• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Photography and the vortex

allanb

Scholar
A
Joined
May 5, 2003
Messages
116
I enjoyed Randi's commentary article on the alleged "vortex" phenomenon, and I'm sure he offers a plausible non-supernatural explanation (though possibly not the only one). But since the advent of digital photography, with all the editing software that's available, don't we simply have to accept that no photograph can provide objective proof of anything now?
 
allanb said:
But since the advent of digital photography, with all the editing software that's available, don't we simply have to accept that no photograph can provide objective proof of anything now?
Click to expand...
That's me on the left. You be the judge.
 
That's why my avatar is a portrait done by a skilled and kindly artist, Maciek Korzeniowski. You can trust an honest artist to show things right.

[edit] To be sure, trick photography's been around for dog's years. Digital photography makes it far easier, better looking, and considerably less expensive.
 
If I recall correctly the only photograph that cannot be manipulated after the shot has been taken is a Polaroid Instamatic. You can still set up a shot to show just about anything but once the button's pushed, that's it.



Boo
 
If I recall correctly the only photograph that cannot be manipulated after the shot has been taken is a Polaroid Instamatic.
Click to expand...

Sorry to nitpick, but "Polaroid Instamatic" is an oxymoron. Instamatics were film cameras made by Kodak.

Here are some Polaroid "instant" cameras (I see where the confusion lies).

Here's an article from the ABA on autenticating digital photographs. And another from the FBI Web site.
 
Last edited:
allanb said:
I enjoyed Randi's commentary article on the alleged "vortex" phenomenon, and I'm sure he offers a plausible non-supernatural explanation (though possibly not the only one). But since the advent of digital photography, with all the editing software that's available, don't we simply have to accept that no photograph can provide objective proof of anything now?
Click to expand...

Maybe true of digital photographs, but what about film cameras...if you keep the negatives as proof - I can't imagine that they'd be editable.

EDIT: Of course, the actual scene shown in the photo could be a generated image.
 
EDIT: Of course, the actual scene shown in the photo could be a generated image.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would think you could retouch a print, and then photograph the print. That way you'd have a negative with no (?) signs of retouching. At least the piece of film itself would not show signs of retouching.
 
In 'Rising Sun' by Michael Crichton, while looking at doctored video evidence, a character proclaims that 'all forms of photographic evidence will soon be inadmissable in court'...as far as I am aware, this is not now the case, but I wonder if it would be possible to demonstrate motive and means (if indeed there was) for fakery as a defence against video/photo evidence.
 
rjh01 said:
Remember you should be able to produce the photographer in court to say that he took the photo and it is not manipulated. The photographer would be as good as any other witness.
Click to expand...

Good point.

However it won't apply to automated video equipment...cctv footage, traffic/speed cameras, etc.
 
Large format Polaroid -- your avatar must be winking 'cos you can afford such stuff! :-D
 
DreadNiK said:
Good point.

However it won't apply to automated video equipment...cctv footage, traffic/speed cameras, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes it would. You can produce such people as
1. The person who maintained the equipment.
2. The person who removed the film or memory from the equipment.
3. Anyone else who handled the film or memory after removal from the equipment.


Most of these would also have the date and time on the photos.
 
rjh01 said:
Yes it would. You can produce such people as
1. The person who maintained the equipment.
2. The person who removed the film or memory from the equipment.
3. Anyone else who handled the film or memory after removal from the equipment.


Most of these would also have the date and time on the photos.
Click to expand...

Yes. Obviously the burden of proof would be on the person who claims the evidence is faked/doctored, but I'm wondering how far they'd have to take that proof. Would they have to show the possibility of tampering/fakery, or would they actually have to 'prove' that it was done?
 
Has anybody actually been at the vortex and can explain how the photographing site is set up?

As far as I have gathered, people come to the vortex to be impressed by the illusion that is actually visible to the naked eye. If I understood Randi's commentary correctly, there is a photo site where people can line up at each end of a marking on the ground, and you put the camera on a stand, and you get a fantastic vortex picture!

It seems to me that if the test persons can see how the marking on the ground is actually at a different angle than 90 degrees from the camera, people will immediately know that how they illusion is created.

Is this intentional? Are people paying to see an illusion that they then knowingly participate in, in order to impress their friends with their strange vortec pictures?

And would some of these people then actually believe that they could win the Randi's challenge with such pictures?
 
DreadNiK said:
Yes. Obviously the burden of proof would be on the person who claims the evidence is faked/doctored, but I'm wondering how far they'd have to take that proof. Would they have to show the possibility of tampering/fakery, or would they actually have to 'prove' that it was done?
Click to expand...
In a purely logical debate, there would have to be some actual showing of tampering -- some incongruity in the photograph would be best. In a courtroom, it would most likely devolve into a battle of the experts, but again, there must be some showing that the photograph was actually tampered.
 
I see this same effect in amateur photographs, particularly family snapshots at the seashore. The subjects height is often distorted because the photographer is not holding the camera level to the horizon.

FYI: "Skewing the shot" - holding the camera at a 45 degree angle to the normal horizon - is used to convey tension in a photograph.
 
I would think that in the case of the vortex pictures, the fact that when the persons change places their shadows do not might provide a little niggling soupcon of doubt.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom