Part 6

So if a spirit photograph is to be classed as possibly genuine, the spirit may either appear self-luminous and cast no shadow, or may appear to be illuminated from the same point as the sitter, and cast a shadow on the background, if the latter be of a suitable nature to show it. But on examining a collection of spirit photographs taken by various professional mediums, we find that as often as not the spirit and sitter are lighted from opposite sides; or that a spirit face with a well-marked shadow on one cheek throws no shadow on the background. If our reasoning be correct, we can at once write such productions down as frauds. The photographs I produced at my Cambridge séances show both these faults; two of them have the spirits lighted from the opposite side to the sitter, and one has the spirit lighted from the correct side but throwing no shadow, whereas the sitters throw clear shadows on the wall behind. In the other photograph I managed to get both the lighting and the shadow of the spirit correct; but in order to get the shadow I had to photograph the background with the “spirit”; hence when the sitters were photographed on the same plate there was a double background, which necessitated a rapid destruction of the plate!

Of course the average medium does not consider these points at all; his sitters are usually satisfied with anything they can get, so why should he worry? But an intelligent observer examining a number of spirit photographs with regard to these points will quickly satisfy himself that the majority of them can only be frauds.

There are a number of other points by which a spirit photograph may betray its method of production without reference to the conditions under which it was taken. Many spirit extras are simply copies of existing photographs, which are usually camouflaged in some way. Draperies may be substituted for the hair, or the features slightly retouched. A common method is to reverse the original photograph, right for left; a number of Hope’s productions were recently published in a monthly magazine, and alongside them life portraits of the “spirits,” the letterpress emphasising that, though undoubtedly the same face, they were different photographs. On examination with a mirror, however, the photographs were seen to be identical, and careful measurement of the faces showed the proportions to be exact. In the photographs more recently published by Mr. Bush, who laid a trap for Hope into which the latter appears to have fallen, the spirit was not reversed, nor was even the rather peculiar attitude of the head in the original photograph altered. A little spirit drapery was added round the face, and the whole thrown slightly out of focus; it is really a most clumsy piece of work, and should deceive no one.

In some spirit photographs produced by double exposure there is a double background, as occurred in my own photograph referred to above. There may be either two different backgrounds, or a double outline of the same background; in either case the “spirit’s background” is usually fainter than the “sitter’s background,” and shows through the darker parts of the sitter. Sometimes attempts are made to retouch these appearances on the negative, and many spirit photographs show clumsy brush or pencil work, which must immediately stamp them as frauds.

Attempts are sometimes made to obliterate other tell-tale marks, such as a piece of a spirit’s hat or collar, which has accidentally got on to the plate. Other mediums, however, are less particular, especially in America, and produce their spirits with ordinary hats, collars and ties. But as a rule only spirit robes are permitted, apparently made of butter muslin not quite in focus. Hands are often present: I have seen a case in which the position of a spirit hand would have necessitated a many-jointed arm about four feet long; but perhaps spirit arms are like this. One spirit extra I have seen has two hands, but both appear to be left hands--evidently a left-handed spirit.

Frequently, again, careful examination shows that spirit extras are not photographs at all, but resemble wash drawings. This gives the clue to their origin, for several of the methods described in a preceding section produce a result of this kind. It has been several times pointed out that spirit extras in some cases show the characteristic dots produced by the half-tone newspaper illustration process; if the medium cannot obtain a real photograph of the required spirit, he has to copy a newspaper reproduction. If he is clever, he can eliminate these process marks by printing in his spirit slightly out of focus; but very often he does not take the trouble.

In many, perhaps in the majority, of spirit photographs produced by professional or semi-professional mediums, a critical observer with practical photographic experience can point out some such definite evidence of fraudulent manipulation. In many other cases, where no one particular point can be singled out as indicative of fraud, minor points of suspicion are noticeable, which taken together leave little doubt of the nature of the picture. But photographs can be prepared by purely mechanical means, especially if no kind of test conditions are employed, which will contain no internal evidence whatever of manipulation. By carefully combining enlarged positives, for instance, and re-photographing the whole, results can be produced which will defy the most critical examination. But such photographs are seldom produced, even when the medium is given practically a free hand.

