Theories Discussion > KGB / Radiation / Military involvement
Semyon's Final Photo's enhanced and colourised/colorized
sparrow:
In Keith McClosky's book he states that these individual pictures were blown up 1000 times to get the images we see now. If those pictures had to be blown up that many times to see anything, how could the hikers have seen those images with the naked eye? If there is some secret to how this can be, someone please tell me.
eurocentric:
--- Quote from: sparrow on August 02, 2020, 11:33:27 PM ---In Keith McClosky's book he states that these individual pictures were blown up 1000 times to get the images we see now. If those pictures had to be blown up that many times to see anything, how could the hikers have seen those images with the naked eye? If there is some secret to how this can be, someone please tell me.
--- End quote ---
That will be a wild exaggeration if so, because 'blowing up' (enlarging) a negative to 1000 times magnification would show massive image grain, focussing down on the actual grain in the emulsion, and yet a lamp is as clear as that in one image.
If these were originally printed out, and not more recently digitally scanned, 1000x magnification would also require the enlarger head to be around 30ft above the photographic paper, needing very specialised equipment, a powerful bulb and long exposures in the darkroom.
We also know the scale of two of the images from the negative sprocket holes. While the rest of the original images do not show sprocket holes, they are still generally in 35mm format, so I see no reason to presume they are not the whole image.
sarapuk:
--- Quote from: eurocentric on July 31, 2020, 03:26:56 PM ---The film would still be processable, immersion in cold pure water for several months won't erase the images. Cameras have been dropped in lakes, and even salt water, and the film is still recoverable.
If light gets in the same way the water does to re-expose the film that's a different matter. The danger comes from handling the film, because it may have stuck together, and loading it into a reel for a developing tank, though there are no fingerprints.
I used to do B&W and colour film processing, some of the images on these exposures, such as a clearly defined lamp and the 'plane' are not caused by any damage I've ever seen to film. The contours and the 3D flap edge on 'Jaws' the same. They are exposures, within the limit of night photography where a prolonged exposure has not been used to catch all available light, on subjects which would need to remain still to avoid blurring if it was.
It's just a question of what they are, and also, since we don't know for sure Semyon took these on the fateful night, when and where they were taken. He could have previously taken these photo's and brought this other camera along to use up the rest of the exposures, but never did.
--- End quote ---
Yes thats true and I have actually mentioned that elsewhere re water damage. I also did my own film processing in the 1960's. It could still be some form of damage. Its difficult to say. Like so much of this Dyatlov Mystery. It could well be that one or more of the Group took photos of objects that played a part in their eventual demise.
sarapuk:
--- Quote from: Star man on August 01, 2020, 02:39:54 AM ---Some of the images are highly magnified parts of a frame so that needs to be taking into account. Some of the images such as plane 1 and 2 kind of look like photos of tears and holes taken from inside the tent with light from outside coming through the holes. Don't know why anyone would want an album of tent holes though.
Regards
Star man
--- End quote ---
Very interesting suggestion. Could one of the Group have taken photos within the tent during some kind of Incident ? !
sarapuk:
--- Quote from: sparrow on August 02, 2020, 11:33:27 PM ---In Keith McClosky's book he states that these individual pictures were blown up 1000 times to get the images we see now. If those pictures had to be blown up that many times to see anything, how could the hikers have seen those images with the naked eye? If there is some secret to how this can be, someone please tell me.
--- End quote ---
Well maybe Keith McClosky is wrong.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version