Vignettes Within Photographs That Require Explanation

[Scott K]

I most sincerely hope that I've attracted as many people as possible with my thread title. I'm a regular guy who's been an amateur student of the American Civil War for over 40 years and I came across some really, really, obscure portions of images (thanks to Library of Congress digitalization) that I've yet seen studied or heard discussed.

My desire to share what I've found with this forums members rather than with a single person or entity is because I'm concerned that these portions of images would be somehow exploited for profit or skewed and broadcast saying they're ghosts, etc. Knowing there are others who are just as passionate and respectful (and certainly more knowledgeable) about this period of our history than I am, it is my personal wish that broad debate and discussion will help explain what's seen within these vignettes. My hope friends is that this might renew an appreciation of the sacrifices made by people who, like these images, have become hard to distinguish because of our modern, quick-paced cursory perspective. As a fairly new member, and realizing that you don't know me from Adam, I would completely understand if many of you will take a glance at the images and figure that what I'm trying to convey is kooky. That's why I've sort of sat on this for a while. Please know that this isn't a knee-jerk submission and I'm no kook.

That we members read this forum to learn and share things about the ACW period is a given. If you're like me, you're here also to, in one way or another, seek some sort of closeness to that period and its participants. A tough thing to put to words. Seeking that closeness comes with pitfalls – like wanting so badly for that rusty antique store item to be a CW relic or wanting an orb in a photo to be the spirit of someone. I'm very aware of the pitfall of perceiving something in a photograph that is only imagined – and have been many times susceptible to it. Sometimes, admittedly, for too long. Pareidolia is seeing a familiar something within the shape of a cloud for example. That shape is undeniable, but we know its not that familiar something. All of that being said, I'm as confident as a guy can be that there are photographs that contain in them faint vignettes of things impossible to shake off. Many many things that are something familiar.

Where am I going with this?

A few years of studying digitalized images has resulted in strongly suspecting or theorizing:

• Long exposure photography sometimes captured much more movement than we see in an actual sized image.
• Long exposure photography sometimes captured many more people than we see in an actual size image.
• Photographers knew that when they captured static or posed subjects that, due to long exposure, there was, at times, a great many moving things happening within their cameras view that wouldn't be seen by an 1860s public looking a plate or print on the wall of a gallery.
• The character of photographers of that period, urguably the greatest ever amalgamation of artist and scientist, caused some to 'blow through film' regardless of cost and waste. (A common rule of thumb for an artist intent on true expression is to not be stingy with their media. To use media as if you were a millionaire – regardless of ones finances).
• Photographers (artist/scientist) very very often tried to capture large/numerous moving subjects. The result being images on plates that I imagine the 'scientist' photographer using a magnifying glass to try to view the captured mass movement – if they were lucky. These treasures may have been discarded (or plates reused, see below) because the photographer thought 'There'll never be a means available that would allow people to appreciate this experiment….it's size would have to be 1000%!".
• An image from a glass plate can find its way into another image. I'm certain of this but don't have an explanation. Either (and again, I'm theorizing here):
  • -A plate was developed, found not to have the desired image, 'cleaned off' (to the naked eye) by photographer, and reused. Later, this original image (thought to be cleaned off, but actually 'adhered' to the plate better than photographer thought) is found incredibly faint on the final developed plate very often out of proportion and sometimes out of orientation.
  • -Plates, after being developed, were placed in some sort of rack causing them to be so near one another that a short period of bright light, or long period of dim light, would (unknowingly to photographer) pass through multiple plates causing a shadowing effect that would transfer an image from one plate to transfer to its neighbor. The accidently transferred image being more faint than the larger intended/successful image.
  • -Or maybe, the things I see in the digitalized images were never on the originals, but imposed by the digitalization process. I doubt this one but have to add it.

Here are two vignettes I'll start with. Nothing doctored by me but shown as they were downloaded from LOC archives. I hope you can see them because I've only submitted a photo once or twice before. Both found on Gettysburg glass plates, not prints. I'll give a brief, historically accurate, description of each along with my interpretation of what I see. I think it's important to first discuss/hear interpretations of a vignette before going down the potential rabbit hole of full photograph. I'd like to know if viewers feel there's something worthwhile here.



