HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Similar topics
UFO Magazine Blog
UFO Magazine Blog
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Latest topics
Top posters
onlychild
 
Ufofiend
 
davefair
 
glider
 
Lesley
 
free wheel
 
Jeremy Vaeni
 
mantle1958
 
jackgbowman
 
LakehurstNJwitness
 
April 2017
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
CalendarCalendar
Social bookmarking
Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of The UFO Magazine Forum on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of The UFO Magazine Forum on your social bookmarking website
Forum

Share | 
 

 UFOs' and Photography

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Bill Thomas/Saberjet
Seeker


Number of posts : 30
Age : 71
Location : Lakeland, Florida
Registration date : 2012-08-11

PostSubject: UFOs' and Photography   Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:49 am

I was watching a re-run of UFO Hunters,(cant ref. the episode). They were dicussing Ed Walters poloroid photos with Dr. Bruce Macabie. I noticed that he never considered that the original print may have been done as a double exposure, and the final polaroids were a copy of that print. IE. using the polaroid camera as a copy camera. There would be no need to fiddle with the film drive motor, to do a double exposure that way. Copies are always less sharp than the original, but no one ever considered those point and shoot cameras as tack sharp any way. Given the lenses are plastic too. I've been in photography and photofinishing all my adult life, and of all the ufo photos I've seen the Walters ones look most suspect to me. Also Doctor B. Mac's degrees are far greater than mine, but experience and hands on work do count for something too.Smile
Bill Thomas/Saberjet
Sunny Fla.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Bill Thomas/Saberjet
Seeker


Number of posts : 30
Age : 71
Location : Lakeland, Florida
Registration date : 2012-08-11

PostSubject: Something else..   Tue Sep 04, 2012 12:53 pm

Something else that I should have added to the above post, and didn't think of until later. If you use a polaroid camera to make a copy, then the print your copying needs to be large. A print in the area of 24"x 30" or 28"x 34" should fill the polaroid frame. This would have been done pre-digital age. Another thing too, is with using an enlarger, there is no need to use a double exposed negative.
You would double expose the print, using two negatives and a litho mask, and one piece of print stock. The digital age made this so easy, compared to what you'd have to go through with optical photography. Which is why photographic evidence is so suspect. Prints from the optical age had to be done perfectly, to hide a hoax, but might be tripped up by part of the image showing a coarser or finer grain (silver film grain), than in another part of the print image. This would indicate two negative were used. Those point and shoot polaroids were in focus from thirty-six inches to infinity, which is why you'd need a copy print that large, for the polaroid to be acceptably sharp.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
 
UFOs' and Photography
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» The Year of Three Popes & UFOs Over the Vatican
» Nature Spirits in photographs
» UFOs spotted over Liberty County
» Missing Limbs
» Carol Watson Photography.................

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The UFO Magazine Forum :: Other Stuff :: Leftovers-
Jump to: