tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post6283288840082110268..comments2024-03-20T18:13:07.791-07:00Comments on LOCH NESS MONSTER: The Peter O' Connor Photograph (Part II)Glasgow Boyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-10694006028443042342016-02-01T13:13:01.189-08:002016-02-01T13:13:01.189-08:00That would be tending towards darkness I reckon.That would be tending towards darkness I reckon.Martin Curranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09590190801760284564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-54406859046354324482016-02-01T05:49:21.774-08:002016-02-01T05:49:21.774-08:001/50s shutter speed and f/18 I reckon. I think I n...1/50s shutter speed and f/18 I reckon. I think I need to do some experiments with a modern flash, reflective object two hours after dawn in my back garden ....Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-60002214724490331652016-02-01T05:47:41.042-08:002016-02-01T05:47:41.042-08:00Ah good, this article on a google search for "...Ah good, this article on a google search for "peter o'connor loch ness monster" has knocked Darren Naish's article on "dodgy" nessie photos into third place. Part I of this series is still top.<br /><br />Thanks! The message continues to get out.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-40382160750591931972016-02-01T02:53:45.634-08:002016-02-01T02:53:45.634-08:00I tried a little experiment as I have an interest ...I tried a little experiment as I have an interest in photography myself, although not of the film era. This should not matter as the same rules apply today as they did then, the only difference being that digital cameras use sensor sensitivity instead of film speed (though an ISO 100 film corresponds to a digital camera set at ISO 100).<br /><br />I have scant information about the settings of the Brownie 20 flash, although it seems to have had a shutter speed of 1/30 seconds and a variable aperture (of what I'm not sure, but I believe it is the subject of the 3 settings, and the lens is give as an f/11). I did happen to note some authority on these cameras referring to a film speed of ISO 50, which would be a worst case scenario for ambient light gathering. So all in all, who knows? But I'll have a go anyway based on 'worst case scenario'.<br /><br />I took a series of photos of my garden, in shade with the sun behind me (2 hours after rising) at f/11 down to f/22 (the narrowest aperture my lens will go), 1/30 sec and ISO 100. I then repeated using a shutter speed of 1/60 (which replicates the action of an ISO 50 film setting). Basically, the long and the short of it is, using a fairly wide variety of settings (which may or may not be the right ones, but it's best guess time here), that at the worst case scenario settings, it was pretty hard to discern anything that was lit by ambient light. The shots were not 'detail free', but it depended on the colour / reflectiveness of the subject. At worst, almost nothing could be seen. Photos involving the sky were different as the sky could be seen clearly at all of the settings that I had tested.<br /><br />My guess would be, in a fairly soberly lit and coloured natural environment, at poor camera settings, good luck trying to discern anything that doesn't have the sun shining on it, or isn't fairly brightly coloured. Of course, why Mr O'Connor did not have the print 'pushed', which may well have allowed for the extraction of further detail, is a mystery to me (as I'm fairly sure any decent film developer would have been aware of this procedure which, I am given to believe, was used regularly to extract more detail from deliberately underexposed shots when a higher shutter speed was needed). But then, given the quality of the lens and film type, there may not have been much detail to extract at all.<br /><br />The flash itself has no bearing on the amount of ambient light captured by the camera, and just illuminates a given area (which varies with film ISO speed and aperture, but will never travel very far). What the flash will do is freeze motion, even at low shutter speeds (and the Brownie 20 has a low shutter speed, be it 1/30 or 1/50 sec). However, a technique I've seen used is low shutter speed with flash, which will typically capture a crisp, static image of a dancer (for example), but there is the appearance of 'blur' around said dancer as the ambient portion of the exposure picks up some movement. This is of course only relevant if the camera settings allow for ambient light capture in any meaningful form, which in this case, they may not have. It could be the case that all light captured in this photo was provided by the flash, which would explain a lack of motion blur. From my quick experiment, I'm guessing Mr O'Connor's settings would need to be of the 'worst case scenario' variety.Martin Curranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09590190801760284564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-60257663757675189202016-01-31T01:13:46.938-08:002016-01-31T01:13:46.938-08:00"Why can't you set up a hoax at 0400 and ..."Why can't you set up a hoax at 0400 and still state the event as happening at 0400?". Simple: why was he up at 4am? Insomniac? Likes walking around in total darkness? I see no mention in his statement that he *heard* a commotion and that commotion drew him to investigate (or am I wrong?). Otherwise, no sane person is up and about at 4am, well before sunrise. Not even the most intrepid investigator :)jamesravhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00870675215940687987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-32955208438389238952016-01-30T19:11:10.436-08:002016-01-30T19:11:10.436-08:00To me it looks turtle-like...To me it looks turtle-like...Olrikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14519546544726111480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-79303798281671642072016-01-30T16:40:34.877-08:002016-01-30T16:40:34.877-08:00No sign of Fulcher, but O'Connor's family ...No sign of Fulcher, but O'Connor's family have been contacted by others. If they had confessed on behalf of Peter, I am sure we would have all heard of it by now ....