Man scratched out of picture.

Discuss Harland and Wolff here.

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby Dave Gittins » Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:38 am

It wasn't all that hard to doctor these old photos. The negatives were very large and could be altered by scraping or drawing on them. The movies were harder to change because they were smaller but all sorts of things were done to them. There were even some hand-coloured movies.

This sort of thing was done for many years. I have a large photo of myself that was made by painting over a black and white print. I don't know when the practice died out, if it ever did.
Dave Gittins
Author of Titanic: Monument and Warning
User avatar
Dave Gittins
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:24 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby Greenwyvern » Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:39 am

Back in the late 90s on the old Titanic Mailing list we had two members who worked for Harland & Wolff. They knew the story of why the man had been removed from the photo. According to them the man had a disagreement with the supervisor and was fired or quit. The supervisor had him removed from the photo as he wanted it to show only the men in his work crew and since the guy was no longer a member of the crew he was zapped.
Greenwyvern
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:49 am
Location: Misplaced Texan in USA

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby MAB » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:28 am

Greenwyvern wrote:Back in the late 90s on the old Titanic Mailing list we had two members who worked for Harland & Wolff.
Tom McCluskie and Andy Roddis, right?
MAB
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:52 pm
Location: Bayonne, New Jersey, USA

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby pat toms » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:35 am

Mab,The story I heard was that the man who was removed from the picture moved and it was blurred,so therefore the blurred part of the Photo was obliterated but not good enough to remove all traces of the Man,and he was removed from the worforce of H and W for this mistake because he moved and spoilt the photo in other words he was sacked.So much for the much publicised benevolence of H and W to it,s workers.Pat
pat toms
 

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby MAB » Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:14 pm

pat toms wrote:Mab,The story I heard was that ...
Who did you hear this from, Pat?
MAB
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:52 pm
Location: Bayonne, New Jersey, USA

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby Greenwyvern » Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:47 pm

MAB, yes I believe it was Andy and Tom. A lot of those posts are still there to read on the old discussion group on Google. I have worked my way back to 1999 over the last few days just having fun reading the old posts.
By a route obscure and lonely
haunted by ill angels only.
Greenwyvern
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:49 am
Location: Misplaced Texan in USA

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby pat toms » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:30 pm

Mab ,Green Wyvern seems to have remembered who said this I have forgotten who said it and just remembered what they said and put the story out in my explanation about the man scratched from the picture,however I also knew a lot of men who told me stories about H and W and it was not the same words that is popular in the books I have read.Pat
pat toms
 

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby VW1956 » Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:14 pm

Hello Greenwyvern. I believe that it was some sort of problem with the worker involved but the way you worded it makes a great deal of sense. Ken.
VW1956
 
Posts: 3207
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:47 am
Location: Lewisham. London.

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby VW1956 » Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:44 pm

Hello Aly. I see that you are amazed that they had the technology to rub out certain areas of a negative. I assume that you are quite young. In the old days when we older people took pictures it was a lot more difficult. To rub out a part of it you only needed a knife as the image was tiny particles of silver halides on a gelitine base. In fact it was a job not scratching them as they were suseptible to damage. Ken.
VW1956
 
Posts: 3207
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:47 am
Location: Lewisham. London.

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby pat toms » Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:16 am

Scratching out one of the employees was just the problem of the disrespect shown by the establishment,also scratching out his livelihood by giving the man the sack for moving,the problems of stepping out of line was the sack making life more diifficult.The point of the comment is feeling than for these people who built the Titanic and also this attitude was true of most Shipyards probably.Pat
pat toms
 

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby shipbuilder » Thu May 31, 2012 7:48 pm

I think the most logical explanation is that it was a time exposure! Everyone had to keep still and the shutter was opened for maybe ten seconds. After a couple of seconds, the "scratched" figure moved away for some reason, thus leaving only a ghostly image. Time exposure was quite common then!
Bob
shipbuilder
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 6:58 pm
Location: Lancashire

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby Aly Jones » Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:18 pm

Then why the rest of the photograph is untouched by this 'time exposure'? I fully understand what you are speaking of old film, powder, film room etc... but none of the rest of photograph never been affected.
"Quit Ye Like Men, Be Strong"
User avatar
Aly Jones
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:28 am
Location: Aus, Melbourne

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby shipbuilder » Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:45 pm

Because the rest of them didn't move! The "scratched one" was probably called away after a couple of seconds, hence his faint image. On a time exposure of a bust street, it sometimes appeared that there was no-one there, because everyone was moving so fast that they didn't register on the film! If they had wanted to remove the figure, by messing about with the negative, I am sure they could have done a better job that that. I am not talking about old film, powder etc at all. The large glass-plate negatives in 1912 were far superior to the tiny 35mm ones they have today. Time exposure meant keeping the shutter open for quite a long time. Anything stationary, such as the ship, appeared extremely clearly. As long as the men in the picture kept still until they were told the shutter was closed again, they would appear as clear images. I suspect that the "scratched" one moved out of the area for some reason!
Bob
shipbuilder
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 6:58 pm
Location: Lancashire

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby Aly Jones » Mon Jun 04, 2012 3:26 am

After the picture were taken the men had to stay where they were for some amount of time, until the photographer told them they can move again? Not like us when we have our photo taken, we can move practically straight away after the shot were taken.
"Quit Ye Like Men, Be Strong"
User avatar
Aly Jones
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:28 am
Location: Aus, Melbourne

Re: Man scratched out of picture.

Postby shipbuilder » Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:44 am

I am not saying I have given the correct answer. I have just put forth a valid explanation!
Bob
shipbuilder
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 6:58 pm
Location: Lancashire

PreviousNext

Return to Harland and Wolff



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron
eXTReMe Tracker