RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: martianuk on Tuesday 20 March 07 05:07 GMT (UK)
-
Hi,
Found this glass negative and wondered if anyone could guess what kind of building this room is in and where it is?!! I believe it could be in West Sussex, because that's where the negative was found - Worthing to be precise - or an alternative could be Whitehall. But the set-up of the room and it's strange artifacts intrigues me.
What do you make of the leaning figure in the glass case, the stuffed bird, the many photo frames and the architecture of the room?
Regards, Kirsty
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/hadynwilliams/room2.jpg)
-
It look as though it was originally a church or maybe a private chapel. There are crosses on the doors and what I think was the sanctuary rail still in place. At first I thought it has been converted to a museum but on second thoughts it does give the appearance of being lived in. Looking at the roof, wonder if it could have been in a crypt, though that doesn't fit with the idea of being lived in. No idea where it is, but it's certainly an intriguing photo
Joan
-
Mmmm... interesting. When you look at the left hand railings, there seem to be two sets, implying that there could be stairs leading down out of the room - do you think? My initial reaction to the photo was that it was a church too - it looked to me that the far end wall should bear an inscription, yet when scanned at really high resolution, I can see it's blank.
The idea of private chapel is an interesting thought.
Thanks for looking. :)
-
Certainly looks like a chapel cum bedsit. An awesome photo. I would love to get my hands on the toy puppet in the cabinet to the left of the photo (there's probably a proper name for them but it escapes me)...wonder what it would be worth today!!!
Caz
-
There are lots of photos set up on a table in the foreground, and all the rest of the rather odd paraphernalia makes me wonder if this is not a "test piece" by a (perhaps amateur) photographer? Probably mid-late victorian - 1870s or 1880s - and someone trying out the kind of setting that was popular then. Photographs of interiors were fairly common at that time, coinciding with developments in interior design (heavy furnishings, mock-gothic, lots of natural history specimens and travel souvenirs etc.).
SO in summary, after all that rambling, I reckon this is not a realistic representation of a room. I think it's a mock-up specifically to try out settings and placements for a photographer. having said that, it's in a pretty interesting place - obviously a religious building of some kind, that does look like a sanctuary rail in the background.
It also looks like the neg is a photo of a photo - the original picture seems to have been pinned onto something and then photographed again, which is the picture you have. Odd! :-\
Prue
-
I took the liberty of tweaking it a bit, to see what details could be brought out. You can see now that on the dresser at far left, there is a row of photos. There is another row and some framed photos on the centre table, along with some photo albums. On the dresser at far right is a larger framed photo and a little stuffed owl (cute!).
At the back of the room is another dresser (left) and a dressing table with mirror and seats (centre). I am a bit spooked by what appears to be materialising by the pillar thing at far right, just behind the bedhead - is that a headless woman in a white dress?? :o
-
I wonder if it could be something from a film set?
-
Could be, wheeldon... :-\
The other thing is that all the photos and ornaments are arranged to be facing the photographer, rather than into the room where an inhabitant of the room might be able to see them. All points to this being an artificial setup of some kind or other.
Prue
-
The crosse,s on the door are just decorative I think,another bar at the bottom is too low for the' Lorraine' cross. Rail,s,needed for an invalid or similar to negotiate differing floor level,s?
Room look,s to be an older person,s bedsit type of accomodation,souvenir,s and such scattered about.It does look lived in.
The Eagle/wing,s in the rear wall are puzzling,plus the large blank space below.
Perhap,s a defunct one time meeting hall?That ceiling is a work of art isn't it,won't get many of them in a pound!
Goggy. ;) ;D
-
I wonder if it could be something from a film set?
The fact that it is on glass would probably make it pre movies. Still could be a set up though.
Denn
-
The crosse,s on the door are just decorative I think,another bar at the bottom is too low for the' Lorraine' cross. ------
The Eagle/wing,s in the rear wall are puzzling,plus the large blank space below.
------That ceiling is a work of art isn't it,won't get many of them in a pound!
Goggy. ;) ;D
I had noticed the eagle wings - add to that the furniture style and possibly the ceiling - could it be German?
Denn
-
The model, (puppet?) in the box on the left looks a dead ringer for ET!! (Or some sort of Martian:-)
Romilly. ;)
-
I agree that it looks like a mock up set of some kind - could it be a photographer or artist's studio? I used to have a little corner of my studio that I made into 'sets' for photographing and or painting/drawing still lives. I still do, come to think of it - just spend more time here though now ::)
Gadget
Added - the more I look at it, the more I'm convinced that it's an artist's studio. The domed ceiling suggests an attic or at least the top flour of a building and it does look Continental Europe in style - not sure if it's German,austrian, French or Dutch :-\
-
Wow! Brilliant to see so many replies and interesting thoughts!
I'd never considered that it could be a mock-up but that is certainly a possibility that I find intriguing.
I have to say I'm not sure about the 'eagle'. To me, it looks like a dome that extends up into ceiling with something hangin down in the middle (the white part). The perspective gives it the oval shape and the cut out gives the shape of wings! I've seen a smililar thing before.
Just to throw some more thoughts in...
Having spoken to the photo owner, it seems doubtful that it's in Sussex (which was my initial thought) and more likely to have been Scotland or London!
We notcied another set of metal work (similar to a bed head) behind the bed and behind the railing which we wondered what they actually were (image below). We were also slightly spooked by the shape of the figure to the right of the image...A shadow I hope ;)
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/hadynwilliams/behindbed.jpg)
Thankyou very much for the re-touch Prue, I had actually re-touched it quite a bit from the orginal (to the best of my ability) but you've certainly revealed much more to me!
There are in fact two very nearly identical glass negatives that I found, they had some sort of brown tape around them and came in a cardboard mini folder from a photographer now I come to think of it. I'll try and find out what was on the folder.
I've linked to the original scan here (http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/hadynwilliams/1-1.jpg) if you want to see it. I inverted the colours and adjusted some levels to get to what I first posted. Thought you might like to see the original if you want!
Thanks for all the replies so far!!
-
Whatever you do, DON'T click on Martians link ... its VERY spooky ! Something out of an early Frankenstein film, perhaps ?!
-
Whatever you do, DON'T click on Martians link ... its VERY spooky ! Something out of an early Frankenstein film, perhaps ?!
Aaaaaarrrggghhhhhh...I just did!!
Difficult to see what that (person-like) shadow is thrown by... :o :o
It definately looks like an attic to me though. (Peter Cushing's perhaps?:-)
Romilly.
-
and it does look Continental Europe in style - not sure if it's German,austrian, French or Dutch :-\
The ancestors did send their daughters to a french finishing school and one of them did a stint performing in a Parisian circus....
You gave me food for thought, Gadget!
Kirsty
-
Ahaaaaaaaaaaaaa
The ghostly shadow on the original :o
Is it the shadow of the photographer with a sheet over his head - as they did it? Lights from behind him.
Mmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe a mirror that he's reflected in as an alternative.
Gadget
-
Is that a stuffed dog...in a glass case, - at the front right of pic?
(Oh...someone say it isn't...!!).
This pic is starting to exert a macabre fascination for me...(I've been trying to finish some work all afternoon, but keep coming back to have another look:-)
Romilly. ::)
-
The figure in the glass case, likened to ET is a stuffed monkey, I would imagine it is an automaton (worth a few pennies now) and quitely likely of German origin or possibly French.
As this is on glass and appears to be a staged piece could it be for one of those early viewing things, Victorian after dinner entertainment. Then would it be possible to superimpose other things over the top, e.g. people, or could it be one of a set that slots into a circular drum that when wound round creates a moving picture?
I'll bet an elderly photographer would be able to tell you or even someone who deals in antiques.
As for the ghostly apparition, don't go there.
-
I keep coming back to this too ... what HAVE you started Martian1 ?
Since I last looked, I think the floor under the monkey in the case on a table, is starting to subside ... its definitely got a tilt on it now, which I'm positive wasn't there a few hours ago ...
-
Good vintage was it?
-
Cheeky !
(And I don't drink anyway !)
-
You don't know what you're missing (in moderation).
Joking apart, this has been niggling at me because it reminds me of something.
There's a place on the edge of the New Forest, Paultons Park, now an awful theme park but it used to be a lovely natural area with shrubs, a few animals, deer etc and the river running through with huge carp. Before that it was Paulton's Hotel which burnt down, all that was left was part of the cellars and they are exactly as this structure in the picture. In view of that could it possibly be France or even Italy? From the point of view of the church appearance could it have been a private chapel under a large house?
If the truth ever comes to light please let us all know or we'll call upon the ghost.
That could even be the spirit of some long dead priest. Do hope you all sleep well.
-
You don't know what you're missing (in moderation).
From the point of view of the church appearance could it have been a private chapel under a large house?
If the truth ever comes to light please let us all know or we'll call upon the ghost.
That could even be the spirit of some long dead priest. Do hope you all sleep well.
Hi Tuscany,
It reminded me firstly of an attic...but now that you've mentioned the private chapel under a house...
I've decided...it must be a crypt!!!
(I shall probably dream of this room tonight:-)
Romilly. ;)
-
Here's my 2 cents worth.... ;D It looks like a crypt, turned into a bomb shelter as a safe place for the Bishop, whose cope (the ghostly apparition in the corner ::)) is on a dressing stand.
He's got all his personal treasures store in there too. ;)
jc
-
Can't see it as a cellar or crypt - it has a glass ceiling. i suppose it could be the home of a troglodyte family or a very forward looking 19th century Green :-\
Lydart - the monkey was always at an angle, with or without :)
I still think it's a photographer/artist's studio in France or Germany.
Does anyone know anything about tapestry - that bedspread is interesting and could be sourced/dated?
Gadget
-
The headless woman looks like a dress (wedding?) on a stand to me.
Liz
-
It still does look a bit ghostly ('specially in the negative - I clicked that link too :o ) but it looks more solid now that I've managed to resolve that other bit of ironwork in my brain. The 'ghost' seems to be between the main bed and the other bedhead. Could be something on a stand as Gadget suggested.
Gadget, what did you mean by a glass ceiling? ??? It looks like a crypt to me, but a very fine one, i.e. not an old medieval one, but one built specifically for lots of use by living people ;D
That automaton freaks me out - and I agree that the floor is on a lean at that side. Either that or the furniture all has uneven legs!
Prue
-
I get the feeling that it's upstairs rather than down in a basement.
From the smart ceiling and rather heavy walls, could it be a bigger room that's had a false floor put in, like the chapel in a big house as folks have said before, but with the original gallery at the end. Where my sister lives , the local big house has a chapel with a musicians' gallery with little doors for access. It looks vaguely similar. :)
Fred
ps the added floor could explain the lean to starboard :)
-
I just think it looks like a ceiling Prue - just my instincts - no rational reason ::) but I also think that the ghost is a reflection in a mirror of the photographer under his sheet - especially in the original :o
Gadget
-
Interesting pic this..I've just viewed it through my camera lens and everything about it tells me its a mock up of some sort...I think Gadget is right on this one...BUT why am I also getting the feeling it could also be a very expensive dolls house???strange that. :-\
Derek. ::) ::) ::)
-
Points from above: I know what I'm missing in the non-drinking thing ... it gives me blinding headaches ... and not drunken ones, but plain and simple migraine ! It can sometimes be a problem in my job ... ref back to what I wrote after Christmas !
The 'bishops cope' someone suggested is the wrong shape for a bishops cope. I think its more likely the ghost of Christmas Past, especially as this room has a Dickensian air about it ... Miss Haversham just exited right ...
Gosh, I hope I sleep well tonight; another funeral tomorrow !
-
... and having had another look at it, has anyone any idea about the big studs to the top and right of the picture ? Or are they part of the frame holding the slide ?
-
BUT why am I also getting the feeling it could also be a very expensive dolls house???strange that. :-\
Derek. ::) ::) ::)
Not as strange as what i thought Derek..i keep getting a picture of a big tent/marquee,don't know why it's just a feeling ???
