Face in the window?

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Suzi!

I forgot one possibility from my previous post:

Or maybe MJK had already decided to start haunting...

(If this is the case, we wouldn't need to make sketches of the victim-thread-queen anymore... )

All right, one common sense thought here; maybe it's just a reflection about someone sitting on the street!

All the best
Jukka

[Suzi]

OK in case we've forgotten what it looked like- What is it???

[Suzi]

Hi Don-Ok what is it then?

[Supe]

Phil,

It was suggested the pan was part of the photographer's impedimenta, but there was no consensus. And in any case the notion is wrong. The plates would had to have been developed back at the studio in a darkroom. There is no way the images were developed on site. Not unless the photographer arrived in a large enclosed wagon as Matthew Brady employed during the Civil War. Moreover, the process would call for four pans, not one.

Don.

[George Hutchinson]

Didn't they remove the whole window frame to take the photo? I'm sure I've read that somewhere.

And while I know very little about old-fangled film photography, being a product of the digital age, surely there would be no need for a developing pan on-site? Doesn't that stuff need to be done in a darkroom? I may well know the answer to this somewhere in the clutter of my brain from my reading on the history of photography, but I assume someone like RJM or Mr Clack might be able to answer. Never mind what Hutchinson says, he's utterly unreliable, and not to be trusted

Cheers,
B.

Never heard about the frame being removed to take the photo before, Damon. Sounds extremely far-fetched to me.

Developing pans were certainly needed. This is why, on plate-glass photography, you see images of guys with big black cloths over them when they take the shot. The image has to be developed under the cloth and in the box after being taken. Photographers often had to have location assistants in the same way that golfers have caddys.

And you can stick your final assertion right up your Wellington, NZ. And take your Crowded House with you.

PHILIP

[Suzi]

Hi Jukka!!!
Yep sadly it's one of those things,or a negative nasty -or there again there may be a / on the window- sadly I think there's not!....Mind you there could be a novel in that and how it got there - broken window my a**! LOL!!!!

Maybe Mike the Midget had a propensity to kiss windows!

Ah! -BUT if he went around at low level on a general day to day basis- we may have to look again at the GSG!! He he

Suz x

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

If I remember the dimensions of the room correctly, the strange person should be sitting there. I think, that surely someone would have noticed a police constable with a bloody ass...

All right, seriously; it could be a flaw on the negative too. Sometimes these things have happened.

But the most obvious choice is a smudge on the window-pane!

Or then Jack the Ripper was Mike the Midget...

All the best
Jukka

[Suzi]

Hi Philip- Exactly that is a developing tray I reckon (sadly!)
Was the window taken out?

[Bailey]

Mitch - the drip-pan has been discussed at great length and the common view is that it is the photographer's (presumably Joseph Martin) developing pan. It is, after all, almost underneath the broken window pane through which he shot MJK1/2. Forgive me if I'm wrong here but isn't it true that the famous MJK shot was taken from outside before access was gained? Certainly, with the dimensions of the room, a full-length image from inside the door would have been impossible without extreme lens distortion.

Didn't they remove the whole window frame to take the photo? I'm sure I've read that somewhere.

And while I know very little about old-fangled film photography, being a product of the digital age, surely there would be no need for a developing pan on-site? Doesn't that stuff need to be done in a darkroom? I may well know the answer to this somewhere in the clutter of my brain from my reading on the history of photography, but I assume someone like RJM or Mr Clack might be able to answer. Never mind what Hutchinson says, he's utterly unreliable, and not to be trusted

Cheers,
B.

[Sam Flynn]

Anything vaguely round with two dots above a more central lower dot will make a face...

...something which baboons exploit to the fullest advantage when walking backwards.

[George Hutchinson]

Hi all.

Ah, the window photo - back to haunt us again!

Mitch - the drip-pan has been discussed at great length and the common view is that it is the photographer's (presumably Joseph Martin) developing pan. It is, after all, almost underneath the broken window pane through which he shot MJK1/2. Forgive me if I'm wrong here but isn't it true that the famous MJK shot was taken from outside before access was gained? Certainly, with the dimensions of the room, a full-length image from inside the door would have been impossible without extreme lens distortion.

Also, of course, Brenda, this would have ruled out the idea of someone being in the room when it was taken. Access came when permission was granted to open the locked room at 1:30pm and it is highly likely that Martin took this exterior image somewhere between 11:30am and 1:30pm.

In layman's parlance, the faces you are seeing are sometimes called 'The Man In The Moon Effect'. Anything vaguely round with two dots above a more central lower dot will make a face.

PHILIP

[Suzi]

Of course!!! hehe If there were 'something' in that window though I wouldn't be surprised!


Actually looking back at that pic- perhaps the row ended with Mary having her face shoved against the window left- hence the imprint on the dust!!!! NOT such a daft thought...................

Come on------there's NOTHING on the window! BUT- it could just be the reflection of the person taking it maybe!!!! Ho hum.........

[Graham]

The 'drip-pan' is without a doubt Diddles' cat-loo.

Graham

[Mike Covell]

Nothing more than a simulcra or matrixing.

It is lot's of randomness colliding to create a something, which is nothing.

[Sam Flynn]

The face I see is not the same as yours. I guess this goes to show that the brain is capable of interpreting a single image in more than one way.

I think you've just hit the nail on the head, there, Nick Cheers!