- Thread starter
- #121
Photoshopping back then was creating a double negative. The process could be controlled but occasionally accidents happened where part of an image was superimposed on the next shot if the photographer forgot to wind the film, it didn't wind all the way through or (if it was a single load) the photographer forgot to replace the last exposure. There are too many valid possible explanations not to mention possible overlay of negatives during the development process. I know, I've developed my own photos before.
There was no film to wind in these cameras. And there was no windable film in cameras in WWI days. You can double expose the film, yes, if you forget to remove the film after a shot and take another over it. I have done that but it is extremely and unmistakably obvious when that happens. There is no indication of any double exposure on the photo in question however. If it had been double exposed it would be obvious through the photo.
Windable roll film was invented in 1881, Eastman bought the patent in 1912 and was used extensively. Also the camera you showed was only one of a dozen professional models not to mention the existence of many personal winding type cameras of the time. The Kodak 1A Pocket camera came out in 1914 and the 2A followed in 1915 and the Brownie was released in 1900. Your post made no reference to the type of camera used. If the settings were wrong and the film not advanced, then another shot was taken with the proper setting you would have a "ghostlike" image show up behind the developed second image, it wasn't all that uncommon.
I used to be an amateur photog from my pre teen days, I collected cameras and have a rather large collection with detailed information on most of them going back to the turn of the century as well as different old, undeveloped film and information about the film, it's attributes and drawbacks, I know a lot about this stuff.
Well I yield of course to the greater wisdom of a camera historian. All I know is that we saw, used, or developed no windable film when I was taking college photography and we saw, used, nor developed windable film when I worked on any newspaper I worked on way back when. Based on the sharp focus and contrast, I am reasonably certain the photo in question was taken with a camera similar to the one I posted. And there is no double exposure evident in that photo, and even if there was, it would not explain the image of an airman who had been killed three days before.