Steve
-
Hope you don't mind me joining in. I think it looks like an attic, possibly a servant's room ? The bed on the right I think is a single bed which is about 3 ft wide at most so the room is not very big - maybe not big enough to be a meeting room or a church. It looks like the ceiling isn't very high either - espacially where the ceiling slopes down. It's a super room - reminds me of my daughter's bedroom ! (not minimalist at all !) The shape back right could be a Victorian dress on a dress holder/dummy ? Is the word for puppet - marionette ? -Can't spell it though !
-
Having read through the thread again, I'm getting suspicious. Thanks for looking through your lens, Derek, you're doll's house has given me another idea :)
I know that many photgraphers over the past 15 years or so have used many of the old techniques - I did some myself once or twice - and I'm now wondering if it is a modern photograph of a model/mock-up room using the glass plate technique.
There are many modern photgraphers who shoot domestic scenes from mock-ups so why not a total re-creation :-\ :-\ :-\
Where, when was the plate discovered, Martian?
Gadget
-
This is bugging me ! I agree it could be a mock up ... but were they full size ? I wouldn't have thought so.
So ifs its a dolls house (and my grand-daughter is the queen of dolls houses !) then there is always something in a dolls house that looks slightly out of scale, one piece with another ... and I don't see that in this picture.
Could it be some sort of stage set ? One thing I would say strikes me, is that it doesn't look real - this isn't a room that someone uses for living in.
-
but I also think that the ghost is a reflection in a mirror of the photographer under his sheet
Quote Gadget
It cannot be a reflection of the photographer under his white sheet.They used black ones :P ;D ;D don't think it is a studio. :-\ On closer inspection of the "Ghost" it looks to me, to be A lady sitting in a sort of porch in front of a window with the sun shining on he.She also appears to have her hair in a bun. There is an outline of what looks like a shawl round her shoulders. The photo does give that doll, house feeling doesn't it,he would have to be a very small photographer though wouldn't he ;D ;D ;D
I think it looks like an attic, possibly a servant's room Quote Cheshiermog
I thought so to.The housekeepers or the cooks other servants would have shared a room
Celia
-
Celia
Have a look at the original that Martian linked to in this post:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,221871.msg1163201.html#msg1163201
Gadget
-
Your comments are hilarious! I love this board!! I've given the negative owner this link and hope to get some answers soon.....PLEASE M&D
-
I'm inclined to agree that there are two beds in this room, separated by the 'sanctuary rail', the other living area being somewhat elevated.
I'd also agree that we're in the roof space - not below ground. Look at the lighting on the doors at the back. (And since the lighting appears to be natural, I wouldn't say this is a film set.)
The ghostly apparition does give me pause for thought - the perspective doesn't look right. It may just be a defect in the original photo. Or perhaps someone was trying a little photographic trickery?
Dave
-
Small photographer Celia :P...hmmmmmm....they DO come in all sizes you know ::) ::) ::)
...it would'nt really matter on this pic though cos its been taken at a wide angle...that is one narrow room don't you think...there's nothing infinite or vast about it which still makes me think that its a stage..setting etc ::) ::) ::)
Derek.
-
Okay, the neg is stored in the back of beyond at the moment and the owner has promised to dig it out tomorrow (I know, I know.....I'd like it now too!!) :'( . It has a sleeve with a photographer's name on it. There are 3 negs - two of the room, with one clearer than the other, and a third neg with a different picture on it. They once belonged to people who lived in London around the turn of the century (as in 1900), so it's definitely not a modern photographer's mock up.
;D Kirsty
-
Gadget
I did see that one but it was to dark.I just remembered my flat screen monitor is now highter up. It leans back unlike the old monitors. While sitting down the screen is darker standing up it lighter. I can now see the ladies fingers but i can also see right through her :o
-
Well all I want is that ghost Kirsty to join the two b^&&&&gers I already have..ones crawling up me leg and ones just been on the phone?????? ::) ::) ::) ::)
Derek. 8)
-
There may be a simpler explanation for this strange picture. I remember a time when you had to deliberately advance the film before taking another picture. A little more recent technology than changing the plates but similar problems associated.
I think the picture is a "double exposure", possibly unintended.
The main picture looks like a reused private chapel, possibly high up in a timber-framed building, causing the warping to the floor. It looks as though its current occupant would be a single (possibly fairly old) lady and the fan-fold pictures and the pictures on the right-hand dresser look like religious icons. The door shapes and the empty tryptich frame at the front all suggest possibly Russian or similar to me. The chapel would probably be accessed from behind the photographers viewpoint, the ornate doors at the far end leading to a very small robing area where religious artefacts would have been kept for the room's original use. The detailed paraphernalia all belong to this picture.
There are no obvious windows and yet there are consistent shadows from another picture of a windowed room underlying this, and I think the dress "wedding or ballgown" belongs to that picture too but stands out as it would otherwise fall in the middle of a blank wall. If it were a mirror, the altar rails would be reflected too.
Or I could be entirely wrong ...?
-
I do like a mystery :)
And photography is one of my favourite mediums (not psychic ::) )There have always been lots of tricks in photography - remember the fairies :)
Looking forward to more info, Martian
Derek - don't turn around, there's................... :o
-
The photo was once in the house of two spinster sisters (b 1896 and 1898ish), one of which was a spiritualist/clairvoyant (via palm reading) and believed in all things weird and the supernatural (even though we're questioning the presence an apparation, I kid you not!).
There are def. 2 beds in the room and perhaps a covered table next to the far one?
Ah! Here's the third neg: a cat in a highchair??? :o ??? :o
-
here
-
The photo was once in the house of two spinster sisters (b 1896 and 1898ish), one of which was a spiritualist/clairvoyant (via palm reading) and believed in all things weird and the supernatural (even though we're questioning the presence an apparation, I kid you not!).
Now we're getting closer to the truth
-
Are we?
-
SEE :o...I told you I felt spooked :o :o :o
-
I'm told that when you look at the original neg, it's clear that there are stairs leading down from the left set of rails and that the ceiling has a dome in it, which would let light through - casting shadows?
Added: personally, I think a second set of rails leading down is no more than a small table with fancy legs behind the room rails. Perhaps it is a crypt... Those are very tall doors. Would there be a step up to get through them?
-
It's not April 1st, is it ?
-
Lydart ~
I think we might need you and garlic and stuff at this rate ::)
The cat one is fairly normal - well if you think that cats in high chairs with a place setting and napkin in a silver holder is normal :-\
-
Now all we need to do is find the cat in the 1901 Census.
Can anyone read the name tag?
-
Doesnt your cat have proper table ware then Gadget ??
-
Dave & Lydart ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Seconded :D :D :D :D
Added - but I don't have a cat - never have. :-\
-
I have just found this fascinating thread and felt I had to put in my two bob's worth.
I think the ceiling is definitely glass and that's why everything is lighted from above. Look at the metal "strapping" which continues down the walls. The walls could also be glass, especially the right hand side one. The "doors at the end I think are tall cupboards— the bed on the right is stopping it being used as a door to a room and it would be odd to have two room doors placed like this.
I reckon it was built as a fancy conservatory (possibly on a roof), later used as a private chapel (those rails are unlikely to be anything else), then turned into a granny flat for two elderly ladies. The "ghost" in the corner looks like the dressmaker's dummy my mother used to have, but with a wide skirt. Was one of the ladies a dressmaker?
I can't imagine it being a set for anything — aren't sets meant to resemble something recognisable? This is so confused it could be a storage attic if it wasn't so tidy!
Great photo anyway. And I love the cat pic too :D
Cheers, Rian.
-
Glass ceiling ? I don't think so ... if the bed is used as a guide for size, and is 6' long, then those curved pieces of glass would each be something like 8 or 9' long, and curved, so therefore would have to be quite thick ... therefore I think the supports for the 'glass' are too thin ?
And where IS this second bed people keep mentioning ? I have enlarged it until it is a mass of the blurry pixels, and can't see it anywhere !
The only thing that to me looks genuine are the two sanctuary rails, and the step this side of the rails for kneeling on. If it was a church or chapel, then with those two doors at the far end, it could be Orthodox, yet it hasn't got the necessary central door you would find in an Orthodox church. If its not Orthodox, then what sort of church would have two doors at the far end of the sanctuary ? It just doesn't make sense.
I think I need to go to bed and pray for a peaceful night, with no dress-makers dummies, automaton monkeys and stuffed birds invading my dreams ! But I'll be back on here at dawn to see how this fascinating thead is panning out !
G'night all !
-
... and having had another look at it, has anyone any idea about the big studs to the top and right of the picture ? Or are they part of the frame holding the slide ?
Hi Lydart! Yes, I mentioned this back on page 1: ;D ;D ;D
It also looks like the neg is a photo of a photo - the original picture seems to have been pinned onto something and then photographed again, which is the picture you have. Odd! :-\
Prue
-
I'll stand being corrected on this one but my father was a pargiter by trade and he called that type of ceiling Angel Beams...it was a very expensive job in its day and he designed and worked on many churches with similar ceilings. :)
the same effect could also be achieved by very fine netting draped over the beams..tightly :).
Derek.
-
I still stand by the assumptions that:
a) this is a mock-up of some kind, or at least a staged piece. Such a thing needn't necessarily have been particularly good or realistic, especially considering this may have been an amateur photographer. All the props and their positions indicate this to me.
b) it's in a crypt and doesn't have a glass ceiling! (note there are no windows either). It could also be a Victorian construction made to look like a gothic crypt, but which turned out more like a pastiche of lots of different styles, thus the Eastern/Western church motifs and designs.
c) that's a lady or a dressmaker's dummy in the back corner - but I think whoever mentioned a double exposure might be right...I wonder then whether this is a deliberate double exposure, attempting to create a "spirit" photograph? Would fit with the owners of the house....
Doesn't explain why this appears to be a photo of a photo though :-\
-
I think this is one of the guest rooms in a hotel that might be in Sheffield... ;D
-
Does it come with 'free spirits as well' Paul E. ::) ::) ::)
-
I think we need them so much I might even have to pay for them, derek!
Paul
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D...I've just had a spirit on the phone who thinks its worth 20 grand... ::) ::) ::) thats a lot of spirit..time to call the ghost busters in I think.. ::) ::) ::)
-
This is all getting very weird! ???
Liz
-
I think the picture is a "double exposure", possibly unintended.
The main picture looks like a reused private chapel, possibly high up in a timber-framed building, causing the warping to the floor.
Or I could be entirely wrong ...?
I like your way of thinking DW ;)
As for the rest of you, you've kept me in good spirits all evening ;D ;D ;D
Kirsty
-
I think this is one of the guest rooms in a hotel that might be in Sheffield... ;D
We couldn't even find that one, so what chance on this ?
Denn
-
Would this ceiling be similar ?
-
Okay, so the ceiling isn't going to be much of a help in either dating or placing the room. It is what is called a groin vaulted ceiling and dates back as far as the Romans - it can be found in places all around the globe as far as Asia and America.
However I still reckon that it is a full size and as I said previously the general feel of it seems German/central europe.
Denn
-
OK, first I think I should clarify something here...
There are in fact two of us posting as 'Martian 1' for this topic only. Kirsty has posted the majority of the replies, but I (Hadyn!) have had a lot to say too. I'm the person who originally scanned it and has seen the originals - My sister (kirsty/martian1) pointed me to this website for help.
Ok, I've had quite a few replies to read since my first visit so I'll try and deal with the various points raised.
The idea of a glass ceiling made me think of something else - while I don't believe it is glass, it's made me realise that there is no visible light source, yet the room seems fairly well lit (possibly over exposure - I don't know a thing about developing techniques!). Must a flash have been used to give this illumination?
