(c. vincent patrick)
the so-called “fairy photographs” recently published by sir arthur conan doyle and mr. e. l. gardner do not strictly come under the heading of “spirit photographs,” but may not inappropriately be considered here. we have no evidence of the conditions under which they were taken; as sir arthur explains, such “rare results must be obtained when and how they can.” we have therefore to learn what we can from an examination of the photographs, or of their reproductions. at first sight they look like genuine untouched photographs; their general appearance is excellent, and if frauds, they are certainly good ones. on examining them more carefully, however, a considerable number of points are found requiring explanation. some of these have no doubt been noticed by different observers; the principal criticisms of the different photographs are these.
“iris and the dancing gnome” shows some very strange lighting. examining iris’s hat, we find the strongest light is falling, probably through a gap in the trees, from above and a little to the right; the shadow behind her arm, and the lighting of the fingers, confirm this. the gnome stepping up on to iris’s knee should therefore cast a shadow upon her white dress, below and to the left; but the photograph shows no trace of any such shadow. on the other hand, the gnome is lighted mainly from the left; this is plainly shown on the conical cap and the right upper arm. apart from these discrepancies, which alone are quite sufficiently damning, several other grounds for suspicion are evident. the whole photograph is much too carefully arranged to be
[34]
the snapshot it is represented as being. the black legs of the gnome are contrasted against the white dress of the girl; the lighter body, face and wings are outlined against the shadows under the trees; the dark cap is brought with one edge against a wing, the better to show it up, while the other edge catches the light. a snapshot would indeed be fortunate in securing such an admirable arrangement! the same thing is very noticeable in the other three published photographs; the pictorial arrangement of the figures and background is much too good to be the result of chance, and suggests careful posing.
this gnome photograph was taken under the shade of trees, we are told, at four o’clock on a september afternoon which was not sunny; an exposure of 1⁄50th of a second was given on “imperial rapid” plates, using a “midg” quarter-plate camera. with the largest stop in this camera an exposure of at least ten times that stated, i.e., 1⁄5th of a second, would be needed to give a fair negative under these conditions; 1⁄2 to 1 second would probably be more correct. the photograph in question certainly shows signs of under-exposure; but under the conditions stated one would expect little more than a silhouette of the white dress and of the sky showing through the trees. something is evidently wrong here.
the gnome’s proportions are certainly not human, as are the fairies’ in the other photographs; he rather resembles the familiar “brownie” of the kodak advertisements. though stepping up onto the girl’s knee, he is noticeably looking away from her, and at the camera, which is very unnatural and likely to cause him a tumble! criticism has been directed against the girl’s hand, but this is quite a common photographic distortion of a hand held rather near the camera. in my copy, however, the elbow appears rather peculiar.
the other points, taken together, can leave no possible doubt that the photograph is a fake. it could have been produced by making a positive enlargement from the negative of iris on one of the bromide papers specially prepared for working up. the gnome would then be sketched on this—he certainly resembles a sketch more than a photograph—and the whole would then be re-photographed on to a quarter-plate. no doubt an entirely satisfactory result would not be secured at the first attempt; in fact, mr. gardner tells us that “other photographs were attempted, but proved partial failures, and plates were not kept.” surely such extraordinary photographs, even if partial failures, would be kept—if they did not show something that was not intended! we have known plates to be destroyed on other similar occasions, and for similar reasons.
“alice and the fairies” is of a rather different nature. the lighting of the fairies is badly wrong; they are brightly illuminated from a point behind the camera, whereas alice is less brightly illuminated, and from the left-hand side. sir arthur, in his article,
[35]
points out that this is accounted for by the “fairy psychoplasm” having a “faint luminosity of its own.” to appear brighter than the sitter, photographed by 1⁄50th of a second exposure at three o’clock on a sunny july afternoon, the fairies would have to resemble in luminosity a battery of arc lights! the photograph appears to have been produced by pasting the “fairies” on to an enlargement of the original photograph of alice, and then re-photographing the whole. the fairies could be obtained by taking posed photographs of children suitably dressed; these would then be carefully cut out from their backgrounds and pasted on to the original enlargement. the points of internal evidence on which this statement is based are as follows:
1. the very sharp (cut) outlines of all parts of the fairies. this is particularly noticeable in the outline of the dress and hair of the third fairy (counting from the left); compare this with the soft outline of alice’s hair, against a similar background.
2. the same fairy’s forearm is much brighter than alice’s wrist, at the point where it crosses between it and the camera. assuming that both were equally white, and lighted from the same source, the one further from the camera would normally photograph a little the lighter.
3. fairies two and four appear to be photographs of the same model, the wings being exchanged for the pipe. note the similarity of the attitude of the legs, and of the shape of the tail of drapery hanging down behind.
4. with the exception of one foot of each of these fairies, which appears somewhat unnaturally amputated, every part of the fairy figures is in front of the sitter and background. this applies to all four photographs, and is of the utmost importance; superimposing the fairies on the original photograph in the manner described must of course produce this effect.
5. one would have expected to see some blurring due to movement, in the fairies’ wings and feet at any rate, with a 1⁄50th of a second exposure at a distance of four feet. none is visible in the reproduction.
the two more recently published photographs are very similar to “alice and the fairies,” and the same general criticisms apply. “alice and the leaping fairy” again shows the fairy illuminated from a point behind the camera, whereas alice is illuminated from the right side. (note that her right cheek, facing the camera, is in shadow.) fairy shows no movement-blurring, and comparison with instantaneous photographs of jumpers shows the attitude to be most unusual. on tilting the photograph a little to the left, the fairy appears to have been posed kneeling on the left knee, the support being afterwards cut away, and the cut-out figure applied to the enlargement of alice, in a slightly different vertical axis.
[36]
“iris and fairy with harebells” shows similar features. notice, again, the different lighting of fairy and iris; the hard outline of fairy’s hair, so unlike iris’s in the same print; and the careful way the fairy has been placed to secure a well-balanced picture—scarcely a random snapshot! the harebells seem too large in comparison with the hedge-leaves at the same distance from the camera. they may be the result of combining yet a third photograph; or the actual harebells may have been placed on the enlargement and re-photographed with it.
an artist to whom i have shown this photograph, together with the full-length photographs of “iris” published with the earlier article in the strand magazine, is of opinion that the fairy has the same figure and features as iris, and, in fact, may very well be a photograph of iris herself, attired in a bathing dress and some butter muslin, and with the addition of wings! the photographs of iris show a rather characteristic poise of the head, which is also seen in the fairy. this is only a suggestion, however; the photographs are too small for certain identification. in any case, the fairy figure is certainly of human proportions.
these photographs have attracted a good deal of attention, and seem to have been accepted as genuine in some quarters. no doubt much reliance has been placed on the statement of one experienced photographer, mr. snelling, that they show no evidence of manipulation, disregarding the adverse criticisms of several other photographers to whom they were shown. i consider that there is not the slightest doubt that they are fakes, simply on the internal evidence they provide, and i have endeavoured to explain the principal points on which this opinion is based.