#1 is an example of what I regard as an easy/obvious find when magnified. Description – camera is on a hillside and I'd guess maybe 500 feet from what you're looking at. Someone looking at the overall photograph, unmagnified, wouldn't see a soul. My interpretation – Image of a stationary man sitting against a rock, upside down brimmed hat on lap, metal object beneath it. This man is in proportion/perspective with his surroundings and with a tone saturation that suggests he was a participant of the overall photograph. What's your interpretation/explanation?

#2 is an example of what I regard as an incredibly difficult find when magnified. Description – camera viewing across the side of a slope. Interpretation – (I provide twice as much image than is necessary so that you can get an idea of what I consider to be a sort of layering/shadowing of images. Occupying almost the entire right half of this image is the vignette) I interpret what we see here as a woman with her head upon the forearm of a man wearing a hat. There's likely some body movement during the exposure. They weren't posing. This vignette is severely out of proportion/perspective with the overall photograph and of a very light tone saturation, meaning that, in my interpretation, it was somehow transferred to the overall photograph. What's your interpretation/explanation?

 

[Fairfield]

An image from a glass plate can find its way into another image. I'm certain of this but don't have an explanation. Either (and again, I'm theorizing here)

I believe that. It certainly would explain a lot of pictures that we have of ghosts.

On these pictures, your eyesight is better than mine! When I was a child, there was a joke: someone would hand you a picture of 2 concentric circles to identify. Answer: a fat man wearing a hat. So that's #1. #2...can't imagine. I don't do photography any longer but I do copying out and adjustment of old photographs at the historical society; I'd try decreasing the size. Sometimes it is easier to see details when there is no magnification.

 

[John Hartwell]

I, too, see nothing suggestive in either example given, not even vague 'shapes.' A wider 'vignette,' as well as an overall view of the original photograph are needed for fair comparison. Intense concentration on any indistinct photographic apparition can easily lead to pareidolia of great and convincing detail. "A stationary man sitting against a rock, upside down brimmed hat on lap, metal object beneath it" is far too much detail to pick out of that first image!

 

[A. Roy]

A few years of studying digitalized images has resulted in strongly suspecting or theorizing:

Thanks for sharing this list of possible explanations for anomalies in old photographs. He doesn't participate here regularly, but I wonder what @Military Images might think of this list. He has given a couple of presentations here during the past year. @lelliott19 might know how to contact him and draw his attention to this interesting post.

Roy B.

 

[A. Roy]

A wider 'vignette,' as well as an overall view of the original photograph are needed for fair comparison.

I wonder whether posting the detail side-by-side with a broader view might help, drawing a box or circle or arrow on the broader view, to show where the detail comes from.

Roy B.

 

[dlofting]

Although what you wrote is very interesting, I can't make out anything that I can identify in the two photographs.

 

[Scott K]

Thanks for your replies and interest everyone. This thing is a tough one to convey. The beautiful thing here is that everything I've been looking at is available to the public in the Library of Congress online archives. To those who think they see something, I say, if my suspicions are correct, the surface is only scratched. I ask those who don't see anything to be patient - there's a chance that I'm wrong with some of it, but not most of it. If you're wondering if I'm teasing, I am. It's like a "Where is it Wednesday"! I really do hope many of you will start to look at the available photos by downloading and magnifying and slowly sweeping across them.

Here is vignette #1 again, now pulled away a little more. Is that a person between the rocks?

And it is within the red box of this full image that the vignette #2 can be found. As stated in previous post, this vignette, I believe, was somehow imposed onto this large photograph.

Here's something new….

Vignette #3 an example of fairly difficult to see. Description – camera looking across rocky landscape. Interpretation – towards left, stationary soldier with forage cap leaning against rock looking up and to the left. Round breast plate distinct? Maybe left hand on rifle sling? At right, two brimmed hated men who may have been stationary during a small duration of long exposure. These men in proportion/perspective with their surroundings and with a tone saturation that suggests they were participants of the overall photograph. Blurry/washed out areas could be caused by movement of others between them and the photographer during long exposure. What's your interpretation/explanation?

 

[treebie2000]

I see nothing…

 

[Sheltowee]

I see the 3 individuals in the last photo- and a man, woman in white, and young child in vignette #1.

But, oh, the power of suggestion!

Really wonder, if I look hard enough, might I see a taillight from a '56 Pontiac?

 

[A. Roy]

An image from a glass plate can find its way into another image. I'm certain of this but don't have an explanation.