IV.--SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHS OBTAINED BY AMATEURS

(C. VINCENT PATRICK)

Probably most people have heard, but seldom at first hand, of unexpected ghosts appearing on plates or films exposed by amateur photographers. On the rare occasions when such accounts can be traced to their source, one usually finds that there is some simple and evident explanation. Streaks and splashes of light on the plates are comparatively common, and are usually the result of the camera, slides, or dark-room not being light-tight; very strange results are sometimes produced in this way. I was once puzzled by a photograph which showed an arch, like a rainbow, across the sky, when it was quite certain that there had been no rainbow in the sky when the photograph was taken. When the result was repeated a few days later, the camera quickly came under suspicion, and was found to have developed a minute pinhole in the bellows. This was sealed up, and the rainbow did not reappear. Many unexplained markings on plates are certainly caused in this or similar ways; but only under very favourable circumstances could an extra face on the plate be so produced. Sometimes unexpected results are caused by an accidental second exposure; but the nature of such a photograph will quickly be apparent. The use of old glass plates may sometimes be responsible for similar results, as has been already explained. But authenticated cases of the appearance of unseen faces in photographs taken in the absence of a professional medium, and which do not show an obvious explanation, are few and far between. The classical example is that of the Combermere photograph, which was published in the Journal of the S.P.R., and aroused much discussion and criticism.

A Miss Corbet took a photograph of the library of Combermere Abbey, Cheshire, on December 5th, 1891. She was alone at the time, and left the camera during the exposure, as it was a long one. She kept a note-book with records of her photographs, which afterwards showed that an exposure of one hour had been given, namely from 2 to 3 p.m. Unfortunately she did not develop the photograph till eight months later, and was then amazed to find a figure occupying a chair in a prominent position in the photograph. The figure was faint and transparent, the legs being quite invisible; the features were not recognisable; but the presence of a head, shoulders and arm was fairly plain. Inquiries were made, and it was found that not only was the chair in question the one Lord Combermere had been wont to occupy, but that he had died a few days before the photograph was taken, and was actually being buried some two miles from the Abbey at the hour at which the photograph was taken. The photograph was naturally shown to the dead nobleman’s relatives, some of whom professed to recognise it as Lord Combermere. It was further pointed out that he had lost the use of his legs in an accident some three weeks before his death, and that the spirit figure was correspondingly legless!

The most important contribution to the discussion which followed was made by Sir William Barrett, who demonstrated that the result could be duplicated by taking a several minutes’ exposure of a chair, in which someone was seated for a part of the time. The sitter would naturally not keep quite still; hence the outlines would be blurred and the features indistinct. Sir William published a photograph which he had obtained in this way, reproducing the features of the Combermere photograph, even to the leglessness. He suggested that someone, possibly one of the four men-servants in the Abbey, had entered the library during the prolonged exposure. He had sat down in the chair for a minute or so, when, noticing the camera, he beat a retreat. The photograph showed double outlines to all the sharp edges, indicating that the camera had been moved slightly during the exposure, and suggesting that someone had entered the room and jarred it. As it was eight months after the event that the photograph was developed, it was impossible to ascertain whether anyone did actually so enter the room. In any case it was a remarkable coincidence, but there is no proof of it being anything more.

A somewhat similar case is recorded by Podmore. The photograph was being taken, this time, in a chapel. On development a faint face was seen framed in a panel. This was described as being the likeness of a friend of the photographer’s who had recently died--“a handsome, melancholy lad of eighteen.” Another critic thought that the face was that “of a woman of thirty”; it must have been very indistinct. It may well have been caused in the same manner that was suggested for the Combermere photograph; a visitor to the chapel standing in the field of the camera for some moments, probably not realising that an exposure was in progress.

Several accounts have been given by amateurs of seeing spirit faces develop, only to disappear again on fixing; one such is published in Vol. VII. of the J.S.P.R. These are evidently of a subjective nature, the finished negative showing no evidence of any abnormality. If any reader of this article knows of any case where an “extra” has been obtained in the absence of a professional medium, and where the plate can be produced, I should be very grateful for particulars.

Experiments have on several occasions been made by amateurs, deliberately trying for spirit extras, and exposing scores of plates, usually without success. The unsuccessful attempts of Russell, Beattie, Dr. Williams, and more recently Dr. Pierce, have already been alluded to. Experiments of rather a different nature have been carried out by a Frenchman, Dr. Baraduc. His most interesting--if somewhat gruesome--result was a series of photographs taken over the death-bed of his wife, at the time of, and for some hours after, death. The negatives showed globes of light floating over the bed, which gradually increased in size and brightness, and coalesced in the later photographs. The circumstances certainly seem to exclude fraud, and it is very difficult to understand how the progressive series of photographs could have been obtained by accidental means, such as a pinhole in the camera. His results are very interesting, but need repeating by other experimenters; in any case, they have absolutely nothing in common with the conventional spirit photographs which show faces and figures.

V.--THE FAIRY PHOTOGRAPHS

(C. VINCENT PATRICK)

The so-called “Fairy Photographs” recently published by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Mr. E. L. Gardner do not strictly come under the heading of “spirit photographs,” but may not inappropriately be considered here. We have no evidence of the conditions under which they were taken; as Sir Arthur explains, such “rare results must be obtained when and how they can.” We have therefore to learn what we can from an examination of the photographs, or of their reproductions. At first sight they look like genuine untouched photographs; their general appearance is excellent, and if frauds, they are certainly good ones. On examining them more carefully, however, a considerable number of points are found requiring explanation. Some of these have no doubt been noticed by different observers; the principal criticisms of the different photographs are these.

