THE JACK THE RIPPER LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHS : Dutfield's Yard and the Whitby Collection

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Anyone else notice that all of the people who find the uproar over the split photo to be ridiculous also happen to be the ones to whom Phil sent a complete and unsplit photo? Do you think there's a connection? By any chance?

No, there is no connection. Just pure common sense fighting ignorance and incompetence.

As I said, if the split of the photo isn't worse than what Philip illustrated in his post, then the uproar is ridiculous and totally out of order.
Splitting a photo, however, is no ideal solution and it should always be avoided, but if it was done to such a minor extent as displayed in Philip's post, then I fail to see how it in any way influences the photo. It is just silly.

The point is that the split of the photo really is not the issue here - if it wasn't the split photo, they would have come up with something else as an excuse in ordeer to discredit it.

[Ally]

No. Making a valid observation that the people who are jumping in to defend the split photo and saying any criticism of it is ridiculous, also happen to be the people to whom he sent a complete copy, free of charge.

But kudos on your immediate jump in to discredit that observation. You boys are well trained. Couldn't have done better myself.

[Monty]

Bored again Ally?

Monty

[Ally]

Anyone else notice that all of the people who find the uproar over the split photo to be ridiculous also happen to be the ones to whom Phil sent a complete and unsplit photo? Do you think there's a connection? By any chance?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Philip kindly sent me a high resolution copy of the photo (in its original state) through email as well, right after he discovered it.
And YES, it is most certainly Dutfiled's Yard.
Dutfield's Yard is quite unique in its layout (compared to Miller's court which shared its main layout with many ohter similar courts in that particular area) and there are also a large number of details of the buildings displayed that you can use as navigation points and that all fits a number of contemporary newspaper sketches of the yard to the letter. Not to mention that it also fits the known map plans of the site. AND that it also has passed a number of hands of authorities who all have considered it genuine.

There is absolutely no doubt that it is Dutfield's Yard; the photo fits in EVERY known detail we know about the passage/yard - the odds against it are microscopic. Anyone who questions it - or even worse, suggesting that the photo is manipulated - are simply incompetent or just aiming to stir up trouble just for the sake of it. And we all know who they are.

As for 'improving' a photo in (let's say) Photoshop prior to printing, this is hardly earth shattering. This is done every time, and I have myself done it on a thousand occasions during the time I worked as an employed layouter, graphic designer and typesetter for a publisher. When a photo is old, this is often necessary and it is ALMOST done with the intention to improve the picture's quality in print as some details or shades otherwise would go lost during print (especially if the paper is of simple, coarse quality as you often see in paperbacks). In short, it's always done so that information in the photo wouldn't get lost - something that would be an even worse alternative.
There is nothing strange about it and it is a regular procedure. Unless it's done by an idiot who don't know what he's (or she's) doing, it is NOT the same as manipulating the photo or destroying its original character. For those of you who believe that a photo can be reproducted in print without being enchanced just a little bit in Photoshop, don't know a thing about book printing. Of course, cutting a picture so that a part of it continues on the opposite page is never ideal but if it's done in the minimal way that Philip has shown in a post earlier, then I see no reason for the uproar and find it all ridiculous.

By the way, Tom, thanks a lot. Hope all is well with you.

All the best

[Magpie]

Sadly, I've never seen the photo in question, despite having heard much about it. I guess I'll see it when I get the book

[Hunter]

Hey, that was my unit!
Dunker Church, Sharpburg, Md. The Yankees called it Antietam.
Yes, Sox, they even had stereo photography then.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pirate,

So I guess those peeps don't mind it being known they offered their opinion? Yes, I'm mentioned in the talk and in the book. LOL. Anyway, I really want a copy of that DVD.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

No Tom, but you were credited in Philip's lecture on the 2009 Conference DVD.

For anyone who has any doubts please purchase a copy from the Conference website £15. Which has the story in full.

It goes into considerable detail about who was contacted and involved in authenticating the photo. In no small measure Rob Clack who also won the Jeremy Beadle award.

The photo also went past Jake Luukenaan who I know has the largest collection of maps and information about the yard anywhere. If he says its genuine, It is a photo of Dutfield yard.

Enjoy the DVD. Jeff

[Tom_Wescott]

I was the only one who didn't get the photo. Lol.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[coral]

What I find is great is that Philip has not come back to a responed to all this c***. Because he does'nt have to.

Philip sent me a copy of this photo a couple of years ago and I have no reason to doubt it's authenticity

[Monty]

You mean the Parish of St George in the East, surely, AP?

Regards,

Mark

Mark,

Now that post by AP certainly indicates he needs 'expert' help.

Monty

[Monty]

John,

Philip mailed a seclected few whose opinion he trusted and valued. Like Colin, Rob Clack, John Bennett, myself and others (whom Im not prepared to name as they have not publically admitted to seeing the image). We were asked our views, positive and negative.

I have also bought the book. So no freebie for me. Admittedly thats my choice, granted.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Very kind of you Jeff...though I hear sea sick tablets may be required. Monty

yes when the weather improves. Be warned some late night drinking may also be involved. Catch you soon. jeff

[DVV]

No, they're sleeping peasants.
And the cart fits perfectly.

Amitiés,
David