strange artifact

[Edward S. Isaacs]

Last year I scanned a few slides of EliteChrome 100, I have an Epson 4490 scanner. The film went through 2 x ray machines, was exposed 8000 miles away, sent it to the lab, came back ok....now comes the fun part... I've been looking at them and I found something strange: in the top left quarter of the image there's an artifact. It's a lamp I have in my studio, I thought it was a problem with the scanner or something so I dug out the slide and there it is, on the film. My question is: How could this be possible?

[adan]

The first, obvious, - but not necessarily right - answer would be that you exposed a few frames one evening in your studio playing around with the camera, took out the film - and that roll ended up getting run through the camera again as "new" during your trip, double-exposing "Dharma" or wherever it is onto frames that only recorded the brightest thing in the studio - the lamp.

[j. white]

In the audio world, that's what we call having radio waves in your panties!

Is it in any way possible that two negs were sandwiched together when you did the scan?

[Edward S. Isaacs]

Originally Posted by adan

The first, obvious, - but not necessarily right - answer would be that you exposed a few frames one evening in your studio playing around with the camera, took out the film - and that roll ended up getting run through the camera again as "new" during your trip, double-exposing "Dharma" or wherever it is onto frames that only recorded the brightest thing in the studio - the lamp.

Thanks Andy, the film was sealed in the box and it was in the middle of the roll, I thought about the scenario you describe, but that's not the case here...I don't know what else could cause this.

[Edward S. Isaacs]

Originally Posted by j. white

In the audio world, that's what we call having radio waves in your panties!

Is it in any way possible that two negs were sandwiched together when you did the scan?

Thanks Mr. White, I checked the slide, and it is on the film.

.

[Mark Antony]

Another possibility is that while re-winding the film you stopped, the advance lever moved when you picked it up again you triped the shutter...

[adan]

So we're grasping at straws here -

I see a shadow at the bottom of the image. Were you in a bus or train, where a lamp coincidentally like your own was reflected in the window as you shot? Or perhaps even from inside a hotel or shop?

Obviously - absent divine intervention - you have here either a double-exposure or a reflection. SOMETHING projected an image of the lamp onto this frame somehow, somewhere along the line.

How about (borrowing from Marc Anthony here, combined with my own first theory) - might it have gone through the camera (at least partly) once you got home?

Two questions: What camera? - and do any other frames show this, or some other "extra" artifact?

[rob_x2004]

No. I think, like Cartman, you are just going to have to accept the presence of aliens in our world Ed.
You havent noticed any unexplained tall structures lately? Radii always seem to come in to play.


ps...Bottom lh cnr could be a giveaway...Probe tip?
I also went back into LAB mode, converted one of the channels back to RGB to look at the red channel...I dunno Ed but I'd be calling Malder and Scully about now.

................J.jpg

[Peter D Lux 2]

Rob, that's hilarious

Edward, are you sure these lamps don't just look like the ones in your studio? My first thought also was that we're looking through a window in which the lamps are reflected.

[Leica(at)Palatinate]

Originally Posted by Mark Antony

Another possibility is that while re-winding the film you stopped, the advance lever moved when you picked it up again you triped the shutter...

Yes or, before taking these shots you (or someone else) loaded the film first time and photographed the lamp then (the lamp scenery is not well composed/lit, looks like an unintended shot). After that the film was (eventually completely) rewinded, and you reloaded for the recent shots.

Well, isn`t it nice to see that the family is interested in your Leica as well?

Hermann

[Edward S. Isaacs]

Perhaps I should have said this from the beginning: I got the film on my way to the airport, went through xray machines twice, took the picture, that specific frame is in the middle of the roll, I was outside on the street, the shadow on the lower part of the frame is a building behind me, the lower right shows part of a picket fence, as soon as I got back, the same day I took the film to the lab, 6 rolls all together.
The camera in question is a Leica Mini.
My wife tells me I was thinking about home when I took the picture and the image of the lamp became part of the film. I don't happen to believe in the the "unexplained" but this could make me change my mind. I doubt it though....



