On Flickr: faked zeppelin pinhole photo on Polaroid 665 generates discussion

[Trask]

I was browsing through Flickr looking at photos developed in Emofin, and recalled that I had some 665 sitting in the basement, so thought to see what others had done with it. I came across an interesting photo of a dirigible over the Platte River in the U.S., allegedly taken with a pinhole camera using 665 P/N film: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michael-pastur/274722148/

My first impression what that it couldn't be (from a photographic point of view -- didn't look right, out of proportion, etc.), and the discussion on the main page and on the page where the photographer demonstrates how he did it (https://www.flickr.com/photos/michael-pastur/4467100167/in/photostream/ ) strikes me as an interesting display of the differing views of what constitutes photography -- so many people bought into it, and then continued to defend the misrepresentation of the image because they liked how it looked, honesty be damned. Yes, it's a pinhole photo, yes, it's 665 film, but no, it's not a real zeppelin hovering over the heartland; it's a manipulated image that was passed off as straight, there's the rub.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I see it as a very clever image of a toy zeppelin flying through a space...

Jerry Uelsmann floated all kinds of objects in the sky. I am not sure what he has to defend here about the zeppelin shot . Was he representing this as no contrived?

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is Fauxography via Photo$hop and therefore not worth the bandwidth on the internet.

 

[MrBrowning]

Yes, it's a pinhole photo, yes, it's 665 film, but no, it's not a real zeppelin hovering over the heartland; it's a manipulated image that was passed off as straight, there's the rub.

I'd agree with you if the photographer was trying to put it off as a news piece or some type of documentary photography / photo journalism. They weren't. It was just an image made. The photographer never said "hey look what I saw in real life" or anything like it.

 

[Bill Burk]

He needs to come out to California and fly the Spruce Goose over the Queen Mary!

 

[ic-racer]

Wow, I have some 665 in the basement also. Whipped out my pinhole camera and came up with this.... Am I now approved for a Flicker account?

 

[pdeeh]

I'm sorry ic-racer but that image is clearly a photoshop fake. If I download it and view it at 300% with enhancements, I can clearly see Howard Hughes on the bridge of the Queen Mary, and after 40 seconds googling I can find no reference on any of my conspiracy websites to suggest he ever sailed on the Queen Mary. What is more, Elvis is rather obviously piloting the Spruce Goose.

 

[Arctic amateur]

it's a manipulated image that was passed off as straight

The image isn't manipulated. It's a straightforward picture of a model blimp in front of a river scene, using the pinhole DoF to create the illusion. The manipulation is in the caption.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Cool picture. The hyperbole in the Flickr comments is even more impressive however.

 

[ic-racer]

The image isn't manipulated. It's a straightforward picture of a model blimp in front of a river scene, using the pinhole DoF to create the illusion. The manipulation is in the caption.

Yes, pictures cannot commit fraud, a person needs to be involved.

 

[Truzi]

The photographer seems to be into "historic" processes.

Loch Ness Monster:
http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/the_surgeons_photo/

Cottingley Fairies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

 

[pdeeh]

The manipulation is in the caption.

The picture is captioned "Pinhole image of a zeppelin over the Platte River.

The caption describes the picture perfectly truthfully, but not unambiguously.

If the photograph were presented without a caption, would it be less unambiguous?

 

[Saganich]

I like the flicker comment, "This photo is obviously a fake!" Like it was a bigfoot photo.

 

[DannL.]

I thought the building, bridge and river were simulated using model construction. Then to find out that the zeppelin was a model was a huge disappointment.

 

[adelorenzo]

Wow, that image is fantastic.

 

[Ian Leake]

The picture is captioned "Pinhole image of a zeppelin over the Platte River.

The caption describes the picture perfectly truthfully, but not unambiguously.

If the photograph were presented without a caption, would it be less unambiguous?

If it was intended to be a documentary photo, then I'd argue that the caption is misleading. More appropriate would be: "Pinhole image of a model zeppelin over the Platte River." But it's clearly not intended to be a documentary photo so the caption is irrelevant.

Still, I find it interesting how people assumed that this photo must be a literal transcription of reality. If there's a zeppelin in the photo then it must be a real one - or otherwise the whole photo is a fake, and a Photoshop fake at that. If he'd captioned it, "My Grandma Comes to Tea," then there'd still be people complaining about fakery.

 

[pdeeh]

How is intention revealed?

 

[Ian Leake]

How is intention revealed?

Good question. I can think of three ways:

1. Choice of medium/process is a good indicator – pinholes aren't normally associated with photo-journalism
2. The overall look of a photo – this doesn't look like a documentary photo to me
3. How this fits into the photographer's wider body of work

Individually none of these are conclusive evidence, but as a group that fairly compelling.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I think the caption was intentionally vague to allow people to think it might be a real zeppelin. Based on the Flickr comments it worked. Is that disingenuous? Not explicitly but it's not the way I would have titled it, but that's just me.

 

[Bill Burk]

While ic-racer's response to my joke was clearly that... a pun and a beautifully executed joke...

This pinhole photograph of a model hanging close to the camera, is a wonderful illusion which takes advantage of the fact that "everything is sharp".

It is a very effective pinhole photograph (shows what the medium is capable of, like Group f.64 principles). And you know... it adheres to APUG principles. So I would be happy if Michael C. Pastur joined APUG and started adding to our galleries.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

I found the whole thing amusing. Many of the Yahoo commentators seemed to be very concerned about the veracity of the photographic image, while displaying their ignorance of the history of LTA flight, as many of them didn't seem to know the difference between a "blimp" and a rigid airship, and specifically what constitutes a "Zeppelin" type airship. Many of them seemed upset that they were fooled into believing an airship was flying over a modern city in 2015, while totally missing the irony of it being a 1930's-era German rigid.

~Joe