MJK1 and MJK3

[Wickerman]

Also- approximately what was the weight of the camera when detached? I would imagine it to be quite heavy?

Were camera hand held photographs a normal occurrance?

Do you happen to know if it were common for a photographer to carry around with him oh- say 6 or 7 glass plates?

Hi Phil.

Just a couple of points.

A 19th century leather bound wood box turned up on some Antiques program on tv. It was photographers equipment, for carrying spare glass plates. I don't recall how many slots were in the box but it was not less than six, but not more than twelve.

Also, don't forget these professionals always had an assistant burdened with carrying god knows what.

[Phil Carter]

G'day Natasha

The first Kodak actually it the market in '88 pre loaded for, from memory 100 photos sold in USA $25 so in terms of income to buy pretty damn expensive a plate camera of any quality from 5 pound and up plus the cost of plates paper and chemicals for processing. Remember there were no mini-labs.

Hello GUT,

Am intruiged. Could you be kind enough to explain or perhaps answer a few questions I have? Thank you.

From memory the camera was affixed to a tripod of sorts. Am I correct in saying that the legs of the tripod were of a fixed height or length? i.e. non-retractable?

Also- approximately what was the weight of the camera when detached? I would imagine it to be quite heavy?

Were camera hand held photographs a normal occurrance?

Do you happen to know if it were common for a photographer to carry around with him oh- say 6 or 7 glass plates?

Your answers would be most appreciated. Thank you

best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

I'm really not sure!! I just remember a LOT of discussion and someone outlining it like I have just done. In my opinion, I don't see how such a clean cut split femur could be accomplished without a bone saw.

Hi Brenda.
Actually, I thought it was the larger body photo which showed her right femur, just by the hip there is a dark line barely visible.



Didn't Nick point this out as part of his evidence for the use of a hatchet?
The femur appears to be broken right at that dark line.
I think it's a trick of the light, but regardless, I thought this was pointed out by Nick.

[Natasha]

G'day Natasha

The first Kodak actually it the market in '88 pre loaded for, from memory 100 photos sold in USA $25 so in terms of income to buy pretty damn expensive a plate camera of any quality from 5 pound and up plus the cost of plates paper and chemicals for processing. Remember there were no mini-labs.

Hi Gut

Thanks for the info

[GUT]

Hi Gut

I was thinking of the tintype cameras, which were reversed left to right, unless taken through a mirror.

The prints do look different judging by the quality of the pics, MJK 3 looks like a better quality, where else the full length pic looks poor quality.

Would it have been possible that someone had used an old camera to take the pic? How expensive were the newer models in 1888?

G'day Natasha

The first Kodak actually it the market in '88 pre loaded for, from memory 100 photos sold in USA $25 so in terms of income to buy pretty damn expensive a plate camera of any quality from 5 pound and up plus the cost of plates paper and chemicals for processing. Remember there were no mini-labs.

[jmenges]

REPLY to Simon Wood -

I'll pass it over as soon as Trev finishes.



JM

[Simon Wood]

FROM Jonathan Menges -

I believe what Trevor is saying that MJK3 is a photo of the body on the floor, bed looks like the table, and her body, on the floor, has been turned 180 degrees so that her head (if it was in the photo?) would be down by the foot of the bed. And the hand is the right hand, thumb, etc. because of this spinning around of the body.

Hey Jonathan, whatever it is you're on, could I please have some?

Sounds like fun.

Regards,

Simon

[Natasha]

Indeed. It's good to know that we don't all see the same things when we look at them. How boring would that be....Although I think we can all agree that, that is a table in both photographs?

Hi Amanda

I agree, it would indeed be boring

I think that's a table also

[jmenges]

No I am not suggesting that. There would be no reason when taking the body off the bed they would reverse it. Straight lift up off and onto the floor

Oh, my mistake. And here I thought you had solved it.

JM

[Amanda Sumner]

I believe what Trevor is saying that MJK3 is a photo of the body on the floor, bed looks like the table, and her body, on the floor, has been turned 180 degrees so that her head (if it was in the photo?) would be down by the foot of the bed. And the hand is the right hand, thumb, etc. because of this spinning around of the body.