I don't believe it is a glass ceiling as there are symmetrical pillar type parts of the wall that jut out on either side (clearer on the left) about midway between the doors and the railings so a glass wall wouldn't have these structural type pillars.
Having seen the original glass negative, I can say that the 'studs' definitely have nothing to do with the room. They appear to have held it down during the developing process or something. Is it possible that this photo could have been taken on to photographic film and then transferred to glass somehow???
I'm really amused about all the talk of the 'ghost' as I certainly didn't mean to cause a whole talk on it (not saying that it's not fascinating!!). My immediate impression when I first scanned the image was just that it was some reflected light or maybe an area of over-exposure. It's also surrounded by a darker, under exposed area. I'm also sure you can see through it to the wall behind, so I've never thought it was a physical object. It also appears blurry, like it's not a solid object that is part of the room.
Maybe it's just my gut instinct, or maybe it's because I know about the crazy clairvoyant aunts who had a connection with this photo (who placed the cat in the high chair I believe), but I don't think it's a mock-up. I think this is genuinely someone's lodgings.
Looking at the odd ET like figure, could this be the room of an eccentric entertainer?
I'm currently away from home (hence the trouble trying to get the negative covers!) so am unable to do any high-res scans of specific areas. However, I do have these last two scans with me:
1. Close-up of back wall panel/mural (http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/hadynwilliams/close-up.jpg)
2. Close-up of photos on near table. (http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/hadynwilliams/close-up2.jpg) Unfortunately they don't really appear any clearer!
Apologies for the long post guys, but you all keep giving me so much to think about and comment on!
Thanks for all the interest so far - can't wait to see where this leads!
Hadyn.
-
The idea of a glass ceiling made me think of something else - while I don't believe it is glass, it's made me realise that there is no visible light source, yet the room seems fairly well lit (possibly over exposure - I don't know a thing about developing techniques!). Must a flash have been used to give this illumination?
I don't believe it is a glass ceiling as there are symmetrical pillar type parts of the wall that jut out on either side (clearer on the left) about midway between the doors and the railings so a glass wall wouldn't have these structural type pillars.
Having seen the original glass negative, I can say that the 'studs' definitely have nothing to do with the room. They appear to have held it down during the developing process or something. Is it possible that this photo could have been taken on to photographic film and then transferred to glass somehow???
Hi Haydn,
Almost certain to have been a plaster ceiling made with laths and wire mesh over a substructure - so I agree with you on the fact that it isn't glass. in fact it wasn't possible to make such a glass piece - and even nowadays would be quite a feat.
Secondly, Prue did point out earlier that it was a photo of a photo hence the studs/tacks.
As for the lighting, it isn't harsh enough to have been a flash, lighting as such is bi-directional, semi diffused and equally from left and right
-
Another thought about the lighting. A common practice among architectural photographers is/was what is called bounced flash. This softens the light scource, and to bounce a flash off this design of ceiling could possibly create a situation where the scource is split, thereby giving these bi-directional shaddows, the ceiling design would also cause the slight cut off of light at the top of the panel between the doors.
Denn
-
Well!
there,s got to be a mural in this topic,(BOOM BOOM!) it being I think,that we sould all settle down,stay off the cough mixture,and give the picture a more serious appraisal.
Having said which, and hopefully set all mind,s on the straight and slippery,I'll be in the Snug if required!
Goggy. ;) ;D
-
Its nearly 11 hours since I last looked in here ... and NO SOLUTION YET ? Come on guys, what are you all doing ? This has got to be solveable !
-
This pic has obviously captured the attention of a lot of folk on here!!
I couldn't get it out of my head last night...(it looks like a Crypt to me still). I'm attaching a pic of a chap who looks like a suitable occupant for the room... ;D ;D
Romilly ;)
-
Oh Romilly, that is FOUL !! Especially as I'm helping at a funeral today !! :-\ :-\ :-\
-
It wasn't meant to be taken seriously Lydart, - but I've taken it off anyway.
Best Wishes, Romilly.
-
Just another suggestion....
I wonder if it could be an exhibition room at a museum ?
-
Now that IS an idea !! I'd go along with that !
-
Just another suggestion....
I wonder if it could be an exhibition room at a museum ?
That would explain the very even lighting.
Denn
-
If this photo was taken circa 1870 (Prue's earlier posting) , I believe they were still experimenting with artificial lighting - magnesium flares and powder, etc. It's more likely that it would be a very long exposure with natural lighting, as you say, Denn.
I'm yet to be convinced that it isn't a 'set' of some kind but, bearing in mind the story of the two women, could it possibly be some kind of spiritualist/supernaturalist room for communing with whatever they communed with ('the other side'). It might explain the strange collection of objects and arrangements.
Somehow, it does give the feeling of Jane Eyre's mad woman in the attic or Rosemary's Baby.
Gadget
-
bearing in mind the story of the two women, could it possibly be some kind of spiritualist/supernaturalist room for communing with whatever they communed with ('the other side'). It might explain the strange collection of objects and arrangements.
Gadget
Ah, but the two women weren't born until the mid-late 1890's. That said, maybe being clairvoyant is inherited and this room could have belonged to someone else in the family - an ancestor.
Clearly I didn't inherit any gifts, or I would be able to ......wait.....
.......uh huh.....
.......uh huh.....
.......I see something.......
Nope. Not today :-\ :-\ ;)
-
I wonder if the light source is coming through the actual ceiling itself...ie.the material used???..just a thought...and what is that object in the ceiling above the alcove at the end. ??? ??? ???
Derek.
-
Still on the lighting - because this is definately unusual lighting.
Let's look at the shaddows. as indicted in this pic'
at point 1 the shaddow is on the right
at point 2 the shaddow is on the left
at point 3 the shaddow is at the front
at point 4 the shaddow is again on the left
at point 5 the shaddow is on the right
strange as it may seem this indicates that the light scource may have been moving. An architectural photographer does indeed use a method known as painting with light wheras he walks around a poorly lit subject putting light where he wants it. Normally this would result in a well exposed photo' and although he was walking around the area he doesn't appear in the pic' - that is of course dependent on him not lingering in any one place, if by some chance he does linger too long in the one place then we would find a ghostly figure in that area of the photo' - does this ring any bells.
Denn
-
I'd like to know what Kirsty and Hayden think this picture is of/about, from the information that they have.
Are these people related to the women?
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,190511.0.html
Gadget
-
I recall reading somewhere about the poses in photos and how it can be an aid in dating them. I know it is hard to tell for sure, but it seems that all the photos are head and shoulder shots. I wonder when they were in vogue.
The larger photo on the centre table on the left has a diagonally striped frame. It is the only thing in the room that looks a bit odd to me besides the thing in the corner (which to me looks like a Pope's cassock from the back...not that I am saying it IS!!!). Also the large picture on the right doesn't look like a religious photo to me, since the lady seems to be bare headed...and is she showing a bit of leg...maybe a shepard girl or something?
Intriguing photo!
Nina
-
I've only just seen this topic and unfortunately haven't had time
to read all the replies. At first glance it looks to me like a temporary
structure with possibly a canvas roof. It is the type of experiment
that an Architect would demonstrate at an exhibition maybe to demonstrate
the type of houses that people would live in at some future date. It is a typical
Victorian scene. Throw as much junk into a room as possible. Oh dear!, I've
just looked around and discovered that I must be a Victorian.
Tomkin ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I wonder if the light source is coming through the actual ceiling itself...ie.the material used???..just a thought...and what is that object in the ceiling above the alcove at the end. ??? ??? ???
Derek.
This was mentioned back on the first page. A couple of people speculated that is was an eagle, but, to quote myself:
I have to say I'm not sure about the 'eagle'. To me, it looks like a dome that extends up into ceiling with something hangin down in the middle (the white part). The perspective gives it the oval shape and the cut out gives the shape of wings! I've seen a smililar thing before.
----
Interesting thinking on the museum. Although surely the dating on the photo doesn't work out with this - i.e. the room seems to be 'typical' of the era we estimate the photo to be taken in, so you wouldn't put what would be a modern room (of the time) in a museum - it wouldn't be history yet! Probably not the best way to explain what I mean :S
Nice researching there gadget! I need to check with Kirsty when she's around, but I believe that photo does in fact show the possible owner of the glass negative - I can't say for sure though.
Ooh, that's something to look into Nina - dating the photo by using the others in the picture!
---
I've got to agree Denn, the lighting in the photo is certainly intriguing me - especially now you've pointed out all those odd shadows that would need multiple light sources to be cast. A bounce flash, bounced of the ceiling might explain this, as the ceiling is curved, it would explain the various angles the light seems to come from. Also might explain why the original negative is pretty dark and had to be lightened?
Keep the amazing ideas coming people - Kirsty and I are really keen to get to the bottom of this and are always calling to each other when we notice a reply!
Hadyn
EDIT: Tomkin, I'm not sure the temporary ceiling idea of yours works with regard to the stone looking wall (particular that mural/panel) and the two doors at the back of the room. I could be wrong though, but that's just my reasoning! Also, if you have the time, it's well worth reading what everyone has had to say about the image!
-
Oh dear! I was hoping to get on the puter today and see the answer. :'(
I still think it's a cellar which has been converted to a private chapel, but how about this?
A date of 1880/90's has been mentioned could those two sisters have been (in their more stable days) nurses in the Crimea or Boer wars, and was this hastily converted accomodation for them which had perhaps been used to store things in the past and they have utilised the items to furnish the abode?
Was it in some stately home or large house that had been turned into a hospital/convalescent home and was this picture taken to show the parents of said two ladies where they were living?
Just another couple of cats amongst the pigeons!!!! ;) ;) ;)
-
Hi All
Ive not added anything to this thread simply because I aint got a clue about photography and churches etc but its just facinating reading and the pics are well spookey.
Wonder where Liverpool Annie is.....its not like her to miss something like this.....
Joe
-
Absolutely no expertise here at all, but just commenting.
Could the blob on the ceiling be caused by the shadow from the light, could the shape in front of this shadow be the light? From the semi-circle in the middle pointing upwards slightly widening to the top seems like a shape, not just ceiling.
Why is there such a dark shadow behind the ghost?
...... yes I do know it's not a ghost!!! but haven't found a better description for that shape.
It also feels like an attic to me, rather than basement.
-
Also the large picture on the right doesn't look like a religious photo to me, since the lady seems to be bare headed...and is she showing a bit of leg...maybe a shepard girl or something?
I think it is a reproduction of a famous painting called Lady at Toilet. (Or Something) Toilet in this case
meaning Lady washing her legs. Can't remember who the artist is. ( But why prop it up on a
stuffed bird instead of hanging it on a wall?)
Tomkin :) :) :) :)
-
The photo was once in the house of two spinster sisters (b 1896 and 1898ish), one of which was a spiritualist/clairvoyant (via palm reading) and believed in all things weird and the supernatural.
I'm still on the tent/marquee route,maybe it was put on the end of a building/house where the good lady practised her palm reading to her customers and the doors at the back at least i think they are doors led into the main building..yeah i know silly idea really...or is it :o
Steve
-
Tomkin..maybe it would be hard to hang anything on canvas? ;D
Steve
-
I haven't laughed so much for years. When the truth "is out" I think we'll all laugh even more.
Personally, I think it's a shrine to someone who died and the nearest and dearest wanted all her possessions left as they were. It will be in a crypt somewhere. Anyone in the National Trust?
Where's her decorated jug and bowl. Maybe it's the one I bought in Moffatt!
Ankerdine
-
Also the large picture on the right doesn't look like a religious photo to me, since the lady seems to be bare headed...and is she showing a bit of leg...maybe a shepard girl or something?
I think it is a reproduction of a famous painting called Lady at Toilet. (Or Something) Toilet in this case
meaning Lady washing her legs. Can't remember who the artist is. ( But why prop it up on a
stuffed bird instead of hanging it on a wall?)
