Sean Murphy's research deserves more

[David Healy]

you gotta be kidding me? The frame image is crap, PERIOD! Lets see a histogram of the original frame. Then how many generations from the in-camera original frame is the frame you are currently studying? Tell us how long the in-camera original frame PM/PW arm is in pixels. Geez, and yet, within this degraded image you see clarity, a notch in the forearm at most 2-3 pixels in width...

Lets see, internet/forum-board imagery jpeg/gif regardless of image size, is 72dpi), then there's the compression issues and artifacts... We'll start there, the dimension of the image you're currently reviewing? And how many generations from the original frame? Feel free to have Dunc give you a hand (if he's not to busy starting another forum...

...

No, I disagree. Actually the photo Duncan presented was adequate enough that Drew actually caught some very fine features that I missed.
...

let me see, you can't confirm image quality, nor the generation of image re what you are looking at. AND your conclusion is based on AN unknown standard (determined by you, a quote "non photo expert), yet, it's "adequate" to form conclusions as to what is and what isn't included in the image? Sound about right, "Albert"?

[Albert Doyle]

The things I'm talking about would be available just the same in the best original image you could present that would meet whatever criteria you demand.

You have failed to show why the existing photograph isn't valid for the things I'm pointing out. You're still not answering the point.


You're dodging Mr Healy. I find your argument method dishonest.

[Michael Cross]

The things I'm talking about would be available just the same in the best original image you could present that would meet whatever criteria you demand.

You have failed to show why the existing photograph isn't valid for the things I'm pointing out. You're still not answering the point.


You're dodging Mr Healy. I find your argument method dishonest.

My God, you're delusional Albert. You don't KNOW that the "talking about would be available just the same in the best original image you could present that would meet whatever criteria you demand". That image you are so in love with has been heavily altered. Your inability to recognize that confounds the mind. Every time I resign myself to just leave this alone because arguing with a fool is pointless, you post another definitive statement based on fairy dust and duct tape.

Mr Healy IS a photographic expert. If you are a researcher that has any interest in objective fact you should pay attention to him. He's correct.

And I KNOW without having to read it, what your closed minded response will be.

[Albert Doyle]

That image you are so in love with has been heavily altered. Your inability to recognize that confounds the mind. Every time I resign myself to just leave this alone because arguing with a fool is pointless, you post another definitive statement based on fairy dust and duct tape.

Mr Healy IS a photographic expert. If you are a researcher that has any interest in objective fact you should pay attention to him. He's correct.

And I KNOW without having to read it, what your closed minded response will be.

Mr Healy is full of it and obviously using technical contrivances to avoid answering the issue. Drew had no such problem because he wasn't approaching it with a political agenda.



Your statement above is incorrect. The features I'm taking about would be in the original just the same as they are in Duncan's image. Actually, despite your protests, Duncan used valid photographic techniques to bring out the features he was outlining. I have yet to see you give a technical reason why that contrast-shifting technique wasn't valid. However the things we are talking about would be visible in one unaltered frame just as well. The contrast shifting just allowed more emphasis.



Ask Healy to explain what exactly that eyeglass frame that Drew pointed out in detail is? And also ask him, since he's such a photographic expert, why his technical protests make it invalid?


You're not answering the point. All the features Duncan pointed out are equally available in any form of Darnell that you can provide, including the original.


If you examine your response you have yet again failed to answer what the notch is and your technical excuse-making doesn't relieve you of it.

[Michael Cross]

Your statement above is incorrect. The features I'm taking about would be in the original just the same as they are in Duncan's image. Actually, despite your protests, Duncan used valid photographic techniques to bring out the features he was outlining. I have yet to see you give a technical reason why that contrast-shifting technique wasn't valid. However the things we are talking about would be visible in one unaltered frame just as well. The contrast shifting just allowed more emphasis.

You are asserting several things without supporting proof. The features are there in the original? PROVE IT.

Good luck with that. And I know in advance that you won't even try.

[Drew Phipps]

I have compared the 6 or so bright pixels that I circled in the enhanced and digitized Couch image (that seem to correspond in terms of location to the eyeglasses of the lady in the unenhanced and digitized image) with the pixels in the unenhanced and digitized shot of PM. There are no bright pixels, not even 1, in the unenhanced and digitized PM shot from Couch (which I posted) that correspond to the location of the bright pixels in the enhanced version.