.

[roguewave]

This is the most interesting picture my wife ever made. It's a scan from an old print. My youngest was all of 4 and we where at Hershey Park in PA. This is clearly a double exposure (made with an autofocus Oly (a present to her from me). I was there, standing next to her. This is a single frame. There were 36 exposures on the roll and the film did not advance. Ah, the mysteries of life.

[RITskellar]

Originally Posted by roguewave

This is the most interesting picture my wife ever made. It's a scan from an old print. My youngest was all of 4 and we where at Hershey Park in PA. This is clearly a double exposure (made with an autofocus Oly (a present to her from me). I was there, standing next to her. This is a single frame. There were 36 exposures on the roll and the film did not advance. Ah, the mysteries of life.

Nice try, Ben. But there is no way this is a double exposure. 1) At the point of overlap between the hand of kid on right and the knee of kid on left, there is no signs of double image. And 2) The kid on the left is a different kid than the one on the right. Perhaps there are other reasons, but very quickly you can see that the arms of the kid on the left are either longer or shirt is shorter than kid on right. There must have been another kid who just happened to be wearing a yellow t-shirt and brown hair who moved through the frame without you remembering at the time.

By the way, I can not say (yet) what the first image with the lamp in it is, other than what some of the other comments have been already. That being said, my father just so happens to be an expert debunker of the photographic paranormal. Andrew Davidhazy

Cheers, Andy

[RITskellar]

Originally Posted by Edward S. Isaacs

Last year I scanned a few slides of EliteChrome 100, I have an Epson 4490 scanner. The film went through 2 x ray machines, was exposed 8000 miles away, sent it to the lab, came back ok....now comes the fun part... I've been looking at them and I found something strange: in the top left quarter of the image there's an artifact. It's a lamp I have in my studio, I thought it was a problem with the scanner or something so I dug out the slide and there it is, on the film. My question is: How could this be possible?

If the lamp is in the film, then it couldn't be light leak reflected onto the flatbed scanner glass surface as scan is being made. The only other thing I can think of now is that after exposing the film and before removing from the camera... your camera has a slow light leak (through lens?) which exposed the lamp while the camera sat on a surface somewhere before you completely rewound film and removed it.

[rob_x2004]

Oh come of it Andy. You will be starting on the easter bunny, Santa and Jesus holy shroud next.

[roguewave]

Andy, I don't know what your main malfunction is. This a shot of MY CHILD, not someone with the same shirt. Quite honestly, you leave me breathless in this level of arrogance. That you can't account for Louis' issue is about the only thing that makes sense.

[RITskellar]

Originally Posted by roguewave

Andy, I don't know what your main malfunction is. This a shot of MY CHILD, not someone with the same shirt. Quite honestly, you leave me breathless in this level of arrogance. That you can't account for Louis' issue is about the only thing that makes sense.

Personal attacks aren't really necessary. I'm very sorry if I offended you Ben. Truly. I mistook a lively debate and brainstorm about photographic anomalies for one of blind faith. There's nothing wrong with either however. Perhaps I should have phrased my comments more delicately, but I meant them in good spirit.

[marc_dufour]

Besides the correct observation made by Andy ("At the point of overlap between the hand of kid on right and the knee of kid on left, there is no signs of double image") we can observe another strange thing:
The "123 1/4" garbage can is under the horizon level. So, we should have to see the back inside part of the can.
Sorry for my poor english. Interesting picture, indeed.
Marc

[rob_x2004]

Marc I think the bins are backless, serving also as handrails. Its a kids climber.
Its a low light shot so maybe the camera was braced. There appear to be spot lights over the kids. If the rest of the set is fairly dark that might explain quite a bit too.
I am still waiting for Ed to come clean though, or take one of those hypnotized interrogations to find out more about his aliens.

[underground]

if this was double exposed you would be able to see threw the child. unless the second exposure was reasonably longer. strange.