Tomkin :) :) :) :)
I think it's a Madonna and child, possibly the famous one with St John too, but I can only see the naked toddler standing in front of the draped knee gazing up into the face of the lady (the child's face is the centre of light in the painting),. I can't make out what detail is to the (my) left of the painting, even when magnified.
(added) you wouldn't stick nails in a wall that might be going to be reused as a chapel later
(added) like this pose of Rahael's but facing the other way.
-
OK, to clarify, these two crazy ladies in particular, aren't likely to have lived here - the image pre-dates them. Their relatives may have though - maybe being psychic runs in the family :o
Wow, phrishy, on close inspection it does look like she's sitting on the toilet :o
Hadyn
I think it looks like an entertainer, with a huge Elizabethan neck collar - ruffle. Which fits in with the item in the tilting glass case.
Kirsty
-
Also the large picture on the right doesn't look like a religious photo to me, since the lady seems to be bare headed...and is she showing a bit of leg...maybe a shepard girl or something?
I think it is a reproduction of a famous painting called Lady at Toilet. (Or Something) Toilet in this case
meaning Lady washing her legs. Can't remember who the artist is. ( But why prop it up on a
stuffed bird instead of hanging it on a wall?)
Tomkin :) :) :) :)
I don't want to try too hard to google image search lady on toilet.....but searches seem to come up with lots of hits for 'woman at her toilet' and I found a picture with a washbowl called lady at toilet - although it doesn't look like the pic in the glass negative???
any more ideas about this 'lady on toilet' idea??
Sorry to double post
Hadyn
EDIT: This is a famous photo called A woman at her toilet (1663) in the royal collection. Is this the one you are thinking of maybe?
(http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/egallery/images/collection_large/404804.jpg)
-
The only two famous artists that did that kind of thing around then were Bonnard and Degas, I think.
I'll take a closer look on my downloaded image.
I did some curves on the spectre in the corner and it looks to me like a man with a cloak across his left shoulder - laughing cavalier without the hat! The face did have definite features. Could it be a bust/statue of some kind?
Gadget
-
Had a look at the woman - I think it's one of the Madonna of the <fill in as there were many done>. Definitely not a painting of the late 19th century anyway. It does look French though -l ate 18th-early 19th century
Gadget
Just added an enlargement. I think they're definitely cherubs, angels or muses and not legs, Tomkin ::) ::) ::)
Another addition - It might have been Renoir's Toilette that you were thinking of - but it's not I've just checked my books :-\
-
;)
Absolutely fascinating stuff reading through all your ideas. At first glance I thought it was a Victorian auction room. However, on closer inspection I don't think there would have been a made-up bed at the auction with paisley patterned bedspread.
Once I'd read on a bit and learned of the two spiritualist sisters, then looked back at the photo, you do get a feeling that the sisters - or someone else did use the room. Why else would there be two beds, all the photos be set out nicely on the table and the chests of drawers. Then there is a candle/holder close by the photos on the table. At the centre back wall appears to be a dressing table with mirror and stool. Not forgetting what appears to be the typically Victorian aspidistra plant on the small round table.
It all makes for a rather feminine room which could be a former private chapel in a big house - but not a crypt. But, why they set-out the two beds like that, heaven knows.
Will the mystery ever be resolved?
-
Looks like a right Royal railway carriage to me ;D ;D
-
Someone PLEASE tell me where the second bed is ? I just can't spot it ?
-
Someone PLEASE tell me where the second bed is ? I just can't spot it ?
In line with the obvious one but behind the altar rails. The head board (nearer to the viewer) is higher than the foot-board but it's a bit strange as the corners indicate another solid squared brass bedstead but there appears to be an ornate cast-iron part in the middle of the head-board. The covers on that bed look like they are light-coloured and frilly.
-
GOT IT !!!!!
So if the foot end is furthest away from us, the viewer, what is that iron thing growing up out of the foot end of the bed ? Its not behind the bed, but appears to be standing on it ?
(I can see this is going to keep me awake tonight, as it did last night !) ;D ;D ;D
-
So if the foot end is furthest away from us, the viewer, what is that iron thing growing up out of the foot end of the bed ? Its not behind the bed, but appears to be standing on it ?
I think what you are reffering to is what I took to be the corner of the head-board so is in front of the foot board rather than growing out of it.
I don't think that this could be a servant's room either, too much furniture and the quality of the furnishings (matching set of light coloured fabric padded chairs, for example). I think it's a room being used to make some (people) as comfortable as possible in an emergency maybe.
The spooky thing is that it seems eerily familiar. Not that I have seen it before but that the doors etc. seem of a very familiar style. A long time ago I was at a convent school, built as a Victorian orphanage, I believe, but there were cloisters and attics that come to mind whenever I look at this picture.
-
Why do I keep thinking of a Dan Brown novel when I see this picture? ???
-
Could it be that the upper part is a dressing room area with a daybed. The area on the dressing table wall might suggest a fire place (behind the dressing table) with open alcoves and closed cupboards either side. The blank panel could have been where a mirror is usually placed. Any signs of a water jug and bowl?
The rails in this case are not 'altar rails' but just a division of functional area.
I think that the reason that this is driving us all mad is that most of us like mysteries and puzzles - same as family history really.
I MUST GET ON ::) ::) ::)
Gadget
-
Still driving me mad ::) ::) ::)
has anyone mentioned a barge or a boat yet, | remember someone saying a railway carriage but those wall panels seem to possibly slide. if it was in the Grand Victorian House style, they'd have enbossed wallpaper wouldn't they?
Gadget
-
The picture looks like a shepherdess to me
-
What an interesting picture, it seems to me to be some sort of defunct religious building, maybe non conformist ??? which was turned into a dwelling. It fascinates me too. :) Definitely females living there. ;)
-
What a pity that the titles on the books on the near table are not readable. On the sharpened version of the picture, the item next to them looks like rosary beads. How was this pic digitised? Can it be done at greater resolution?
The room is far too wide to be a train carriage but the possibility of a Dutch barge (rather than a narrowboat) had crossed my mind. The roof vaulting seems too complicated though, and the rails and change of floor level, together with the architectural style of door frames and the greek pillars and ornate moldings at the front, do seem like a catholic chapel. Perhaps one no longer needed after a Church was openly built nearby in the mid 19thC?
-
What a pity that the titles on the books on the near table are not readable. On the sharpened version of the picture, the item next to them looks like rosary beads. How was this pic digitised? Can it be done at greater resolution?
I (hadyn this time, not Kirsty!) am currently in a different country to the originals (on holiday visiting family). The picture was digitised by scanning, I can't remember the original resolution but (broadly) between 600 and 1200 dpi. While I'm happy to re-scan at higher resolution, being in a different country is a slight drawback ::) The image of just the photos on the near table were rescanned at high res, but you can see that this hasn't really helped their clarity.
Hadyn
-
I'm not sure if these will come out in enough detail but this is of the photos on the left hand side. There seem to be so many images of what looks like mostly women/girls. Very odd. Could it be the room of a governess/nurse with photos of her past charges?
Also, 600 -1200 dpi should be ample for scanning. The problem is probably because of the original process and more clarity might be impossible.
Gadget
-
Hi
I did notice that most of the photos appeared to be of females. So the governess idea sounds feasible.
Is there any significance to the stuffed owl in the glass bell jar sitting about the middle of the chest on the right-hand side! Perhaps it's just a Victorian collectible, unless someone knows otherwise. ::)
-
Are these people related to the women?
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,190511.0.html
Gadget
Yes, but how closely I'm not sure. They're associated with the spinsters' parents - who I can't see in the photo, but their uncle is the one standing up.
Their mother was born in London and married in the Clerkenwell/Islington area. She was an embroiderer and I'm wondering if she made the piece on the table for the display. She made altar cloths too......
Kirsty
-
For those worried about the occupants ablutions, on the table, where the altar would be if this were a church, under what looks like a mirror, there appears to be a large object which could be a basin. To the right is something else that is possibly a jug.
-
and it does look Continental Europe in style - not sure if it's German,austrian, French or Dutch :-\
The ancestors did send their daughters to a french finishing school and one of them did a stint performing in a Parisian circus....
You gave me food for thought, Gadget!
Kirsty
Hiya Kirsty,
I wonder if everyone is looking at the photo from the wrong angle. One of the daughters doing a stint in a Parisian circus makes me wonder if we are looking at the interior of an old circus caravan through the entrance door. The alternative could be a small tent where the circus artists stored their props.
Chris
-
I think I disagree with Gadget about the rails not being altar rails ... there is a step on 'our' side of the rails, which is where those receiving communion would kneel. If the rails are just room dividers, why have a step ?
-
It was just a theory, Lydart. My view was that it had a step because of a change in levels.
I don't think it looks like a church, chapel or any other religious place of worship. The back wall is more like the end of a room - fireplace or alcove than an altar end to me. Believe me, I have knelt at such rails a few times.
Gadget
-
Is my caravan theory out the window ???
I've had another thought. Are any of the members who have posted on this thread a member of the Society of Architectural Historians? (http://www.sah.org) If not does anyone know a member of this Society? They tend to have a look at the insides and outsides of buildings and might be able to assist with this picture.
-
I've had another thought. Are any of the members who have posted on this thread a member of the Society of Architectural Historians? (http://www.sah.org) If not does anyone know a member of this Society? They tend to have a look at the insides and outsides of buildings and might be able to assist with this picture.
You beat me to it Christopher. Husband now on case.
What an absorbing post - and what a creepy room :o
Maggie
-
Ach Maggie, sorry about that ... we could call it a tie if you like 8)
I come across queries about old buildings from time to time and usually contact one of the staff at the
Ulster Architectural Heritage Society who are very helpful and have put me on to a couple of useful
websites. I don't know a lot about such societies in England though.
-
Just a thought,
Could this photo have been doctored in the past, we all see what the photo wizards do on here , I only wonder because there seems to be a certain amount of underexposure in parts, and if you look at the cornice where the walls meet the cealing they do not appear to be in line I would have thought that if this was one room ore it was one exposure, then the cornice would be in line,
only musing :) :)
Pete,
-
Could take a while but I think we will eventually be getting a complete architectural break-down on the building - Corinthian columns, Gothic vaulting, et al ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That pic. of lady next to stuffed owl - the potential Madonna of the Whatevers, or Lady at her Toilet - when I screw my eyes up and squint at it I can see a can-can girl lifting her skirt to reveal her left leg ................ or is it the vino talking ::) ::)
Maggie
-
This is really going off at a tangent, but I'll say it anyway.
Apologies if someone has mentioned any of these before, my fault for coming late to the thread.
Everyone seems to agree that the presence of a door either side of the central feature at the end of the room is unusual. It made me think of a court room or throne room, with an ante chamber behind it.
And on the left hand side, on the wall beyond the "puppet" in a glass case, might that be some sort of curtain covering something?
The vaulted ceiling is very low, so it could either be cellar like or under the main floor of the room, or it could be right at the top, like in a Scottish tower castle. The dividing ribs are however quite thin so I'd be inclined to err on the side of a building on the upper floors, with only the roof above it.
All the contents seem to be put there deliberately to confuse - they sure have succeeded! ;)
Nell
-
My son just took a look and he agrees with Gadgets theory of an attic or top floor of a building.
Its a good job its not April 1st, thats all I can say. ;D ;D ;D
-
Thoughts anybody?
Maggie
-
Right-oh…………. input from husband who is in this line of work. Don’t know whether it helps or hinders but here goes:-
It is probably a basement because it has no windows.
The floor (1) could be either stone flags (joints possibly visible) or varnished timber (reflective surface). Step by ‘altar rail’ (2) is timber 125mm high.
Walls (3) appear to be plastered. Ceiling (4) possibly Dutch - see my previous post with pic., is vaulted and plastered with either ribs (5) made of timber or more likely metal, in pairs with an enlarged rounded stem (6) above the cornice moulding. Cast iron column or projected timber moulding (7). Probably cast iron moulded column head to shape of cornice - 8, or it could be moulded timber to cornice at head of timber column. (9) is a projecting pilaster. Room narrows at (10) between these two points and at (11) the vaulted ceiling level drops approx. 500mm.
