From: Bruce Maccabee <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 19:26:24 -0400 Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:35:33 -0400 Subject: Re: Playing With '42 LA UFO Pic >From: Paul Novak <email@example.com> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org >Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:53:59 -0700 (PDT) >Subject: Re: Playing With '42 LA UFO Pic >>From: David Acres <email@example.com> >>To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:57:57 +1000 >>Subject: Re: Playing With '42 LA UFO Pic <snip> >I have contacted the LA Times and am waiting to find out if a >reproduction of the original print before it was published is >possible and what the fee will be. I suppose I may need to >contact them again, maybe in writing or by phone. I tried a year >ago and if I remember correctly was told it would be fairly >expensive but I never followed up. >I have also contacted a dealer in historic newspapers within the >past two days but doubt this will prove worthwhile as it appears >the newspapers printed copy also shows the spotlights abruptly >cutoff. Why the photo would have been retouched in this manner >is also a mystery. As soon as, and if I have a copy in my >possession it will be made available. I'm all for others >attempting to locate one as I have been trying for some time to >obtain one and it is not in the least proving to be an easy >undertaking. >But I do myself think it would do much to at the least satisfy >the questions of just what is shown in the photo and "was it >truly altered?" once a viable copy is available.> With regard to the picture: if we can get a good print or better yet two good prints at two different exposure levels, we may be able to determine whether or not there was an opaque object at the "focal point" of the light beams. I have always marvelled at how bright the images of the beams are in the newspaper reproductions. A beam like that can be seen by light scattering from atmospheric dust. But it is not particularly bright. I wonder if those are long exposures (seconds?). At any rate, the brightness of the image of a beam at any direction you are looking along the beam ius a result of the summation of light along the sighting direction. The summation involves adding all the light as the sighting diretcion passes through the "thickness" (diameter) of the beam. If there were an opaque object it would block part of the beam and thus reduce the total brightness of the reflected light. On the other hand, if the object were reflective itself (not black) it could increase the amount of reflected light. There does not seem to be evidence of a specular (mirror like) reflector at the focus of the beams. However, if the exposure level of the film was saturated by the brightness of the beams (which it seems to be in the half-tone reproductions) then increased exposure due to reflectivity of an object in the beams may not show up. The only way to be sure is to get a couple of prints at different printing exposure levels (unless one can get the negative to work with, which is the ideal case).
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp