blurring of the buildings in the background could be due to sunlight pouring through a gap in the buildings and hitting the buildings that seem to face into the court, or could possibly be due to smoke from a bonfire or chimmney - or even mist. I simply don't understand the attempt to discredit Phillip's work and I suspect it is a case of spite or sour grapes.

[John Bennett]

Ally
I'm working from the comments made on this thread by the researchers who have given this image validation; one of whom has just admitted that the buildings in the near background of the photo are out of focus.

If you are referring to me, AP, I said no such thing. I said that the image was in perfectly good focus right back to the pointed buildings in the distance. The only blurring is evident in figures (people) who obviously moved.

[Suzi]

A magic lantern AP is of some use- but seeing the photograph is tad more useful!!!
Happy New Year!!

[Ally]

Ah. So just so we are clear. You are attempting to judge the validity of a photo's focus and clarity based not on actually viewing it, but on other's comments about it.

Gee. Well I'll leave it to others to judge the merits of continuing to argue the point with someone who thinks that's a valid line of reasoning.

Me, I have better things to do ....like watch paint dry.

[Cap'n Jack]

Ally
I'm working from the comments made on this thread by the researchers who have given this image validation; one of whom has just admitted that the buildings in the near background of the photo are out of focus.
Earlier in the thread we were treated to a site map showing us where the photographer would have been situated to have obtained the image, kneeling or squatting in the road outside the yard with the camera pointing directly into the yard; but then we are told that the out of focus buildings in the background are actually located on Gower Walk... so what happened to the buildings actually located to the rear of the yard which had exactly the same outline and profile as the buildings in the distance?
What I'm suggesting is that the researchers have been misled by the premature blurring of the near background, caused by a photographer adjusting the lens and shutter of his or her camera to ensure that the people in the image are in focus rather than the near background.
It is an image of people, not a site.
This bothers me.
To answer your question. No, but just like many others around here I have a magic lantern.

[Suzi]

Hmmmmmmmm I think the only focus that's being lost here isn't on the photograph in hand. It has perfect clarity and is totally synonymous with the photographic quality of day to day photographs of the time...... there is nothing particularly special about it- it could be anyones photograph taken at the time- the thing is WHERE it was taken...AND it's patently obvious- when you see it !!!!!-that that's where it is!!
Suzi

[Ally]

AP,

Answer me this, Have you actually yet gotten a hold on the high-res copy of the photo or are you still working off your "memory" of the crap-res that was posted on the internet?

[Cap'n Jack]

And, John, is it not the very blurring of those buildings in the near background that caused misidentification and confusion amongst those charged with validating the location in the first instance?
Perhaps they were misled because the near background should have been in focus, but observing it to be out of focus they made the wrongful assertion that the buildings in the background were much further away than they actually are.

[John Bennett]

That's more or less what I'm trying to say, Sam, that the image should not lose focus after about thirty feet, but should have a clear field through to at least 100 feet - according to the handbook that came with the first box Brownie anyway - and as you say, in good sunlight a lot more besides.
This is a more normal focus range for a fixed lens and shutter camera of that time:

The Dutfield's Yard Photo does not lose focus in this way. It appears well focused right back to the pointed buildings in the distance.

The only blurs I can make out appear to be caused by people moving.

[Cap'n Jack]

That's more or less what I'm trying to say, Sam, that the image should not lose focus after about thirty feet, but should have a clear field through to at least 100 feet - according to the handbook that came with the first box Brownie anyway - and as you say, in good sunlight a lot more besides.
This is a more normal focus range for a fixed lens and shutter camera of that time:

[Sam Flynn]

I'd like to see you produce an image with a travel camera from 1900 with a fixed lens and shutter - like the box Brownie which was most likely used - that loses its focus at a lot less than 100 feet.

The contrary would appear to be true, AP:

"With the cheap box camera (the 'Box Brownie' cost 5 shillings or 25p) more spatial depth can be used, because its fixed-focus lens has to be of short focal length and limited aperture; the image is tolerably sharp between about 2 metres and infinity."

From Perspective in Perspective, Lawrence Wright (Routledge, 1983).

[Cap'n Jack]

'Nonsense. Pure nonsense. Many cameras of the day could easily have produced the Dutfield's Yard image.'

I'd like to see you produce an image with a travel camera from 1900 with a fixed lens and shutter - like the box Brownie which was most likely used - that loses its focus at a lot less than 100 feet.