(12) appears to be a circular cast plaster ornamentation and maybe a possible light source. (Looks like a vase!)
(13) open to suggestions !!
(14) fluted plaster or timber square pilasters approx 300mm wide with simple capital.
(15) eight panelled doors approx. 750mm wide with semi circular head, a round brass or timber knob is fixed in central rail (more visible in left hand door).
(16) ornamented plaster infill panels above doors and at (17) in soffit of archway over recess.
Sorry attached enumerated version of photo is a bit 'bleached' - it happened when hubby added the numbers.
Maggie (and husband)
-
Vaulted ceilings can be found in cellars as well as in attic rooms.
I'm sure I've seen these in Glamis Castle and in another Scottish Castle, namely Kinloch Castle, though now a ruin, it says:
"The building contained a hall and private room end to end over three vaulted cellars."
-
I don't know whether this has been mentioned before but can anybody see an open gate on the 'altar rail'. There seem to be extra spindles visible on the right hand side - as though one half of a double gate is swung back flat against the fixed portion of the rail. The right hand one could be open at 90 degrees - it couldn't open fully because of the presence of the bed.
-
I agree that the ceiling isn't glass (got carried away— silly idea), and now I see where the light comes from. How did we miss the light fitting in the centre?!
An idea — if you could find the address of the people it could have belonged to, possibly an enquiring letter with a copy of the photo could be sent to the present occupants (providing the house is still standing).
I like the idea of a governess's room — seems to fit with the decor.
Rian.
-
Wow, thanks Maggie and Husband for the detailed analysis - really revealing! Also helped to clear quite a few queries people have put out.
With regards to the 'extra railings', we thought it looked like table legs situated behind the rails, but hadn't even considered the possibility of a gate.
Rian, believe me, if we knew a possible address we would be knocking on the door this minute! Other than assuming that the photo was taken in a place associated with the previous owners ancestors, we have absolutely no clue as to where in the world this room is! We should have a better idea when we see the envelope the negatives were found in, which hopefully will show the photographer's location. We're still waiting for it ourselves and we know it exists!
I'm still not sure about this light source - the shadows in the picture don't fit with the suggested single light source - as Denn previously suggested.
Hadyn and Kirsty
-
(12) appears to be a circular cast plaster ornamentation and maybe a possible light source. (Looks like a vase!)
Maggie (and husband)
I'm still not sure about this light source - the shadows in the picture don't fit with the suggested single light source - as Denn previously suggested.
Hadyn and Kirsty
Agreed - probably not light source used to illuminate the picture when it was taken but it could be an old redundant plaster fitting. These things were Victorian ornamentations to lower the lighting, which was probably gas light. The gas supply would be passed through the fitting and the shade or whatever then fitted at the base, thus lowered.
Maggie
-
Gosh, Maggie10 ... thats a beautiful chained library, like the one in Hereford Cathedral or Wimborne Minster ... I'd like to visit that !!
-
Sounds wonderful Lydart - can I come with you?
-
(12) appears to be a circular cast plaster ornamentation and maybe a possible light source. (Looks like a vase!)
Maggie (and husband)
I'm still not sure about this light source - the shadows in the picture don't fit with the suggested single light source - as Denn previously suggested.
Hadyn and Kirsty
Agreed - probably not light source used to illuminate the picture when it was taken but it could be an old redundant plaster fitting. These things were Victorian ornamentations to lower the lighting, which was probably gas light. The gas supply would be passed through the fitting and the shade or whatever then fitted at the base, thus lowered.
Maggie
Surely with this type of ceiling (plaster - groin vault) no one in thier right mind would deface or weaken the integrity with fittings: the shadow is probably no more than what in the old photographic darkroom trade would have been caused by chemical stagnation - this basically means that if a print is not adequately agitated while being processed we get areas of stagnant chemical that cause blotches.
Denn
-
Wonders if one friend has photographed the other here. There is obviously a bed in "our" side of the Altar rail device. On the other side of the Altar rail, is the wrought iron head and foot frame of a second bed. The shadow/ghost/Bishops cope etc etc seems to me to be a person sitting with their back to the camera, leaning forward reading/darning etc.
Somewhere past the far end of the nearer bed is a strong light source, with another light source over the "shadows" right shoulder, perhaps for reading/darning.
What is at the close right hand foreground in the corner of the picture? Are they drawers, shelves or boxes? In Maggie (and husband)'s architectural post, the "drawers" seem very shallow, as if they are there effect. What say you lot?
Upstairs or downstairs or in your ladys chamber I dont really know. It seems to me to be a twin shared room for servants/domestics
Regards
Robert & Karon aka Aussie Karrob
-
Someone commented on the fact that it looks as if there is a gate open in the rails ... so I dashed in the rain up to our parish church, Old Church, Penallt, nr Monmouth) took this photo, and here it is !
These are the altar rails, with the gate opened (now I'm wondering if I closed it again after taking the photo ?!) You can see the height of the step too.
Is it any help ?
I am definitely coming round to the opinion that this is a photo of a theatre set, but using a church as the venue ... after all, lots of people use churches for such purposes even nowadays ... everything is positioned so that we, the audience can see them ... no genuine room would have all the photos pointing one way. And the wall between the two back doors seems to me not to be 'real' ... can it be a painted board to cover up, for e.g. a window such as we have in our church ?
Come on theatre buffs ... suggest a play this might be the set for ?
-
What is at the close right hand foreground in the corner of the picture? Are they drawers, shelves or boxes? In Maggie (and husband)'s architectural post, the "drawers" seem very shallow, as if they are there effect. What say you lot?
Robert & Karon aka Aussie Karrob
The chest of drawers has one drawer slightly open and they are not that shallow, the chair beyond them does not stick out in front so must be at least 15 inches (45 cm?). Also the quality of the bedcovers and chairs does not suggest servants quarters.
-
I agree entirley with you Lydart, in fact I think the entire back wall is false, even the right hand door is "wonky"
-
Thought this 'Negative' approach might bring some idea's as regards to lighting...also..is that a Fleur-de-Le pattern on the bedspread. ??? ??? ???
Derek.
-
And for comparison..a stage set :)
-
Photographer's angle:
Is he in line with the centre of the blank back wall, suggesting that he's got the camera raised up or is on another level himself? Could such a room have two 'platforms'? Unlikely? I'm wondering how 'real' this is too.
I wonder what the room is like behind the camera and how much longer it is.
Kirsty
-
Could it be a dressing room under an old London theatre? The photos being famous actors/actresses who played there. They do look like lots of individual portraits, rather than group family shots.
If it was a Governess' room, would she really had had pictures of her students on display?
Kirsty
-
I still think it has been superimposed some time ago. it just does not seem to look "real ", If that was a working door on the left, would you stuff a chest of draws right in front of it so so you cant get in, or out depending on the way the door opens, I think the original photographer may have been the ancester of the man who invented "photosuite "
Pete :) :)
-
Kirsty...re-photographers angle...I've tried viewing through the lens of my camera at all angles and it still comes out as though the pic was taken from a central view and at a wide angle...except for the slight tilt...everything in this pic looks so neat and tidy and pointing towards the viewer..ie..an audience..I have a feeling that Gadget may have some fresh idea's on this one...and I agree with pete about the non working doors....unless maybe ::) ::) ::)..it's the 'Beef A La Murphy's' ( Stout ) working overtime ::) ::) ::)
Thanks Kirsty for posting on this one..very interesting thread. :)
Derek. 8)
-
I haven't got many new thoughts, Derek :-\ I've just held up my laptop so that the image is level with my eye and it certainly looks central to the mirror on the dressing table.
When I enlarged and played with the contrast, etc. yesterday, I thought I could see something at the bottom of the mirror - just the top of a black cloth or something. Also there is no reflection in the mirror - just white. Not sure if there would be any detail at that distance - depth of field and all that! But the mirror could be slightly pointing to the ceiling so that the photographer cannot be seen.
I still believe it is an arrangement - the photos all directed to the viewer and the objects arranged especially. The candles don't seem to be where one would expect either.
The slight tilt on the left hand side is puzzling too. It seems to go \_____ Exaggerated this slope a bit, but hope you get my drift.
Gadget
-
And another thing :o :o :o
I just can't see how the monkey/ET in the glass case, middle right, can posibly not fall off at that angle. It's defying gravity.
Is it a paper mock up - various bits photgraphed and montaged and re-photographed. Even then it was possible to do some canny touching up of joins.
Gadget
-
Hi Gadget...I'm glad you noticed the monkey come Et too and the mirror...the 'negative' also shows the 'stretcher bars'??? in the ceiling as being black in colour...surely if they were plaster they would show up white..perhaps they are some kind of metal...whatever the outcome..this pic may look simple but that is a very clever arrangement. :)
Derek.
Ps. I thought the tilt was me...one of the arms on me glasses as broke ::) ::) ::)
-
The figure could be an Automaton in which case it could lean forward at that angle but where is the mechanism stored? I also noticed that the case is also leaning forward whilst the table appears level.
-
This tilt has been worrying me for a while - also the vagueness of the left foreground.
Anyone who has tried to join multiple photos together will know that however hard you try, they often just don't match up and something has to go. In this case, the ceiling bars and pillars would have to look 'true' so the poorold monkey got skewed!
Another thing Derek, if this was wide angle (as one would expect), why are the outer edge pieces not obviously bigger because of the distortion that wide angles always have?
I think this is artifice by the photographer. Either montage, sandwich printing or a mixture. I've done it many times for effect, so why should I believe it is just one view?
Gadget
PS - yes Patrish that table and case just don't look true!
-
Maybe the square "monkey" cage doesn't fit quite right on the round table, and the front legs are off the edge...tilting it forward. Maybe?
China
-
I can't seem to make out which angle the shot has been taken from.
Is the photographer taking the photo slightly from the right? Even so, the wall connecting the pillar behind 'our ghost' and the door just doesn't ring right with my eyes ???
Also the black strips down the right hand wall, surely too dark for shadows???
Has anyone wrked out if the floor in the front bit of the room is wood or stone? That might rule a stage out.
Sorry, if this has already been posted, I am trying to keep up, honest ;)
-
I've done a very quick change to the photo. I'm on my laptop so it's had to be done with a heavy hand.
Gadget
-
Surely the reflection in the mirror shows part of the ceiling, which would be the case if the mirror was angled upwards slightly. There are 2 black horizontal lines and on magnifying the photo the top one appears to split and could be the reflection of the metal ribs in the ceiling where two overlap and are bolted.
I've just been playing around with my dressing table mirror and by tilting it it is possible to get my head appearing on the ceiling :o :o :o. Could that black blob with a white centre possibly be a face?
Hope I am not repeating anybody - I am also trying my best to keep up ::)
Maggie
-
OK, Kirsty and I have been chatting (constantly) about this photo...Kirsty doesn't think it looks 'lived in'. She is intrigued by the symetry of the doors and chairs and that the room has a lack of personal items (except the photos) and no visible wardrobe, which would have been a necessity for the long coats or gowns of the time. However, if this is staged photo, then you don't have beds hanging around and if this is either an attic or cellar, you aren't going to drag beds up/down stairs for the photo.
My feeling is that it could be an amature photographer who just wanted to photograph the nearest thing to hand, so he set his (or her...) room up. I know that when I get a new camera I just start taking photos of the closest thing! This could explain why the room doesn't quite look genuine - it's been quickly re-arranged and tidied for the photo.
Kirsty raised another point when we looked at the photo: in the room, there are 5 identical chairs (2 in the foreground on either side of the room and 2 next to the dressing table, 1 on the left raised level - is the ghost sitting on the 6th?!?!?!). It seems unusual that you would have that many identical chairs in a bedsit.
