Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Thursday, 08 August 2002 - 11:01 pm |        |
Ah, that photo...you never forget it, even if you try. I found the original sepia reproduction in the archives here on the Casebook, and I'm just dying to know....
the left side of Mary Jane's face...almost to the chin...is this unidentifiable roundish "thing"....It looks like an eye but I know its not. If anyone can tell me what this thing is I would appreciate it, its driven me crazy long enough. A part of the nose maybe?
Also, in the photograph I swear I am sure I can see her right eye. Imagination?
The poor girl is just a horrible mess....I hope she's in heaven. God bless her.
Another tidbit for ya - I am working on a picture of Catharine Eddowes, what she may have looked like in real life. I'll post it here when I am done. I think everyone has a favorite "victim" and I think Catharine is my favorite.
I read somewhere (either the Ripper Diary or a History of London book I just finished) that Catharine was arrested that night for being drunk and causing a disturbance because she was acting like a fire engine. She seems like she would have been quite amusing to hang around with.
Love,
Lita |
Author: Diana
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 01:05 pm | |
| I wonder, arent there digital gizmos that can improve the resolution of a picture? It seems to me I read somewhere that Nasa made such a thing. I thought it was meant to be used on pictures like this where there really arent enough pixels. The only caveat is . . would we really want to see it more clearly? |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 02:17 pm | |
Never mind the thing on her face, is that a pile of clothes that I can see by her right foot? Or is it just a trick of the light?
It looks like a light coloured jacket and shirt to me.
And also, if Bond's report was right and the Whitechapel murderer placed one of MJK's breasts by her feet - then why can't we see it in the photograph? The area around her feet is clearly visible.
Peter. |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 05:44 pm | |
| Hi Diana - I for one would like to see the picture more clearly. Its awful but I can't help trying to place a little more clearly what MJK might have looked like. I have never seen a face more decimated than MJK's. It is pitiful and it makes me so angry towards Jack - the man stole all of her humanity, so much so that history will probably never know what she really looked like, unless some other kind of evidence is uncovered. As much fun as I have with this case, I try to never forget the humanity part. |
Author: Diana
Friday, 09 August 2002 - 07:28 pm | |
| Me too. I wouldn't have picked any of those ladies to babysit my kids, but they didn't deserve that. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Saturday, 10 August 2002 - 10:43 am | |
About a year or so ago,a gentleman, from (I think) Virginia, who worked for an optics firm, posted three colorized, digitally enhanced reproductions of the MJK crime scene photograph. I did a keyword search for the posts to no avail. It seems they were lost in the Christmas crash. The fellow put in a lot of work on the reproductions and the results were amazing. I remember posting "The horror, the horror".
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: R Court
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 07:21 am | |
Hi all,
It is certainly possible to digitally enhance pictures like that of Kelly, but the problem is simply that only that data which is contained in the original medium, and be it hidden, can be used in enhancement.
Others will now claim that use of proper techniques can pull more out, by colouration or logical addition, for example, but that is not enhancement. It is counterfeit, even when it possibly represents the original scenario.
It is certainly possible in digital techniques to interpolate, to calculate information more highly resolved as each single pixel, but in a chemical photo we have the grain which is converted and that sets the limit.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 11 August 2002 - 12:53 pm | |
| I sure would like to see an example though. Can you do one, Bob? Or anyone else? |
Author: R Court
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 03:23 am | |
Hi Brenda,
I can, but others can with certainty better, my equipment is not exactly the newest and I am not exactly an expert at photography.
If you like, I will ask around, I think there will be good shots available here on the board as well.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 06:46 am | |
Yes it would be wonderful to see that photo enhanced (well, wonderful in a certain SENSE)...I did a search here for one but I couldn't find it either.
Anoher website states that the killer cut off the ears and nose and put them on a breast in caricature (sp?) of a person's face...is that true? |
Author: R Court
Monday, 12 August 2002 - 11:18 am | |
Hi Brenda,
I've not heard of that one with the ears and nose. I don't think so, or can someone enlighten us?
Best regards,
Bob |