There are a few reasons why this might be so: 1. The bright pixels could be an artifact of the enhancement process, 2. The enhanced picture began with a higher resolution digitization of the Couch original film PM shot and therefore might contain details that the normal digitized picture of the Couch film doesn't show, or 3. The bright pixels could have been added in later, manually. I discount possibility 3, because I am the one who observed the bright pixels, I didn't do the enhancement, and like Albert says, I have no agenda.

I have no opinion about possibilities 1 or 2. I suggest, that if further investigation of the issue is warranted, that Albert (or Duncan) post the original image (prior to the enhancement) that was used to make the enhancement.

[Albert Doyle]

I find it unlikely that anyone drew in the bright reflection of an eyeglass frame corner in the photo. It would mean someone said "Let's see, we'll make an eyeglass frame right here" to fool people. Unlikely, and I think you'll find the same item in the original.




If I had better computer skills I would show you where there is a very revealing shade that indicates the half-length female white shirt sleeve that has nothing to do with pixels or any other technical excuses. There's a clear open end to a white shirt sleeve in the shot that is being mistaken for a "masculine forearm".

[Michael Cross]

That image you are so in love with has been heavily altered. Your inability to recognize that confounds the mind. Every time I resign myself to just leave this alone because arguing with a fool is pointless, you post another definitive statement based on fairy dust and duct tape.

Mr Healy IS a photographic expert. If you are a researcher that has any interest in objective fact you should pay attention to him. He's correct.

And I KNOW without having to read it, what your closed minded response will be.

Mr Healy is full of it and obviously using technical contrivances to avoid answering the issue. Drew had no such problem because he wasn't approaching it with a political agenda.



Your statement above is incorrect. The features I'm taking about would be in the original just the same as they are in Duncan's image. Actually, despite your protests, Duncan used valid photographic techniques to bring out the features he was outlining. I have yet to see you give a technical reason why that contrast-shifting technique wasn't valid. However the things we are talking about would be visible in one unaltered frame just as well. The contrast shifting just allowed more emphasis.



Ask Healy to explain what exactly that eyeglass frame that Drew pointed out in detail is? And also ask him, since he's such a photographic expert, why his technical protests make it invalid?


You're not answering the point. All the features Duncan pointed out are equally available in any form of Darnell that you can provide, including the original.


If you examine your response you have yet again failed to answer what the notch is and your technical excuse-making doesn't relieve you of it.

I find it unlikely that anyone drew in the bright reflection of an eyeglass frame corner in the photo. It would mean someone said "Let's see, we'll make an eyeglass frame right here" to fool people. Unlikely, and I think you'll find the same item in the original.




If I had better computer skills I would show you where there is a very revealing shade that indicates the half-length female white shirt sleeve that has nothing to do with pixels or any other technical excuses. There's a clear open end to a white shirt sleeve in the shot that is being mistaken for a "masculine forearm".

Just curious: Have you ever used Photoshop? Do you have any understanding of what happens to an image when you begin to slide the various possible adjustment levers around?

[Michael Cross]

I have compared the 6 or so bright pixels that I circled in the enhanced and digitized Couch image (that seem to correspond in terms of location to the eyeglasses of the lady in the unenhanced and digitized image) with the pixels in the unenhanced and digitized shot of PM. There are no bright pixels, not even 1, in the unenhanced and digitized PM shot from Couch (which I posted) that correspond to the location of the bright pixels in the enhanced version.

Thanks Drew.

[David Josephs]

Sigh. But you don't KNOW. Your conclusions are based on supposition.

Now tell me how I'm wrong when I'm quoting YOU.

The original Darnell frame might show the exact same features as what Duncan is showing.



Nobody seems to want to give a straight answer to what the notch in the forearm is? It is clearly visible and isn't due to degraded images or pixels.


So, where is the evidence the photo was altered?

you gotta be kidding me? The frame image is crap, PERIOD! Lets see a histogram of the original frame. Then how many generations from the in-camera original frame is the frame you are currently studying? Tell us how long the in-camera original frame PM/PW arm is in pixels. Geez, and yet, within this degraded image you see clarity, a notch in the forearm at most 2-3 pixels in width...

Lets see, internet/forum-board imagery jpeg/gif regardless of image size, is 72dpi), then there's the compression issues and artifacts... We'll start there, the dimension of the image you're currently reviewing? And how many generations from the original frame? Feel free to have Dunc give you a hand (if he's not to busy starting another forum...

Thank you David. Albert's objectivity has left the building.

Agree completely... Thanks David

There is simply not enough info to make those detailed observations without quite a bit of speculation.