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

[Stephen Thomas]

Go back to the original thread, boys, where I vented my opinion that the image displayed does not reflect the technical ability of the camera used.

Do yourself a favour, AP, and give this a rest.

You obviously don't know photography from your arsehole so don't pretend you do.

(and I'm speaking as a friend here)

It's Dutfields Yard in 1900. End of story. A fact verified by EXPERTS.

Why wander around alienating people for no reason?

[Tom_Wescott]

I suppose I should be somewhat grateful for you, AP. Without you and Simon, Monty and co. would probably regard me a crank for thinking that Stride was a Ripper victim. Lol.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

I actually like being on my own, Tom, it is a good place to be.
Sort of takes you out of the animated, and into the rare reality where you can breathe on fresh air.

[Tom_Wescott]

The pot just called the kettle African-American, I know. But that goes to shows how deep this consensus runs. AP is truly out on his own here. Oh, and Simon Wood.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Well I'll be fu....

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi AP

Personally I’d rather close ranks with a cage full of porcupines than Ally.

However I do know a little bit about photography. As Rob stated, a pinhole camera as long as it uses a very small aperture (f22) should give an excellent focal length.

The idea that a camera of this period or even earlier could not take this picture is silly. Of course it could have done. It’s quality of lens that counts and they made better lenses then, than some of the toosh we buy today.

In bright sunshine at approx mid day, this should have been very freezable.

Having seen the original and retouched version of this picture it is clear that the removal of marks and scuffs caused by age was minimal. Standard photoshop stuff.

You are flying in the face of reason, apologize and give up. Sometimes its just best to admit you are wrong. A lesson that would do many here good.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

Glenn,

Good to see you, I've wondered where you (and Gavin Bromley) were at for some time. I hope all is well, and personally, I think selling 30,000 copies of your book is fantastic. That probably puts your book in the top 10% of Ripper books!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Winsett]

On the other hand...

The other pics in the book are pretty good though. I probably wouldn't have been so pissed if such a big deal and half the book hadn't been devoted to the DFY pic in the condition it was presented. I would've loved to see the original untouched one. That's alot more historical to me than a bastardized version.

[Hunter]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but on the capability of the camera to take such a picture I refer to the Kodak website.
The newly formed Kodak company made available, in 1888, a portable camera based on rolled film. The camera held film for 100 exposures, which, after the photographs were taken the entire camera would be sent to Kodak for processing and prints. The camera and prints were then returned to the owner with fresh film. With no viewfinder it was held at waist height to take the picture. It had a large lens with a small aperture and was capable of clear focused pictures from 4 feet out to infinity. It was so popular that it was nicknamed " the tourist camera". Later improvements in the 1890's included a reduced weight and removable film.

I believe this lady took these pictures in 1900 instead of 1909 as some earlier post have suggested. There are numerous photographs displayed on the web taken by this camera around the turn of the century and they show remarkable depth and clarity.


While I'm here-

Posted by Ally-

"...believe me if I were, dickheads who make unwarranted accusations would be banned right out of the gate..."
"...his valid complaints are somehow the equivalent of sh*t stirring merely for the sake of commotion..."
"... who the fu@ck do you think you are ..."

Ally, I love it when you talk dirty. Are you married? If not, I would make a good husband. I can cook. I make a mean squirrel stew. I keep fresh buckets of corn cobs in the outhouse. I know every word to the song "Goober Peas" and I'm saving up for a gold tooth. I'd even get ya a new pair of work boots every winter. So... how 'bout it?

Oh, that's right. We're not supposed to discuss matramony on this forum. Sorry... Ya'll go on back to yer insults and accusations. Some day it'll make some good histerical... I mean historical reading.

Best Wishes,
Hunter
__________________________________________________ _______________

Looesy! Get that dish rag and clean that baby's bottom. There's one thing I caint stand is nastiness.- Snuffy Smith

... I am just happy that my own book hasn't been transalted into English (I would most likely refuse to go along with it if the publisher put forward the suggestion)

As for Glenn, he should really get a Booth all to himself, ...

Well, he could certainly use one named "William"!

And, he could definitely use one named "Charles"!

But surely, he shouldn't get one named …

[Magpie]

:Just finished reading the entire thread--and here I was worried that you guys might have mellowed during my absence....2thumbsup:

[Cap'n Jack]

Go back to the original thread, boys, where I vented my opinion that the image displayed does not reflect the technical ability of the camera used.
As for Glenn, he should really get a Booth all to himself, just to reflect his depth of field... about two left feet.

[Mike Covell]

The concept of the telephoto lens, in reflecting form, was first described by Johannes Kepler in his Dioptrice of 1611, and re-invented by Peter Barlow in 1834. (not the same guy as him from Corrie!) Histories of photography usually credit Thomas Rudolphus Dallmeyer with the invention of the photographic telephoto lens in 1891, though it was independently invented by others about the same time; some credit his father John Henry Dallmeyer in 1860.

On the other side of the world, in New Zealand, Alexander McKay was taking photographs of exceptional quality using home-made telephoto lenses, ground from the bottoms of whisky bottles, probably as early as 1883 or 1884. Some of his photographs are preserved in the holdings of the Turnbull Library in Wellington, and two of these can be unequivocally dated as having been taken during May 1886. One of McKay’s photographs shows the Russian warship Vjestnik anchored in Wellington harbour about two and a half kilometres away, with its rigging lines and gun ports clearly visible. The other, taken from the same point, is of a local hotel, the Shepherds Arms, about 100 metres distant from the camera. The masts of the Vjestnik are visible in the background. McKay's other photographic achievements include photo-micrographs, and a ‘shadow-less technique’ for photographing fossils.McKay presented his work to the Wellington Philosophical Society (the precursor of the Royal Society of New Zealand) in 1890.

Some of the photographic experts, Firth, Clack, Bailey, Observer, et al might be able to add more details to what is known.

[Stephen Thomas]

AP, you said the image "could only have been produced after 1920 because of the focus range available in the images."

What exactly do you mean by this?

I am no photography expert, but as far as I know, there are no technical limitations on focal length in old (pre-1920) cameras or lenses, provided that a small aperture is used. A pinhole camera, for example, is very primitive, but has almost infinite focal length. My assumption is that the photo was taken in bright daylight with a small aperture... I don't see the problem.

You're quite right, Rob, and AP is talking uninformed nonsense here.

Everything was in focus with old point and shoot cameras from 6ft to infinity.

The only difference was the 'resolution' of the lens and the quality of the film stock which both determined the sharpness of the image.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Aps book was not originally issued free on the internet. It was published, as with any regular book, and sold in book stores.

I myself bought a copy.

And there lies the hypocrosy.

Hi Monty,

Nice to see you too. My 'comeback' is just temporary, however.

True indeed. You're absolutely right.
Yes, I know it once was a published book but apparently it sold out and then AP decided to release it on the net for free. As for myself, I actually downloaded it for free several years after the book was off the market. I would willingly had paid for it, though.

As for cliques, I don't mind them - cliques exists in most research fields (which goes for friendly connections as well) - it's the silliness and the dishonest and bitter campaigns against certain individuals (whom I personally think deserves better) I can't accept.