This is certainly an interesting possibility, and it would be useful to know the thoughts of some experts in 19th-century photography.

Pareidolia is seeing a familiar something within the shape of a cloud for example.

I keep forgetting this word, although I experience this phenomenon every day. I spend a lot of time (ahem) standing next to the bathroom vanity counter, and sometimes all the faces I see in the laminate countertop make me wonder whether some interior designer is having me on...

Roy B.

 

[Scott K]

This is certainly an interesting possibility, and it would be useful to know the thoughts of some experts in 19th-century photography.



I keep forgetting this word, although I experience this phenomenon every day. I spend a lot of time (ahem) standing next to the bathroom vanity counter, and sometimes all the faces I see in the laminate countertop make me wonder whether some interior designer is having me on...

Roy B.

Roy B.,

I had difficulty seeing things at first too. When I first started looking at these photographs I hoped that by looking hard and magnifying there'd be distinct things to find. Over the years I became so used to the well known and fascinating posed photos, and grew more and more to appreciate the efforts it took to stand still for the photographer, that that is all I thought photographs of that period to be – posed, staged. Add to that, the experience many of us might have had with todays collodion photographer living historian – pose, stay still. It got me thinking about some of the broader landscape photographs and what might have been captured in an 8-15ish second exposure. Was everything within their borders as still as it appeared? Nope!

To be clear, I haven't found anything distinct. Even if what I think I see is truly there, they'll never be able to tell a detailed story. At least not the type of stories we've grown accustomed to. If truly there, and as many as I think I see, I hope they'll help add to our understanding of important moments in time along with how the photographers operated.

Roy, you asked to have a vignette compared with its full sized photo. Let's do that. Let's pick apart the full image I already submitted. The full image is of breastworks on Little Round Top. To again give readers an idea of what I'm seeing, I regard the following vignettes as fairly easy finds.

Here is the full-sized photograph with vignettes #4 & #5 boxed in.

Vignette # 4 – My interpretation, men not posed (slightly moving/changing positions) behind stone breastworks. I don't know whether or not to think this is a vignette transferred to here from elsewhere.

Vignette # 5 – My interpretation, towards bottom left a brimmed hatted man. Towards upper right the face of a hatless man. Highlights & shadows match the surroundings. I lean towards this vignette showing things that were part of the full-sized photograph.

 

[Scott K]

Here's a new one. Vignette #6. This excerpt is from the same photograph I grabbed Vignette #1 from and about 60 feet from #1. I regard it as a very easy find when magnified. Interpretation – a man with light colored brimmed hat behind a rock. What is seen as two black lines is only one long object held by the man. The long object was in one position for a moment of the long exposure, then moved to the second position. As an exercise to show how things might be interpreted, take for example what looks like a stump at bottom left. It's one dimensional appearance causes me to wonder if its fabric momentarily held up by something. The horizontal thing within the 'blanket' actually a stationary object laying on the ground behind the blanket. What's your interpretation/explanation?

 

[John Hartwell]

an 'obvious' pug-nosed beetle-browed balding Irish thug peering over a rock from Vignette #5?

The LoC images can be downloaded as huge .tiff files, but even at that resolution, 'vignettes' like these are far too 'pixillated' to be reliably interpreted as anything. I'm put in mind of the notorious (but far more persuasive) "Giant Face on Mars," or the more recent "Moon Cube."

 

[A. Roy]

To be clear, I haven't found anything distinct. Even if what I think I see is truly there, they'll never be able to tell a detailed story. At least not the type of stories we've grown accustomed to. If truly there, and as many as I think I see, I hope they'll help add to our understanding of important moments in time along with how the photographers operated.

It's interesting to look at the details you've pulled out. Even so, I find myself wondering whether this is just a manifestation of the human mind's tendency to see faces everywhere -- maybe hard-wired, maybe acquired. I do think it's a good question whether images might somehow have been transferred from one glass-plate negative to another.

R

 

[Scott K]

View attachment 428339an 'obvious' pug-nosed beetle-browed balding Irish thug peering over a rock from Vignette #5?

The LoC images can be downloaded as huge .tiff files, but even at that resolution, 'vignettes' like these are far too 'pixillated' to be reliably interpreted as anything. I'm put in mind of the notorious (but far more persuasive) "Giant Face on Mars," or the more recent "Moon Cube."

