Question about shading in a black and white photo. Would you please help me?

[Firsk]

Are we talking about the same person? I am not talking about the guy with his hands raised to his head to block the mid-day sun. I know about him, and I am not talking about him. I am talking about the guy in front of him who looks like he has got a white splotch over his face. It looks like a splattering of milk or white paint. That's what I am talking about. And there is no way that it can be construed as somebody's hands. I wish I could post it here because then I don't think there would be any doubt; it's an aberration. And I'll tell you something else: this is a big, vast picture with tons of people in it, and there is nothing else like that anywhere else in the picture. So, don't be so quick to make excuses for it. It's problematic- whether you want to admit it or not. And, I'll give you one more piece of advice: if you're not interested in the subject, leave. No one is holding a gun to your head to be here.

 

[Bossy]

So post here. Its not that complicated.

 

[Firsk]

OK, I have posted it on this site under my name, Firsk. Click on Photo Gallery, Members Galleries, and then look for my name, Firsk. The white splotch is right smack in the middle of the image. Anybody still want to say that that's a guy's hands?

 

[o hey tyler]

Are we talking about the same person? I am not talking about the guy with his hands raised to his head to block the mid-day sun. I know about him, and I am not talking about him. I am talking about the guy in front of him who looks like he has got a white splotch over his face. It looks like a splattering of milk or white paint. That's what I am talking about. And there is no way that it can be construed as somebody's hands. I wish I could post it here because then I don't think there would be any doubt; it's an aberration. And I'll tell you something else: this is a big, vast picture with tons of people in it, and there is nothing else like that anywhere else in the picture. So, don't be so quick to make excuses for it. It's problematic- whether you want to admit it or not. And, I'll give you one more piece of advice: if you're not interested in the subject, leave. No one is holding a gun to your head to be here.

This isn't a conspiracy theory forum, do you realize that? We're not interested in arguing what YOU think is going on in the photo. You got the opinion you came seeking, there's no need to try and impose your view upon us or get us to join your school of thought. I guarantee you that most people here do not care.

If anything this should be in "photographic discussions" or even "off topic chat," because the only way that this relates to photography is the fact that we're looking at an old photo and trying to figure out who is in it... Much like a conspiracy theorist would do.

 

[Firsk]

Hey, you don't speak for anyone but yourself. Maybe somebody else here is interested. I'll tell you what: if you want to make a big deal out of this, you contact the owners of the site and complain about this and ask them to remove this thread. I can't stop you from doing that. And if happens, it happens. But until it happens, this stays, and I stay. So, you do what you have to do, but quit talking to me.

 

[paigew]

Wow, crazy....I never knew there was so much controversy over that photo . I gotta agree with the majority here, 'the photo forum' is about photography, not over analysing crappy pics from the past.

 

[gsgary]

Thanks for reading this. I have a question about a black and white photo. I am trying to figure out why the trunk of a tree, which is in the light, appears coal-black.

You can find the picture on this link. You'll have to scroll down:

JFK Special: Oswald was the man in the Doorway, after all! - The Education Forum - Page 33

It is a famous photo from the JFK Assassination. I need to know why that tree looks ghostly black when it was a sunny day. If you have any idea, please respond. Thank you.

If it is the one i'm thinking of in an interview Bill Epperidge just shot his camera with the settings from his last shot and was very lucky to get the shot

Got wrong photo

 

[Firsk]

Please check the photos gallery on this site: Members Photos, and then look for Firsk. There's one photo, and in the center of it is a white splotch, or you could call it a weird, wild splattering of white. What is it? I am looking for people's impressions. Thank you.

 

[SCraig]

Please check the photos gallery on this site: Members Photos, and then look for Firsk. There's one photo, and in the center of it is a white splotch, or you could call it a weird, wild splattering of white. What is it? I am looking for people's impressions. Thank you.

I would STRONGLY recommend that you look at that photograph on a properly calibrated monitor that properly displays contrast and brightness. I say that because ON MY MONITOR I can EASILY see a person in a striped shirt holding his hands over his eyes. In front of him is a man in a white shirt. I can CLEARLY see his left elbow and forearm right above the woman standing beside the black woman and holding her hand over her eyes. I can also see his right wrist coming up to meet the other hand right in front of his face. It appears that for some reason he is holding his hands together in front of his face. I do not know why, I was not there. THERE IS NO WEIRD, WILD SPLATTERING OF WHITE. I'm sorry if it doesn't fit in with your theories but IT IS NOT THERE.

So there. You have asked what the "White Blotch" is and I have described it. I can see it quite clearly on my monitor. If you can not then I strongly recommend, as I stated above, that you view the photograph on a PROPERLY calibrated monitor. I'm finished with this crazy thread, and I'm outta here.

 

[Firsk]

I don't see anything of what you're seeing, and nobody else has ever described anything quite like that. But, I agree with you that there is a guy there. In fact, you have once again been helpful and supportive because a lot of people, and I mean lone nutters, deny that there's anybody there.

I don't know what kind of monitor you have, but mine is an HP and I assume it's a good one. But again I want to point out that the Altgens photo is a big, vast picture and everything else comes through clear, sharp, and unambiguous- on my monitor. So, if can see the other parts of the picture clearly with my monitor, I should be able to see this part.

What I have done now is posted a picture of just the white splotch. I honed in it and removed all the rest. And I don't see how that white splot could be possibly be construed as anybody's hands. You're welcome to take a look at it if you wish, and again, thank you for your input.

 

[Bossy]

That is the guys over shirt tossed over his shoulder. We've been over this.

 

[SCraig]

I don't see anything of what you're seeing, and nobody else has ever described anything quite like that. But, I agree with you that there is a guy there. In fact, you have once again been helpful and supportive because a lot of people, and I mean lone nutters, deny that there's anybody there.

I don't know what kind of monitor you have, but mine is an HP and I assume it's a good one. But again I want to point out that the Altgens photo is a big, vast picture and everything else comes through clear, sharp, and unambiguous- on my monitor. So, if can see the other parts of the picture clearly with my monitor, I should be able to see this part.

What I have done now is posted a picture of just the white splotch. I honed in it and removed all the rest. And I don't see how that white splot could be possibly be construed as anybody's hands. You're welcome to take a look at it if you wish, and again, thank you for your input.

I call them as I see them, and that's what I see.

I also didn't say a GOOD monitor I said a PROPERLY CALIBRATED monitor. Calibrating a monitor helps insure that it is displaying an image as correctly as possible. Otherwise it is quite possible that there is information in the photograph that cannot be displayed on your monitor.

You are welcome for the input. I hope it was useful in some way.

 

[Firsk]

Over shirt? I can't say I agree. The contour of it doesn't look like a shirt. The shape of that white thing is very irregular, and it's jutting out and projecting in ways that a shirt would not. And the texture doesn't look like an over shirt either. It would have to have been a stark white over shirt, and how likely is that? Furthermore, when you look at it very closely, and if you enlarge it as I am able to do, you see that there is an outline of SOMETHING ELSE around the white field. And that something else I consider strong evidence against it being an over shirt. I think it's very presumptous to say that it's an over shirt. Sorry, I can't consider it case closed on your opinion.

 

[Bossy]

Oh if you enlarge it? Silly me, I simply don't have the programs or capabilities to do that.
You go ahead and enjoy your conspiracy theories, we've all explained that you're making mountains out of molehills, but oh well, what do we know.

 

[o hey tyler]

He has image magnification software that is so good that it can literally create resolution that isn't there, as well as details that aren't there, and gradation that isn't there... You know, the really good​ software.