By god, that makes for an agreeable solution for everyone.

Thanks Trevor.

JM

Indeed. It's good to know that we don't all see the same things when we look at them. How boring would that be....Although I think we can all agree that, that is a table in both photographs?

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe what Trevor is saying that MJK3 is a photo of the body on the floor, bed looks like the table, and her body, on the floor, has been turned 180 degrees so that her head (if it was in the photo?) would be down by the foot of the bed. And the hand is the right hand, thumb, etc. because of this spinning around of the body.

By god, that makes for an agreeable solution for everyone.

Thanks Trevor.

JM

No I am not suggesting that. There would be no reason when taking the body off the bed they would reverse it. Straight lift up off and onto the floor

[Natasha]

G'day Natasha

A photo can't be taken in reverse, it may have been printed in reverse, a mistake you saw not uncommonly in the days of film, though, in my experience, it was less common in the days of glass plates.

Hi Gut

I was thinking of the tintype cameras, which were reversed left to right, unless taken through a mirror.

The prints do look different judging by the quality of the pics, MJK 3 looks like a better quality, where else the full length pic looks poor quality.

Would it have been possible that someone had used an old camera to take the pic? How expensive were the newer models in 1888?

[jmenges]

I believe what Trevor is saying that MJK3 is a photo of the body on the floor, bed looks like the table, and her body, on the floor, has been turned 180 degrees so that her head (if it was in the photo?) would be down by the foot of the bed. And the hand is the right hand, thumb, etc. because of this spinning around of the body.

By god, that makes for an agreeable solution for everyone.

Thanks Trevor.

JM

[Amanda Sumner]

Phil is a conspiracy nut.

I have no issues with people questioning things, I do it myself and will keep on doing it. The problem is, you and Phil have closed your minds and you are just looking for people to agree with you. As I have already said (which you ignored) you will not get a definitive answer here. All you will get is somebody elses opinion, so that is why I suggested you go to the owners or go and have a look at the original. You can't be arsed to do this, which is fine, so you can't expect people to take you seriously since you can't be bothered to do any research. Also if there is cast iron proof it is from 1888 you will still not except it.
Speaking of Phil, and this is what I mean by doing some research and not to rely on other peoples opinions. A few years back he said the Fosters drawing of Mitre Square was a fake. Why? because he enlarged a very poor low resolution copy which made the date look like Saturday 50th September. Now this was a bit blurry and not something to base a judgement on. So I posted a much better quality version which clearly said Saturday 30th September. But he still wouldn't have it. So I suggested going to have a look at the original, which anyone can look at. He couldn't be bothered even though not long afterwards he was within 20 minutes travelling time of where the drawing is. Instead he had a photo taken of himself in Mitre Square exposing his knobbly knees. I wont post it because it is more gruesome then the MJK3 photo.

So if you want to ally yourself with Phil, good luck to you.

Rob

Your issues with Phil have nothing to do with this debate, or anything to do with me. I merely commented on something he wrote and agreed with it. That hardly makes us bosom buddies
You know absolutely nothing about me, so let me tell you, that if I was presented with cast iron proof that MJK3 was genuine, that the photo had been around since 1888, that I was mistaken in my belief that what I was seeing was a mock up of MJK, then I will retire gracefully with an apology for wasting people's time.
I agree with you that I may not get the answers that I seek on here, but it is, never the less, intriguing to have a debate about it.
I find your attitude rude and offensive, and you have no idea whether I can be " arsed " or not.
What I do know, is that I won't be "arsed" to reply to any more posts from you!

[GUT]

I have suggested that perhaps the photo was taken the wrong way round on the other photo. So if half of you think it's a right hand then what are you saying?
Are you saying the photo is fake (not addressed to you Amanda, I know what you think about this)?
Or is it possible that the photos were taken in reverse?

G'day Natasha

A photo can't be taken in reverse, it may have been printed in reverse, a mistake you saw not uncommonly in the days of film, though, in my experience, it was less common in the days of glass plates.