John,
It's funny that you describe what's seen in the image as a pug-nosed beetle-browed balding Irish thug. I'm not 100% sure of what we're looking at, but I too perceived a pug nosed beetle-browed balding Irish thug when I came across this LOL. Strange huh? While there's no known evidence of life having existed on Mars, I'd say there's a slightly better chance that an Irishmen working on that hot hillside might have paused to turn his sweaty face towards the photographers tripod perched on a rock. I hear where you're coming from though John. Imagination is necessary with these, but must be checked.

Below is vignette #7 I'm going to throw it out especially for you John. Which direction do you lean? Pareidolia/solely imagination or an image of a mans face likely never known to exist.

Vignette #7. One that I consider an easy find when magnified. Description – Camera 400 feet away looking level and across rocky landscape. Interpretation – man wearing forage cap facing camera, hands around mouth, hollering. Face is in proportion/perspective/shaded/highlighted with the surroundings with a tone saturation that suggests it could be part of the overall photograph, however the absence of rest of body could mean that it was somehow transferred to the overall photograph.

 

[John Hartwell]

John,
It's funny that you describe what's seen in the image as a pug-nosed beetle-browed balding Irish thug. I'm not 100% sure of what we're looking at, but I too perceived a pug nosed beetle-browed balding Irish thug when I came across this LOL. Strange huh? While there's no known evidence of life having existed on Mars, I'd say there's a slightly better chance that an Irishmen working on that hot hillside might have paused to turn his sweaty face towards the photographers tripod perched on a rock. I hear where you're coming from though John. Imagination is necessary with these, but must be checked.

Below is vignette #7 I'm going to throw it out especially for you John. Which direction do you lean? Pareidolia/solely imagination or an image of a mans face likely never known to exist.

Vignette #7. One that I consider an easy find when magnified. Description – Camera 400 feet away looking level and across rocky landscape. Interpretation – man wearing forage cap facing camera, hands around mouth, hollering. Face is in proportion/perspective/shaded/highlighted with the surroundings with a tone saturation that suggests it could be part of the overall photograph, however the absence of rest of body could mean that it was somehow transferred to the overall photograph.
View attachment 428421

Whatever you, or I, 'see' in any of these 'vignettes' is entirely in our imaginations, and must remain so until we find much clearer, higher resolution images (which in this case simply do not exist, and never will).

But, suppose there is 'something' in one or two of our imagining. So what? What have we learned? What useful or enlightening knowledge about the Civil War, or the specific scene depicted, have we gained to make the time spent in daydreaming worth the effort? It's momentarily diverting, but essentially meaningless.

 

[Scott K]

Whatever you, or I, 'see' in any of these 'vignettes' is entirely in our imaginations, and must remain so until we find much clearer, higher resolution images (which in this case simply do not exist, and never will).

But, suppose there is 'something' in one or two of our imagining. So what? What have we learned? What useful or enlightening knowledge about the Civil War, or the specific scene depicted, have we gained to make the time spent in daydreaming worth the effort? It's momentarily diverting, but essentially meaningless.

John,

Thanks for your reply. What I said in my first post was that I hoped that debate and discussion would help explain what's seen within these vignettes. It's an examination forum. By that, I thought what's done here is exam photos. And I'm the curious sort. And I replied directly to you because I'm inspired by quotes like the one by Douglas Adams you have at the bottom of your posts. I'd never heard that one before. It's wonderful. I thought I'd share an experience.

I've debated it's usefulness. But I personally think it'd be wrong for me to consider it meaningless and never bring it up. As for daydreaming, yes, I'm as guilty as sin. Daydreaming caused me to wonder if an image we see as substantially vacant has much more going on in it than we think.

Here's a good quote:

In great deeds something abides. On great fields something stays. Forms change and pass; bodies disappear; but spirits linger, to consecrate ground for the vision-place of souls. And reverent men and women from afar, and generations that know us not and that we know not of, heart-drawn to see where and by whom great things were suffered and done for them, shall come to this deathless field, to ponder and dream…

 

[John Hartwell]

John,

Thanks for your reply. What I said in my first post was that I hoped that debate and discussion would help explain what's seen within these vignettes.

I think that for most of us that explanation was amply provided in the first few posts; further discussion is to debate Angels on pinheads. If you find that rewarding, I sincerely wish you all the best with it.