“Iris and the Dancing Gnome” shows some very strange lighting. Examining Iris’s hat, we find the strongest light is falling, probably through a gap in the trees, from above and a little to the right; the shadow behind her arm, and the lighting of the fingers, confirm this. The gnome stepping up on to Iris’s knee should therefore cast a shadow upon her white dress, below and to the left; but the photograph shows no trace of any such shadow. On the other hand, the gnome is lighted mainly from the left; this is plainly shown on the conical cap and the right upper arm. Apart from these discrepancies, which alone are quite sufficiently damning, several other grounds for suspicion are evident. The whole photograph is much too carefully arranged to be the snapshot it is represented as being. The black legs of the gnome are contrasted against the white dress of the girl; the lighter body, face and wings are outlined against the shadows under the trees; the dark cap is brought with one edge against a wing, the better to show it up, while the other edge catches the light. A snapshot would indeed be fortunate in securing such an admirable arrangement! The same thing is very noticeable in the other three published photographs; the pictorial arrangement of the figures and background is much too good to be the result of chance, and suggests careful posing.

This gnome photograph was taken under the shade of trees, we are told, at four o’clock on a September afternoon which was not sunny; an exposure of 1/50th of a second was given on “Imperial Rapid” plates, using a “Midg” quarter-plate camera. With the largest stop in this camera an exposure of at least ten times that stated, i.e., 1/5th of a second, would be needed to give a fair negative under these conditions; 1/2 to 1 second would probably be more correct. The photograph in question certainly shows signs of under-exposure; but under the conditions stated one would expect little more than a silhouette of the white dress and of the sky showing through the trees. Something is evidently wrong here.

The gnome’s proportions are certainly not human, as are the fairies’ in the other photographs; he rather resembles the familiar “Brownie” of the Kodak advertisements. Though stepping up onto the girl’s knee, he is noticeably looking away from her, and at the camera, which is very unnatural and likely to cause him a tumble! Criticism has been directed against the girl’s hand, but this is quite a common photographic distortion of a hand held rather near the camera. In my copy, however, the elbow appears rather peculiar.

The other points, taken together, can leave no possible doubt that the photograph is a fake. It could have been produced by making a positive enlargement from the negative of Iris on one of the bromide papers specially prepared for working up. The gnome would then be sketched on this--he certainly resembles a sketch more than a photograph--and the whole would then be re-photographed on to a quarter-plate. No doubt an entirely satisfactory result would not be secured at the first attempt; in fact, Mr. Gardner tells us that “other photographs were attempted, but proved partial failures, and plates were not kept.” Surely such extraordinary photographs, even if partial failures, would be kept--if they did not show something that was not intended! We have known plates to be destroyed on other similar occasions, and for similar reasons.

“Alice and the Fairies” is of a rather different nature. The lighting of the fairies is badly wrong; they are brightly illuminated from a point behind the camera, whereas Alice is less brightly illuminated, and from the left-hand side. Sir Arthur, in his article, points out that this is accounted for by the “fairy psychoplasm” having a “faint luminosity of its own.” To appear brighter than the sitter, photographed by 1/50th of a second exposure at three o’clock on a sunny July afternoon, the fairies would have to resemble in luminosity a battery of arc lights! The photograph appears to have been produced by pasting the “fairies” on to an enlargement of the original photograph of Alice, and then re-photographing the whole. The fairies could be obtained by taking posed photographs of children suitably dressed; these would then be carefully cut out from their backgrounds and pasted on to the original enlargement. The points of internal evidence on which this statement is based are as follows:

1. The very sharp (cut) outlines of all parts of the fairies. This is particularly noticeable in the outline of the dress and hair of the third fairy (counting from the left); compare this with the soft outline of Alice’s hair, against a similar background.

2. The same fairy’s forearm is much brighter than Alice’s wrist, at the point where it crosses between it and the camera. Assuming that both were equally white, and lighted from the same source, the one further from the camera would normally photograph a little the lighter.

3. Fairies two and four appear to be photographs of the same model, the wings being exchanged for the pipe. Note the similarity of the attitude of the legs, and of the shape of the tail of drapery hanging down behind.

4. With the exception of one foot of each of these fairies, which appears somewhat unnaturally amputated, every part of the fairy figures is in front of the sitter and background. This applies to all four photographs, and is of the utmost importance; superimposing the fairies on the original photograph in the manner described must of course produce this effect.

5. One would have expected to see some blurring due to movement, in the fairies’ wings and feet at any rate, with a 1/50th of a second exposure at a distance of four feet. None is visible in the reproduction.