Literally as I type this....my idea is that the table in the foreground with the photos on is in fact a dining table (presence of candles too?). It would most likely have a table cloth and we can't see the legs or if it is a desk with drawers? I'm just thinking out loud here I guess... ::)
I'm still not sure about the presence of a second bed. If you look at the opposite side, there is a just enough room for a chair and a chest of drawers, leaving access to the door (which makes me think the door is in use). So I don't tonk you could actually fit a bed in, not leaving access to the door anyway. Kirsty disagrees....
Sorry for yet another long post with lots ideas as I think of them...
Hadyn
______________________________
I reckon the chairs get pulled up to the table in this underground theatrical room and they all have a seance with the phantom ;D
Kirsty
-
I just wish something spooky would walk through one of those doors...I'd love to meet one. :o...it could help me on me paper round. ::) ::) ::)
Derek. 8)
-
There may be a wardrobe or two in the room...we don't know what's behind the photographer.
C
-
Like Lydart, I'm thinking this is a stage set. Everything is arranged 'towards' the 'audience'.
-
Sorry Lydart and Paul, but I've got to disagree. I'm actually a stage technician (hence my intrigue with the lighting in the photo too!) and to me, it's far too involved for a stage set. There is too much furniture and not enough acting space, especially for two or more characters. It would make for an awful acting area and I doubt there is much room behind the photographer for the audience and even if it went back farther, it would be very narrow. If it was a little production for friends or family, then I doubt anyone would go to these lengths to create a set like this!
I'm assuming of course that the play is performed in this room and that the room hasn't been built in a larger space, which is even less likely given the ornate ceiling.
This said, a stage set would be a good reason to take the photo - I would be proud of a set like that!
Hadyn
-
I don't think it's a stage set, but it has been staged, if you see what I mean...it may be that it's someone's actual room, and it's been enhanced with props.
I'm going round in circles with this!
Prue
-
It reminds me of the way a room is set up when visitors are shown around an historic house- if someone famous lived there, visitors would be told "This is just how they left it", when of course it isn't really true, it's staged.
I'm wondering whether it is where someone important in the spiritual world of the 19th century lived, and maybe visitors or followers could buy photos as keepsakes.
If you google 19th century spiritualism and photography, there are lots of references to the use of photos (and fakes). There are also characters such as Madame Blavatsky who started huge spiritual movements after having "experiences"- including one in an old attic room she was sharing with another believer.
It just seems to have that feeling of "Look at this picture-this is XXX's actual bedroom."
Fred
-
Fred - that's my view too :)
It's all faked to suggest sinister/supernatural and eveyday at the same time. It's easy to do with photography.
Gadget
-
And the hint of a ghost would be enough to titillate the followers -they would think they had just discovered it on the photo. :)
-
All we want now is for one (or more) of our super photographer members to set up something similar and show it to us to prove this sort of thing CAN be done ....
... hey, wait a minute ! I've sussed it !
When are you going to own up, Martian1 ?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
And the hint of a ghost would be enough to titillate the followers -they would think they had just discovered it on the photo. :)
How about this Fred
(http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=221995.0;id=41490;image)
-
One of the photos on the centre table ( 2nd from our left) seems to be a picture of a nun. Given the suggestion that this room has a church connection...could it possibly be the nunnery? (And yes I know...what would the nuns be doing with a puppet in a glass box? I don't know!!! :P) But perhaps the 'ghost in the corner' is really nun's attire?
Nina
-
I'm not sure what to think now Lydart's sussed it ;D
-
:D :D :D :D ha ha haaaaa!
Love it - but sadly my truth is the negative was found in the possessions of the 'clairvoyant' after she died.
Yes Fred! :o
The historic staged room sounds perfect and the photos are of the dead people in communicado with the dotty lady and she lit similar candles while having one of her chats! Why the clairvoyant would have the neg, heavens knows (!!!!!!!!!!) ;D ;D ;D She was my great aunt and did live in London and was well known on the spiritualist circuit and was a lady freemason too (didn't know they existed, but they do). She had connections with a number of artists and 'famous' people of the time (I'm informed), so perhaps she knew the photographer personally - although the negative pre-dated her.
:)
Bye for now, Kirsty
-
Having read through the thread again, I'm getting suspicious. Thanks for looking through your lens, Derek, you're doll's house has given me another idea :)
I know that many photgraphers over the past 15 years or so have used many of the old techniques - I did some myself once or twice - and I'm now wondering if it is a modern photograph of a model/mock-up room using the glass plate technique.
There are many modern photgraphers who shoot domestic scenes from mock-ups so why not a total re-creation :-\ :-\ :-\
Where, when was the plate discovered, Martian?
Gadget
That's what you said to mje when I said this, Kirsty/Hadyn ;D
-
Not sure what you're saying, Gadget. ???
The plate was discovered in Worthing. In 1982.
-
I believe it to be a spoof photo created by a 19th century photgrapher, either for fun or for dramatic effect. Like the fairies one.
When will you get the envelope with the photographer's name on it?
Gadget
Added - this link gives some links to egs of 19th century spirit photography:
http://www.spirithistory.com/photos.html
I think the room was set up and photgraphed so that another image could be superimposed and printed.
-
Look at the version of the photo that Gadget enhanced, and see here, left of the Marionette's display case. Is that a double image or are my eyes playing tricks?
Rian.
-
Check the original on the first page - it's different.
-
Rian ~
If you look at my posting I said that i had made a quick change - I straightened up the monkey and table. If I had spent a bit more time the double image would not be there - I would have removed it ;D
It was to demonstrate that that side wasn't taken on the same plate as the other side.
Gadget
Worthing indeed!!
-
Worthing indeed!!
Modified reply:
Worthing, Sussex, is where the negs currently reside - the two sisters both died there, but it's doubtful that's where the pictures were taken. One sister was born in London, the other in Scotland and they had a younger brother, who was also born in London (Islington), where the family stayed until the 1960's. The sisters were great hoarders of family history artifacts - happy are we for newspaper clippings, photos and letters! ;D
Hadyn & Kirsty
-
So now we have Spirtualist,s,plus female Freemason,s,plus a Scottish connection! More interesting by the minute,and no one has mentioned the fact that the photo frame,s facing us on the table are of the fold up concertina type used by frequent traveller,s.(Not Romany please!)
Could the mismatch of various angle,s,item,s etc;have been caused by accident or vibration? Or can it be proven otherwise?
The 'Ghost' image seem,s to be a reflection of a 'something' from behind us,our right shoulder.
I agree it all look,s a bit fishy,but if as one post suggested it is pro tem housing,well,Isuppose some of us have done that,with similar,tidy,but 'not right' result,s?
Goggy. ;) ;D ???
-
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/hadynwilliams/curtain.jpg)
Another item in the room: this curtain. Concealing a passage, or a hidey-hole for spooks? ;) Or a small window - drawn because it's night?
I hadn't noticed it before - even though we've been staring at the display case. Speaking of which, you can't see through 2 sides of the case. Hmmm. Isn't there a sharp line between the curtain and the pillar - it's like the pillar image has chopped off the end of the curtain.
This thread is ridiculously entertaining and absorbing. I must find something else to do while I wait for the neg envelope to surface. I have a 10 week old baby. If she didn't sleep so much, I wouldn't be here - shouldn't complain!
'Night - Kirsty
________________________________
Hadyn:
For the first time since posting it, I'm actually starting to look much more closely at the image. The two images below where I've highlighted show clear lines where the photo has unmistakably been cut and put together as well as other tell-tale signs.
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/hadynwilliams/leftside.jpg)
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/hadynwilliams/rightside.jpg)
After a couple of days, I actually wondered whether the image was in fact transferred from a standard film negative onto the glass for some reason. The fact that the photo has been cut around, edited and put together provides this reason I would think.
It seems to beg the question:
why is the image of this room important enough to edit?
EDIT: I wondered why there are two seemingly identical negatives in the envelope. On my own computer I have two apparently identical files labelled 1 and 2.2. I've been assuming that they were both scans of the same negative, just that 2.2 was a rescan - I did the scans back in January. I just now noticed the sharp cut line in the image, then flicked back to the other scan and.... the line wasn't there!!! :o I think I must have scanned both images (not one, as I had thought) which I assumed were identical, but are subtly different - one has been put together better. I will post both the images I have in a new post for all to inspect! This certainly proves quite a few theories!!!
Excited Hadyn ;D
-
As mentioned in above post, here are the two seemingly identical, yet different negatives I scanned
1) labeled on my HDD '1 best'
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/hadynwilliams/1best.jpg)
2) Labeled on my HDD '2.2 room'
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/hadynwilliams/room2-1.jpg)
3) what gave it away:
(http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/hadynwilliams/differences.jpg)
room 2.2 also appears to have been scanned at higher resolution!
hmm, seems odd that the studs around the image are identical...
Hadyn
_________________
Trickery after all ::) But why? Is it for the benefit of the ghostly figure? :-\
Kirsty
-
hmmm... :-\
I don't know....I think the sharp vertical line in the first version is just due to the low resolution of the scan, and not anything that exists on the actual neg.
A scan of each neg at the same resolution (600dpi) would tell us for sure - don't suppose that's possible?
I know we're probably never going to work this out, but it's fun detective work anyway - and I kinda like the ridiculously long threads that you can never escape from!! ;D
Prue
-
Curtain behind ET ? No ... its four coats hung up on four coat-hooks ! Look again ...
-
Certainly are coats, Lydart!
I'm glad that Hadyn has had chance to look at the photo in more detail. The various different angles and lighting effects are the give away fro it being a 'stick and paste' job of some kind. It is possible that the 'roof' might also be from somewhere else. All things are possible in a darkroom then and on a computer today.
My Worthing comment was said in the manner of all this very strange saga - spritualism, circuses, etc. and then Worthing. I was expecting someone to pull the ghost out of a handbag!
Gadget
-
I agree they are not curtains but the "coats" unless they are modern day dont look "bulky" enough to me ??? Had not noticed that fact that you cant see through the glass case, thats odd in itself. ???
-
They look like white coats like doctors wear. I still think the object on the right looks like a ballgown or wedding dress on a stand. It also seems to be in some sort of glass case, unless that is down to all the jiggerpokery that has gone on with the negative.
Liz
ps. Perhaps it isn't meant to be anything odd, just an attempt by a poor photographer like me to show a landscape view of the room and then when it didn't work out, the photographer tried to alter it and it all went totally wrong.
-
Looks along similar lines as the crypt of civilsation
http://www.kirchersociety.org/blog/?m=200607
Entry 20 July 2006
-
I am trying my best to sit back and listen to what comes over - but it's very difficult.
So if I may, let me put forward my humble opinion (as someone who has experience as
an A.P,I.) and also with a little experience in architectural photography.
I am absolutely certain that the photo' has not been doctored (don't ask for an explanation
- it would be long and complex - and I am busy /tired), however I do beleive that for
explanations already given (everything facing the camera - etc) that it is a set piece.
The unusual lighting is i believe (as I have already pointed out) due to painting with light.
As for the different angles of the walls, that is entirely due to the effect of both converging
verticals and converging horizontals - both influenced by the angle of the camera's focal plane.
Given that the forgoing is correct then we are left with the following questions, and
these are the important ones:
Is this an actual room that has been rearranged specifically for a photograph?
Is it a set up for to demonstrate something?
Is it a set up to mislead someone.
Then the final question must be either where or why ?
Denn
-
It's this sort of puzzle that will keep rootschatters busy for months! ;D
-
This is difficult to see and best done by manipulating the light levels on the
monitor. The space behind the railings has two square columns on each side
jutting out from the wall. These columns support ribs that rise to the apex of the room
to a large hanging boss. (sorry I don't know the technical term. ) This large boss seems to be casting the eagle shaped shadow. the light soorces seem to come from the left and the right (look at the shadows formed by the shelves at the back) This was probably done by firing flashes simultaneously from the left and the right.
