Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

[RJM]

John
my opinion is that both photos, one a known fake, the other up for discussion, could only have been produced after 1920 because of the focus range available in the images.

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

Along with the provenance, the maps, contemporary sketches and photographs, there is another piece of evidence not easily ignored. The clothing and hair styles of more than one dozen people in the picture can not be from the 1920s or later. They are from the 1890s. In fact, there is nothing in the photograph to date it later than 1920.

Robert

[Monty]

Simon

The witness evidence lays in police and inquest testimony. The photos of Backchurch lane and DY 1909 comply with Philips photo. As for contemporary sketches, they are notoriously wrong. However, some features match and some not. This can be said of the other murder sites yet no one questions those.

[Monty]

Hey Simon

You must be party to Philips research with independant historians to state that its wishful thinking, care to cite as to why you feel it is?

[Cap'n Jack]

'Notice you can read the far off street sign and practically count the number of windows in very far away buildings.'

And that, JM, is my very objection, in that in the two images we have viewed here are blurred, vague and out of focus at the extreme range of the camera used.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Even a Mac is only human. Do you have a hi-res version which I'm not seeing?

Hi Monty.

Witness statements in support of the Dutfields Yard photo would be interesting. Any chance of a varda? OS Maps and contemporary drawings contradict the photo. And Philip's research does seem to be based on wishful thinking.

What else ya got?

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Simon

Witness statements, Goads, OS maps, archive records, other photographic evidence, Philips research.

[jmenges]

Hi Jonathan,

All I can see clearly in your linked photo are balloons on a hilltop. Not a street sign in view. Just pixels.

There is a 25ml speed limit sign to the left of the flowers and balloons (its a memorial site) at ground level.

I thought you were on a Mac?



JM

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

All I can see clearly in your linked photo are balloons on a hilltop. Not a street sign in view. Just pixels.

And Monty, as you already know the answer may I ask who "verified" Philip's Dutfields Yard photo?

Happy New Year, everybody. As I write it's 15.49 in California so it must be close to the witching hour in GB.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Just dont understand you AP. You blindly accept the unsubstantiated 17th Sept letter yet challenge the verified, by various documents, Dutfields yard photo. I would question why but I already know the answer.

[jmenges]

Here is link to an example of a recent photograph taken with a plain-old, 1900 No.1 Brownie Box camera.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/84410124_b180641cce.jpg?v=0

Notice you can read the far off street sign and practically count the number of windows in very far away buildings.

I wish to remind our readers that Philip Hutchinson has an entire album of photographs taken by the same person using the exact camera as the Dutfields Yard photo, and I'm sure, if he felt it worth his time, he would post up other examples.

But I'm afraid the argument AP Wolf brings up is absurd, and would indeed be a waste of Phil's time.

JM

[jmenges]

John
both photos reflect the inability of a camera of that age to have a focus range that could produce such an image.

What do you mean by that, AP?

Have you seen the photographs of Jacob Riis? He was taking far more detailed photographs than the Dutfield Yard Photo over a decade earlier.

Or Matthew Brady?

Or multiple examples available to google on the photographs produced by a Brownie Box Camera?

Throw up some examples of how a 'camera of that age' could not have produced the background seen in the Dutfields Yard pic, and I'll answer with a thousand images that say otherwise.

JM

[John Bennett]

Sorry, AP, another question.

Which one's the known fake and which one's up for discussion? I'm not trying to be awkward, it's just the 'court' photo is just a photo of a slum court. We don't even know where it is supposed to be. Unless somebody here can enlighten us?

[Cap'n Jack]

John
my opinion is that both photos, one a known fake, the other up for discussion, could only have been produced after 1920 because of the focus range available in the images.
Anyways I'm not prepared to discuss the images from a technical aspect until the image becomes available for study.
We await the book and I suspect we might wait a very long time for that event.

[John Bennett]

John
both photos reflect the inability of a camera of that age to have a focus range that could produce such an image.

In what way? Feel free to get all technical.

[Cap'n Jack]

John
both photos reflect the inability of a camera of that age to have a focus range that could produce such an image.