<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-51918372615930252102016-01-30T16:39:09.640-08:002016-01-30T16:39:09.640-08:00Yes, I see your point, but it is not inconsistent ...Yes, I see your point, but it is not inconsistent with other witness reports. But an attempt to draw the complete O'Connor creature would be an interesting exercise.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-4800829292768884832016-01-30T09:17:15.427-08:002016-01-30T09:17:15.427-08:00Fantastic research you've carried out on this ...Fantastic research you've carried out on this picture ,when i first saw it in dinsdales book i thought wow (i was a small boy then)just one thing & i'm sorry if its been covered already but is peter o'connor still alive ? or any of his northern naturalists org collegues still about ? i know its a long time ago & has/did he ever given any further details about the photo ? bodge from suffolkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11132211236189398270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-80615743331056909042016-01-30T05:29:14.384-08:002016-01-30T05:29:14.384-08:00Fascinating analysis GB. I'm still skeptical o...Fascinating analysis GB. I'm still skeptical of the photo for purely subjective reasons (the curvature of the front portion of the hump down to the water seems to abrupt to me. I would think the curve would be more graceful. And the angle of the neck in relation to this curve implies a kind of U bend attachment point of neck to hump below the water. Such a bend seems very unlikely). But you've got my attention for sure!<br />Paddy paddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990245875787442561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-29189174225670603112016-01-29T09:04:26.111-08:002016-01-29T09:04:26.111-08:00I wouldn't wade in after it .. I think.I wouldn't wade in after it .. I think.<br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-31718523338140822862016-01-29T08:43:36.731-08:002016-01-29T08:43:36.731-08:00Very well thought out and logical approach to this...Very well thought out and logical approach to this classic sighting. I think O'Connor had some nerves of steel if this is actually a live animal. The excitement would be overwhelming to most people of entering the loch and being that close to a large creature. Some details in time would possibly be mistaken or accidentally recorded wrong perhaps. Think of being there and seeing that! Most people on Earth would freeze up and fumble their camera. Jordan Newhouse Artworkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11106532852180727936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-8947837892017007582016-01-29T07:12:54.596-08:002016-01-29T07:12:54.596-08:00Great read I'm looking forward to future posts...Great read I'm looking forward to future posts.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07597806703469532486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-10756036215847609152016-01-29T05:01:52.450-08:002016-01-29T05:01:52.450-08:00It is an interesting photo indeed. It very much re...It is an interesting photo indeed. It very much resembles the drawings that Miss Mcinnes drew of her sighting in 1993.Nessie hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16229224123946060762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-3600081728640346382016-01-29T04:01:53.642-08:002016-01-29T04:01:53.642-08:00I ran the picture through some commerical software...I ran the picture through some commerical software to look for clues, but nothing stood out at the time. Worth another look though.<br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-74814859341638224412016-01-29T03:58:28.694-08:002016-01-29T03:58:28.694-08:00Could this photograph be subjected to the same enh...Could this photograph be subjected to the same enhancement process as the Apollo Moon photos.Some people claim to see artifacts in the black sky of the Moon.<br /><br />Jack.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12914796874850776029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-68980735787807683042016-01-29T00:56:02.309-08:002016-01-29T00:56:02.309-08:00Yes, well, I am not finished in addressing objecti...Yes, well, I am not finished in addressing objections to the picture, so watch this space.<br /><br />If the headland I mentioned is the same headland as O'Connor then the picture has been reversed by publishers. Not the first time I have seen this happen.<br /><br />Glasgow Boyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03597014995112568086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-358999656752738469.post-59579155725229130522016-01-28T16:11:15.806-08:002016-01-28T16:11:15.806-08:00Very interesting, as always. I don't think O&#...Very interesting, as always. I don't think O'Connor was lying about the time; the croppping of the image may not have been the only thing done in the dark room. Your theory has some merit too. But the lighting/time isn't the biggest problem here - this is just not a photo of a moving object. With a quick exposure we should see some serious wake from this huge animal swimming by at close range; with a long enough exposure to get an iamge in low light, even with a flash, we should see some motion blur. I am also curious about "Nessie's" total non-reaction to the fact that a person is wading out towards it, as well as the fact that O'Connor described it as having eyes but that they were shut. So this creature who rarely surfaces swims about with its eyes closed? I guess that is why it couldn't see O'Connor? As far as your location - you mention a "headland"; well that is where O'Connor says he first spotted his monster...hopkarmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04721458738337150295noreply@blogger.com