The roof ribs at the rear are cast iron while the deeper ones at the front are probably cosmetic to enhance and beautify this particular area and hide the plainer cast
iron ones. The whole room therefore may have been a small chapel which had change of
use to living quarters.
Sorry for the crudity of the photo but I am rushing off to an appoinment.
The X's are the suare columns and the O's the deep ribs. A is the hanging boss.
Tomkin ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sorrry Denn, I have to disagree with you here. I also have experience and qualifications in this area and I believe the photograph is from more than one original. The sides just dont match at all. I've drawn various parallel lines - horizontally and vertically and the room and the furniture in it would just collapse if it was real.
I have chopped the two real sides and put them together. If you note the pillar on the right seems to become a flat wall, whereas it's opposite number on the left has a normal indented wall behind. The bed seems to stand in front of a void. The railings on the right don't seem to end anywhere......etc., etc.
Gadget
-
P.S.
I never thought that there was another bed behind the railings.
the iron bedstead that you think that you can see is a shadow cast on the wall
by the light from the left and the obect that is standing behind the railings.
Tomkin. Now I'm off ;D ;D ;D
-
I agree totally with Denn. I think that too many things are being read into
what is basically a very difficult scene to photograph.
Tomkin ;D ;D ;D ( now I'm definitely off )
( back shortly )
-
Sorrry Denn, I have to disagree with you here. ----How dare you disagree with ME
I have chopped the two real sides and put them together. If you note the pillar on the right seems to become a flat wall, whereas it's opposite number on the left has a normal indented wall behind.
Gadget
Okay Gadget, I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying about the pillars, But on close examination both left and right pillars appear to be three dimensional - it's just that the right hand one is much darker.
The only real puzzler to me is the horrific angle of the puppet/monkey in the glasss case.
Denn
-
My tuppence worth!
When I looked at the picture, it reminded me of somewhere I had been . . . . but where?
I read and re-read everyone's posts and a lot of them made perfect sense but it still gave me that feeling of deja-va. I rummaged through dozens of photos and leaflets to try and figure out where a place like this might have been . . . and then it struck me.
Last summer we visitied Glamis Castle, which although basically just up the road, it always seemed never to get to the top of our list to visit.
Anyway, the Chapel there. I think, is very similar. Obviously architecurally it's not identical (Glamis Chapel is said to be Jacobean) but the lay out is practically identical and has the same sort of divider. although not nearly as ornate, sectioning off the atlar.
My feelings are that possibly, this place, no longer being used as a chapel was turned into a kind of early bed-sit for the offspring of some landed gentry - getting them used to 'roughing-it' with a few bits and pieces flung in from mummy and daddy's collection of curiosities.
The following link is to the home page of St. Andrew's University Library, Photographic Archive
http://special.st-andrews.ac.uk/saspecial/index.php
Once there, type in chapel, glamis and there are photographs of both the crypt (which is similar in style to goodness knows how many other crypts) and the chapel
Anne
-
Yes, Glamis is a fascinating castle to visit.
I have visited Glamis Castle a number of times. The Chapel's flat ceiling is panelled, each panel consisting of a painted biblical scene. The walls are similarly decorated.
Worthy of note is that the barrel-vaulted crypt with its secret room, is neither in the cellar area or the attic. If you look up at the building from the outside, you can see where the secret room window has been 'bricked-up'.
-
I think that this could run and run. It was quite commonplace for glass plates to be combined - instances of breaking bits and amalgamating, etc. Landscape photographers often used a plate for the sky and one for the land because of exposure problems.
Spritualism and the occult was highly popular and there are many photos of attempts to 'snap' ectoplasm and ghosts, here and in USA.
As Fred said a few pages back, there is a mass of information about all this on the web.
In this particular photgraph there are two areas that don't ring true at all: the area around the 'headless body' and the left hand side - front to rails.
Many early messages on this thread were concerned with the 'ghostly apparition' and later, the animal in the glass case and the area in front of it, with it's misty 'ectoplasm-like' smudges, drew comment.
I think that this photo was an atempt to suggest a haunted room and given that it was later owned by two sisters who were in to all things supernatural, is it not likely that they might have acquired such an example.
Locating the place that this photo was taken at/in will, hopefully, be helped by the name of the photographer. Another possibility would be to find out who the important spiritualist groups were and where they lived.
Gadget
-
I'm still confused about the 'two' versions of the negative that were scanned in by martian... they are both clearly pinned to a board, by pins that look identical, and in the same position.
So, we're looking at a scan of a photo of a print, are we?
(I'm easily confused, as I have to keep a large part of my brain free'd up for '44,444th Rootschater' calculations!)
-
To my mind there is something odd about the perspective at the side where the bed and spooky figure are. The alignment of the bed in relation to the wall seems wrong. And could the figure be someone who moved while the exposure was being made? That might account for the blurry mass behind the right hand railing.
-
What a fascinating thread. After reading through everyones ideas my first thought is that the room used to be either a church or chapel that fell into dis-use and has been turned into private accomodation. (I know people who bought a defunct church and now live in it.)
So maybe the next question is where can one find churches in West Sussex that fell into dis-use? The only one that I know of is Buncton church near Wiston/Washington.
As for all the clutter, perhaps the two sisters needed to keep their worldly goods on display?
Jean
-
Hi Jean
Kirsty and Hadyn have said that the photograph was taken before the sister's were born (1890s) and they later acquired it. They seem to have travelled about a bit as well (France, Scotland and London have all been mentioned), so it's not likely that it's either their room and could well be outside of Sussex ???
Gadget
-
This thread has been going for only 3 days, and already we are on reply 205 ! Will it continue onto another new thread when we get to page 20, and will we get there before Easter ? Bets, anyone ? But at least the interest in this is giving the record offices and Ancestry a breather !
-
The women's 'spiritualist' days were mostly spent in London - they retired in Worthing, but kept it up there too. Apparently, the older sister, Lilian Frances was well respected for her palmistry. I remember placards dotted around the walls of Worthing Assembly Hall (the Town Hall's stage) - maybe 3' high boards - with her name and 'palmist' on them in huge, bold, black letters, back in the 1970's (my childhood). There wasn't another board in the room with anyone else's name and they stayed there for years - even after her death.
Lilian was an animal rights activist too and lobbied against Winston Churchill regarding tests on animals. Her address in London was Whitehall - she's in that Ancestry.com phone book collection and on the 1901 census incorrectly transcribed as "Schirton"
Kirsty
-
Ooops :-[ sorry Gadget I missed that bit. Must learn to read all the posting properly :)
Jean
-
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
It's a long thread Jean :o
I think we're going round in circles now though. I do hope they get that envelope soon or I'll be getting near a free TV licence rather than just a bus pass :-\
Gadget
-
It has been puzzling me also just why at least half of the bed in the forefront appears to be placed past the altar rail at the right side. ???
Also since the 2 photos have been reposted (page 13), is it just me or does the little soft toy (dog or bear) at the side of the bed have slight differences, or is it just the resolution of the photo that is different, ie in 1best, the overhang of the bedcover appears to touch the toy's head slighty, whereas in the 2.2 room photo the head is clear of the cover. :o
Anne
-
Hello All
I have read with great interest many of the post which are very interesting and plausible but like most photos of this nature are open to speculation.
It appears to have been taken in a old store/ house/ room or something similar. The candle seems to have been placed many years later just prior to the photo being taken.
I suspect it is taken with an old roll film camera with a faulty interlock to avoid you taking two pictures on ONE . IE double exposure one section of film. This would account for the LH side being taken in different light, after the RH side had already taken prior to the second one.
What looks like a mattress or stuffed armchair appears to have most of the straw "stuffing" exposed. This could be due to vermin having attacked the covering of the chair over time . The monkeys stance is probably due to the second exposure being taken at a slightly different angle to the first exposure.
This is my opinion based on progressive analysis, taking in to account that the objects in the room are from various dates. IE: the furniture object is typical of late Victorian with (copied Cromwellian type turned spindles). I do not think it is any para normal scene (very often used by speculators) for which is almost always a natural "double Exposure".
Before retirement I was involved in Engineering and Forensic Diagnosis, and I have applied the BASIC principles that I experienced over my lifetime. Without the actual photo(not a copy) , which is of very poor quality, in most cases a sound explanation could be reasonably achieved
Hope this gives room for thought on this intriguing photographic example.
Best Wishes to all
Raphael UK & D HNC. F.I.Diag.E. Uk & Diplo.Inj. Germany
-
The candle seems to have been placed many years later just prior to the photo being taken.
Raphael
Hi Raphael,
What gives you the idea about the candle? Because it's not burnt down?
Kirsty
-
The candle seems to have been placed many years later just prior to the photo being taken.
Raphael
Hi Raphael,
What gives you the idea about the candle? Because it's not burnt down?
Kirsty
Hi Kirsty,
I am aware that the candle was not burnt, I was referring to its age in relationship to the room.
Hope however analysis helped and gave room for thought.
Kind Regards
Raphael UK & D
-
Absolutely! It was a fascinating read and I appreciate both the comments and the time involved with reading and posting.
Thank you :) :) :)
Kirsty
-
Both candles appear to be sitting off-centre, particularly the one on the right. However, I just don't get how that would determine that they were placed there a number of years later!! To me, a candle is a candle is a candle. The design of candles never changed much in that era. Therefore, so what if fresh candles were put out!
So Raphael, can your forensic expertise explain in more detail just what exactly you mean, cos I am also missing the point of your diagnosis.
I personally so far, go along with Gadget, and think there is some truth in the photo having something to do with spiritualism.
Anne :P
-
In terms of the photgraphic analysis, Anne, I don't think there is much difference between Raphael and me. I talk about sandwich printing/montage with glass plates , whereas Raphael talks of double exposure on roll film. Roll film was first introduced in 1888 by Kodak on a small scale and more like that which we have known it in 1900.
My view that it was an atempt at psychic/spiritualist photgraphy was based on the history of this and the information that Kirsty has provided about the two ladies.
Gadget
-
Nobody has mentioned Stereo type viewers where 2 photographs are taken of the same scene but slightly different. When looked at through a proper unit it would
give a 3D effect. Very, Very popular in Victorian times.
Tomkin, Spooks Anonymous ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You're right there Mr Tomkin, S.A (Hons)
A good read of the history of photography would be illuminating.
Don't mention the lighting ;D ;D ;D
Gadget - just herself ;)
-
Nobody has mentioned Stereo type viewers where 2 photographs are taken of the same scene but slightly different. When looked at through a proper unit it would
give a 3D effect. Very, Very popular in Victorian times.
Tomkin, Spooks Anonymous ;D ;D ;D ;D
Nice thought Tomkin, and one which for a moment that cansidered may be correct. However there is a however to that thought (great bit of english there). That is, a 3D set consists of two photo's of an object that has a third dimension, this one however (there's that word again) is a photo of a photo.
Mind you thinking a bit more it may be two photo's of two photo's.
Denn
-
S.A (Hons)
Don't call me a S.A. Gel.
Wheres the oil lamp?
Tomkin ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
These photos are driving me mad, Denn & lovely Mr Tomkin (not S.A.) ::) ::) ::)
I have copies of them on two computers, bits scattered all around. I'm thinking of staging a mock up.
I give up ???
Gadget
-
These photos are driving me mad,
Gadget
Not me, I am just sat back enjoying it all and throwing in the odd comment now and again just to enrich the broth.
Denn
-
From a photographic point of view, the lighting and pattern of shadows suggest to us that bounced flash was used, with an assistant concealed behind some sort of disguised screen at the end of the bed (but semi-visible when lit by the flash) aiming the flash at the ceiling to the right, and the photographer or someone else bouncing another flash behind him on the left. This would account for the haziness at the left of the picture. The slightly distorted perspective could be the result both of the concealing screen and the use of a very wide-angle lens to take in the whole scene.
