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

[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

[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

[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?

[Monty]

Bored again Ally?

Monty

[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.

[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]

They would have? Why? The two people who have complained, John and John, why would they have come up with some other excuse to discredit it?

[Monty]

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.

Not Discrediting a word youre saying Ally, just noted your sublety in mentioning the issue.

And I, for the record, didnt have a problem with the criticism of the spilt photo, just how it was critcised.

I await you obvious yet witty reply.

Monty
x

[Ally]

Not Discrediting a word youre saying Ally, just noted your sublety in mentioning the issue.

Really? Stating I am only posting because of boredom? Implying that I am looking for excitement? Which is a nice subtle way of communicating that I am only sht stirring for a thrill?

And I, for the record, didnt have a problem with the criticism of the spilt photo, just how it was critcised.

Uh huh. And I almost believe you that it was the way it was criticized that you have a problem with. I am sure, as I pointed out previously, that if the criticism had been directed against Patricia Cornwell, your reaction would have been exactly the same.

I await you obvious yet witty reply.

I went for obvious as opposed to witty this time.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ally,

I don't know how many people saw the high resolution version Glenn saw. When Philip did send me the image - not long before his book was published - it was a small slightly distorted version with something written across it. LOL. I guess because I publish on Berner Street it was thought I might steal the image or something, or write about it, I don't know. But it's a shame I didn't know the image existed when he found it or I would have at that time provided him the information that appears in his book about the family who lived at Berner Street in the early 1900's and it could have been researched more thoroughly, as it is quite possible that is who is pictured. I plan on contacting the descendants of said family soon when I have the time to focus on it. I have reason to believe they may possess more photos of 40 Berner Street. If nothing else, they'll be able to tell us if the girl in the photo and others pictured is their ancestor or not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

I found it witty Ally.

On reflection, yes, I do see your point.

Monty

[John Winsett]

I would like to say for the record that I don't doubt the authenticity of the photo. I do apologize if I offended anyone but all criticisms were validated by the original thread announcing the discovery of the DFY pic.
I had this pic in the book looked at by an archivist and expert in vintage restoration (we actually have a department where I work that does this) who had pointed out that not only is it not the highest quality resolution it should've been but the split has distorted the left side of the pic so the dimensions between the two are off. These are the kind of problems that happen when ego gets in the way of history. at the very least the original should have been show complete but I suspect there are other reasons of why that didn't happen.
So do I feel like a chump? Yes but that's my fault for not investigating the subject more closely. The book has other great photos and the overall quality of the book is very good. Ally is right. The only people slamming this in defense of the pic are the people who got to see it completely and I suspect have not seen it in the book.
If you put something in public for money and don't do quality work, be prepared to be critiqued, hammered, insulted, etc. I feel justified in my complaints.
I don't doubt the authenticity, just the sincerity in which this was presented.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Ally,

I don't know how many people saw the high resolution version Glenn saw. When Philip did send me the image - not long before his book was published - it was a small slightly distorted version with something written across it. LOL. I guess because I publish on Berner Street it was thought I might steal the image or something, or write about it, I don't know. But it's a shame I didn't know the image existed when he found it or I would have at that time provided him the information that appears in his book about the family who lived at Berner Street in the early 1900's and it could have been researched more thoroughly, as it is quite possible that is who is pictured. I plan on contacting the descendants of said family soon when I have the time to focus on it. I have reason to believe they may possess more photos of 40 Berner Street. If nothing else, they'll be able to tell us if the girl in the photo and others pictured is their ancestor or not.

Intersting, Tom, and i see your point.

On the other hand, I can understand Philip's modus operandi here. As far as I know, Philip agreed, due to the vast number of requests, to publish the photo online or distribute it as a very low resolution copy with a copyright text printed all over it. And the reason was quite obvious; Philip has always been the first one to help others out but when he once in a life time found himself in possession of this item, he wanted to make sure that his copyrights were secured and that people couldn't copy it.
Personally, I can understand it since a lot of pictures and the efforts of a number of researchers have been widely taken advantaged of and abused. After all, to dig up pictures like these costs a lot of money, time and effort.
Just ask Stewart Evans (whom also have turned rather cautious these days on such issues).

To clarify, what I received from Philip was a full high resolution copy in excellent quality, with no text written over it and this was long before it was even discussed on Casebook.
I don't think you should take it personally, Tom, and maybe you should have been one of those who early one received a high resolution copy since you for a long time have shown a serious interest in the Berner Street event - I don't know; I can't comment on Philips' preferences here but I got the impression that when Philip sent out the high resolution copies in this very early stage (right after he had discovered them) it was in an air of excitement over it, and he only did it to those he knew very close on a personal basis. I could be wrong, but that could be a couple of the reasons.
Then, after the mob on Casebook - led by AP Wolf - started to question his photo and accused him of lying, he agreed to publish it during a limited time period in the shape of a very small low resolution copy with the copyright text.

Besides, those who visited the US Conference - not least the Americans themselves - had the chance to view it in full and in large size during his talk. Those Americans who missed that have only themselves to blame and can't blame Philip for it, since he after all gave people the opportunity to see it.

Personally, I fully support his decision to 'sit on it' until his book was released - I would have done the same thing. So many researchers have found ground-breaking pictures or documents without ever being fully recognized for it, since they very quickly have become public domain in the name of the 'Ripperologist community'.

All the best

[Supe]

Glenn,

Those Americans who missed that have only themselves to blame and can't blame Philip for it, since he after all gave people the opportunity to see it.

Please, don't "blame the victim" in this instance. Surely you know why only two dozen people attended the "Notsville" conference and most of the Ripperologists in North America were conspicuous by their absence--and that reason had nothing to do with the economy. For those who made a choice not to attend that conference I rather doubt genuine photos of Mary Kelly in life, far less a a years-later view of Dutfield's Yard, would have brought them to the conference.

That you were part of Philip's clique is something about which you might feel pride, but don't chide those on the outside for not trekking to the conference.

Don.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn,

Those Americans who missed that have only themselves to blame and can't blame Philip for it, since he after all gave people the opportunity to see it.

Please, don't "blame the victim" in this instance. Surely you know why only two dozen people attended the "Notsville" conference and most of the Ripperologists in North America were conspicuous by their absence--and that reason had nothing to do with the economy. For those who made a choice not to attend that conference I rather doubt genuine photos of Mary Kelly in life, far less a a years-later view of Dutfield's Yard, would have brought them to the conference.

That you were part of Philip's clique is something about which you might feel pride, but don't chide those on the outside for not trekking to the conference.

Don.

Don,

I obviously meant those Americans who COMPLAINED about it - apart from AP Wolf - and who have made it an issue on these Boards. I don't regard you as one of those.

But fact remains, that Philip gave people the chance to see it, as opposed to what was implied by some people. If they chose not to grasp that opportunity, it is their beef.
Just like it's up to people to buy the book to see it now if they didn't get the chance to see it earlier.

All the best