Perhaps, Alan. But now that we commonly look at images on screens rather than photographic prints, perhaps we are more likely to view them suspiciously. Who now would be taken in by the Cottingley Fairies which fooled the author of Sherlock Holmes, who was a trained doctor? DerekI suspect that nowadays Photoshop, or similar, has a lot to answer for.
It looks kosher to me, otherwise what are the spectators looking at. I reckon she`s doing a flying leap with a gambol on landing.
I don't have the original but I think the two images you have posted show that such high jumps were possible.
We don't know what camera was used, but I think it could well have been a 5x4 plate camera or one using dark slides. The first Speed Graphic camera was available in 1912. Speed here means that it has a max shutter speed of 1000th of a second which is more than enough probably 400th second would do. A wide angle lens would give a larger depth of field, so that the jumper and the background are acceptably sharp. The lens is set so that distance where the girl jumps is in focus and the photographer uses hyperfocal distance to ensure the background is reasonably sharp. Simply this is the distance at which the jumping girl and the audience are acceptably sharp. Victorian and Edwardian photographers especially professionals were good at this. The camera wasn't panned (swung) with her jump otherwise the background would blur as you say. You need the right lens, camera, skill and lots of practice. I suspect that this photographer took pictures for a living, postcards can be used to advertise one's skill. (Assuming this isn't a photomontage, but a straight photo.)
I think if you had a reasonably fast shutter (for the year) possibly 300/400 of a sec it could be accomplished a Stokkie has suggested. Not that I am highly skilled, but the photographers timing is critical here and I have had some lucky shots..
And that’s what I do with my Sony! Yes it has image stabilization
Thats the problem now we are not sure what's real and what is faked, and most do not seem to care!
In all fairness that an obvious fake. The lighting from two different directions, different resolutions, and different gamma on both photos too.
I had previously put a better copy on the forum two years ago and spent an afternoon searching the BHF for it until I eventually concluded that the whole thread it was in had been deleted. I therefore made a new quick copy and should have put some smoke swirling around them. My thoughts are that any digital image can altered and if done by experts it is very hard to detect.
Fuji in my case. Birds in flight can still be challenging. Image stabilisation is terrific. Autofocus is pretty good.And that’s what I do with my Sony! Yes it has image stabilization
The autofocus using a 300 mm lens is amazing and the ability to shoot in very low light environments is wonderful!
For some, it's all about the image, so if they can use Artificial Intelligence to sort out the ray tracing then why not? Computer games now include mixed lighting as do architectural models which enable the client to view even perhaps walk around. Students are often taught these skills.
I think you are exactly right! I hesitated going to digital photography (although I had a Sony point and shoot that I used for business travel) I was stunned at the capabilities of the camera and lenses!
Great work at the University and excellent comment re Facebook et al!
That’s a worrying thought. Viv.
Its already happening, you can now generate images by inputting a few words.
Even the image on the left could have been a managed event.