Isabel
-
Have absolutely loved reading this thread! Now think it's about time I added my thoughts (for what they're worth) ...
On page 13 (Reply No. 184), Haydn has posted copies of the two "different" negatives. However, each one has an identical drawing pin (top lefthand corner) and damaged tape (bottom righthand corner). Surely just two copies of the same picture attached to the same mount?
Not only the marionnette/monkey case is leaning into the room - look at the chair in front of it, and the chest-of-drawers behind the railings.
And, finally, right from the start I've been worried by the features on the back wall. Although everything seems to fit in nicely with the curve of the ceiling, don't you think that everything is a little too "tight", ie. when the doors are opened, there would be nothing between the aperture and the ceiling. I keep thinking that it looks as if the side walls and ceiling were built on to the existing rear wall!!!!
Pennie
-
On page 13 (Reply No. 184), Haydn has posted copies of the two "different" negatives. However, each one has an identical drawing pin (top lefthand corner) and damaged tape (bottom righthand corner).
Sorry, been meaning to mention this before...Both glass plates had/have brown tape stuck around the edges. Some of it has pealed off in places, but I assume it was so that people wouldn't cut themselves on the glass?? The stud/drawing pins are part of the image printed on the glass.
Hadyn
-
I thought that the doors etc were " trompe l'oeil" at first, but the shelves etc are not.
There is of course no reason why the doors could not open into a room beyond which may not be the same size and form as this room.
is leaning into the room - look at the chair in front of it,
Why not! my floors are like that ;D ;D ;D ;D
I'm posting a very crude and fast colour to show what I mean about the columns at
each side of the "private area. Of course there is not enough resolution to see any minute shading etc so some is purely guesswork. You can see from the " Eagle " that the light must have come from both left and right ( Flash ) and been formed by the pendular structure hanging from the ceiling. What worries me is the shadow at the side of the first column on the right. How was that formed?
Tomkin, Painter & Decorator. ( Have Bike . Will Travel. ) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
..Both glass plates had/have brown tape stuck around the edges. Some of it has pealed off in places, but I assume it was so that people wouldn't cut themselves on the glass?? The stud/drawing pins are part of the image printed on the glass.
Hadyn
Yes, most of those plates were just cut and never had the edges ground - handling them in the dark could be a risky buiseness.
Denn
-
Great bit of colour Tomkin. Looks a lot clearer to my old eyes. Although the square column bits don't look like they fit in. Why have only three on each side and why not going the length of the room evenly spaced?
I am thinking now that one is in a tunnel or archway area looking through to the back wall with two doors of a room or hall running past.
I do wonder if it is an early trial of a composite picture. I don't know much about the plates they used for early photography but suppose a picture was taken of one scene, then the same plate used to take a picture of another scene the the plate carefully positioned to expose only the area not used.
Bit like they can do these days when they use blue background when they do the weather to superimpose a different scene to where the weatherman is.
Seem to remember the little girl with the fairies turned out to be something like that.
Jean
-
Some interesting ideas to consider Jean - thanks!
I just wondered what 'the little girl with the fairies' is that you referred to???
Thanks,
Hadyn
-
It was a photograph taken in I think the 1930's of a little girl in a garden with a number of fairies flying around in front of her. Actually I think it was two little girls - sisters.
Anyway a few years ago it was confirmed that it was a fake when one of the girls revealed all to a newspaper. She said that the photographer had faked the picture.
Jean
-
The Cottingley Fairies :)
Here's a website - there are loads of others:
http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley/index.html
-
I think Tomkin's colouring made me look twice at the bed on the right hand side. Look at both his and the original, to my mind they are the same - the side of the foot of the bed is against the wall, lining up with the back of the chair, but the head of the bed is against the column. How can this be?
As far as the leaning table and money are concerned, the right side of the skirt around the table hangs vertical as it would if the table is at that angle. If it was the picture of the table with monkey that was skewiff then the skirt would stick out at an angle.
Now shoot me down.
-
This thread is still running and running I see !
I go back to what I suggested earlier (or maybe two of my suggestions) ... as several other people are repeating and re-repeatng !
1) trompe l'oeil would explain the far end ... the whole of that end wall could just be painted, doors and all ? When I was at school, back in the dark ages, I painted school play scenery ... and unfortunately cant find a photo of it ... but I remember painting columns for the set ... and it wasn't until I saw a photo of the set after the play was finished, that I realised I had got the shadows wrong on columns.
2) the two side doors couldn't be opened towards us ... but they could be opened away from us ... and I go back to what I suggested earlier that this end wall reminds me of the screen in an Orthodox church, where the side doors open away, and into the sanctuary (there would also have to be a central door, but that could be hidden behind the central part if that section is painted on a board ?)
This rather poor photo shows what I mean ? The left and centre doors are obvious; the right hand door in the iconostasis is somewhat hidden behind the epitafia ?
-
Although the square column bits don't look like they fit in. Why have only three on each side and why not going the length of the room evenly spaced?
It's not a case of wether they fit in or not. The fact is that they are there.
Why have only 3 on each side? As I said earlier it is to identify this area as an important place. If it was a chapel this is where the altar would be. The rest of the room would be
relatively unimportant.
Tomkin ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Thanks for that Tomkin, the colouring explains a lot of the confusing detail. The bed beyond the rail is clearly between the square pillar (nearer) and the round column behind, which is why you can see all of the foot board but part of the headboard is obscured.
The room is longer than I thought initially (I was assuming That the length could be calculated by assuming beds to be approx. six feet and doing a comparison between chair height at front and against back wall (approx 2 times) and the heights of the bed head and foot on the near bed as both ends appear to be constructed the same - but haven't yet got around to working out how to measure these accurately).
The arches supported by the pillars and the pillars themselves may be hiding other things. Probably side windows at the chapel end and it would be quite normal for the ceiling to be higher or even domed over the altar area if the room was purpose built.
Even a conversion may have deliberately introduced the arches at that end of the room to provide a contrasting extra height over the altar. The daylight from the right side is much stronger so taken with the idea of additional artificial lighting from that centre fixing, may account for the cross shadows, the completely shaded dark pillar on the right and the pool of light on the floor beyond the left hand chest of drawers towards the far end. The shadows on the doors confused me at first but I have since realised that my modern reproduction doors have mouldings on the panels. If those wooden doors are similar it would account for the apparently alternating shadows on different parts of the doors.
Using magnification, you can see not only the half-gate folded back on the left but also the back (same width as the end support of the altar rails) and some turned spindles, slightly to the left of it, from the gate at the right which is not quite fully at a right angle to the rails.
The viewpoint seems to me now to be not central, as I at first thought, but along the line of the end of the right hand altar rail. The table nearest the camera is offset a little to the right, possibly to allow freer access around the room. It's a much bigger room than seemed at first glance.
Also I don't think the glass case is closed on two sides, although it may have a rear blank panel. It may be that the light reflecting though/off it is causing a limit on what can be seen through it but the edge of the pillar is clearly visible as is the furthest garment/curtain edge behind it.
-
ENVELOPE DETAILS HAVE ARRIVED!!! The negatives may not pre-date the sisters.
I have details from a phone conversation, but I'm told that a scan will follow at some point today.
There were two envelopes for the three negatives and we're not sure which pics were in which one (the two room pictures and the cat - apparently the sisters and their family before them always owned a cat called Monty, replaced by another Monty and another...)
Brown paper fold out wallets. Both have machine sewn sides.
"postage" is written where a stamp would go
2oz 1 1/2p
4oz 2p
6oz 2 1/2p
Printed in very large uppercase on both:
TO WILL R. ROSE, LTD
Photographic Chemist
25, PROMENADE
CHELTENHAM
Their are different addresses on each. The other address on the second envelope is
TO WILL R. ROSE, LTD
Photographic Chemist
133/134 HIGH STREET
OXFORD
"Have you enclosed your name & address?"
On the back:
"Order your new films now from Will R Rose because they are guaranteed. They are sent POST FREE. They are accompanied by the Will R Rose wrapper, which is an ingenious device and ensures safe postal transit."
I don't know if this fits in, but this link mentions Rose and a chapel in the same breath.
http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/12hp92/chapel.html
Another link had this:
Artists' Papers Register Corporate Authority Record
GB/NNAF/B76197
Will R Rose Ltd, Photographers
Dates: Existed from 1905 to 1992
Thesaurus
PHOTOGRAPHERS
PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIOS
Archival Resources
Number noted: 1
Minutes, annual reports, ledgers, scrapbooks, photographs, etc., 1905-1992
Held at: Cheshire and Chester Archives and Local Studies
Document reference: CR705
Date of creation: 07 November 2002
http://www.apr.ac.uk/artists/searches/artistrecs.asp?ARID=GB/NNAF/B76197
Hadyn is out, so he has yet to see that we have details on the envelopes now.
Happy me! ;D
Kirsty
-
Well :o :o :o :o
But was this Rose the photographer or did he just process it? And was it just for the cat photo? The Chapel sounds interesting. Maybe he took a photo before he demolished it all?
Gadget
PS - what about the glass plates ??? ??? ???
-
Wow, just seen the info on the envelopes...not sure what it means with regards to the photo though...!
PS - what about the glass plates ??? ??? ???
Sorry, what about them?
Hadyn
-
I take it that these negatives were from photographs of the glass plates which had the brown paper around the edges? Or did the envelopes contain the glass plates?
Gadget
-
I take it that these negatives were from photographs of the glass plates which had the brown paper around the edges? Or did the envelopes contain the glass plates?
Gadget
The glass plates are the negatives which came in the envelopes, which are pretty heavy duty card to keep them safe. So the glass negatives had the brown paper around them and the envelopes to protect them.
When I scanned them I had to invert the colours to get the true image - So I've been assuming all along that negatives is the right term for the glass plates???
Hadyn
-
"postage" is written where a stamp would go
2oz 1 1/2p
4oz 2p
6oz 2 1/2p
"p" or "d"?
-
d, I would think. I was told p, but that's probably because my mum was thinking in pence. I will check, but yes, assume d, unless I say otherwise.
Kirsty
-
Help............ where is the colour photo, I cant find it. :'( :'( :'(
Ahh........ fo und it now ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Just wanted to bump this up again because I can never find it when I'm looking for it :P
Cheers all,
China
-
Hi to all I am new to this site and have been very intrigued but his therad.
I may have missed it but no one has mentioned anything about the double exposure of a Lady's head and hand sat just above the pillow of the bed in the forground. It can't be seen unless you zoom in. I believe the cloak also belong to the double exposure.
I think the upper bed sits in a window recess and would explain some of the shadow issues.
The room is definitely constructed to be a chapel and has been used for extending the accommodation of the building.
As to all the pictures facing the camera the table in the forground looks to be being used as a righting desk containing a book and pen and may be what looks like an ink well.
sorry if this confuses matters more but it's very intriguing.
Scroll down to the attic room of this link (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.chateaudelacaillotiere.com/images/CHAPELLE_001.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.chateaudelacaillotiere.com/accommodation.htm&h=270&w=220&sz=10&hl=en&start=142&um=1&tbnid=eC6lsn-IO_ua7M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=92&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsmall%2Bchapel%2Bvaulted%26start%3D126%26ndsp%3D21%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DRNWE,RNWE:2007-16,RNWE:en%26sa%3DN)
Moderator comment: long link shortened
-
I'm glad this has popped up again ! It was certainly intriguing ... did we actually reach any conclusions ? (17 pages is a lot to re-read !)
Your attic room, especially the ceiling, is very similar ...
-
There was an article in the last Sat. Telegraph magazine about a couple who converted an old chapel in Camberwell. It wasn't exactly the same as this one but it certainly looked similar in many of the details, especially where they had fitted mezzanine floors to create 2 levels.
Unfortunately I can't find the article online, but it says it was built in 1903 as part of Goldsmiths'College.
Fred