Photograph of the Virgin Mary

Jesus Nut · 19-02-2012 06:33PM #1

Hi,

I just scanned this photo (My mother got it of her freind who visited Medjugorje around 1995)

Was just clearing out the attic and came on it. Its standard size Kodak photo 4x6 size.

Just curious if anyone else has ever seen anything like it?

From what I remember, my mothers freind took a picture of a tree and this is what came out when the photo was developed. Im pretty sure its from a Kodak disposable cam.

Anyways, what do you think? Its pretty nice I think.

swiftblade · 19-02-2012 07:35PM

Stuff like this can happen if you reshoot over film with an image already on it. Are you sure she didn't take a picture of a statue and then maybe reshoot over the film by mistake?

uck51js9zml2yt · 19-02-2012 08:59PM

swiftblade wrote: »

Stuff like this can happen if you reshoot over film with an image already on it. Are you sure she didn't take a picture of a statue and then maybe reshoot over the film by mistake?

Interesting that its the typical western image of her.

swiftblade · 19-02-2012 09:09PM

Theo Wrong Orangutan wrote: »

Interesting that its the typical western image of her.

It's also far to clear to be matrixing.

vtec_vixen · 19-02-2012 09:14PM

Ohh thats pretty interesting...looks kinda convincing too!

Solair · 19-02-2012 09:16PM

I hate to spoil a good supernatural event with technical facts, but that's a common enough problem with those old disposable cameras. They were made with very cheap and nasty components and it wasn't very unusual that they would allow the same piece of film to be exposed twice without forcing the user to wind on to the next frame.

The weird orange effect is caused when you develop film that is too old. The chemicals react and create, usually orange colour distortions. The film having being exposed twice, once for the statue and once for the tree would have caused the burn-out effects as it's over-exposed.

It looks to me like the photographer took a picture of a statue in dull light, then a picture of a tree in bright light without moving the film on. The film was then left for a long time before it was developed and you got the rather spooky looking effect.

Just google "double exposed film" and you'll see lots of similar examples.

E.g. http://favim.com/image/105990/

frozenfrozen · 19-02-2012 09:20PM

Here is a simplified representation which expresses what I see in this picture. It wasn't clear to me what was actually in the picture until I tried to redraw it. Now I can clearly see that it is indeed Mary. I showed this to my mother and she too believes that you have discovered a picture of Mary, or a representation of her.

Onesimus · 19-02-2012 09:46PM

Solair wrote: »

I hate to spoil a good supernatural event with technical facts, but that's a common enough problem with those old disposable cameras. They were made with very cheap and nasty components and it wasn't very unusual that they would allow the same piece of film to be exposed twice without forcing the user to wind on to the next frame.

The weird orange effect is caused when you develop film that is too old. The chemicals react and create, usually orange colour distortions. The film having being exposed twice, once for the statue and once for the tree would have caused the burn-out effects as it's over-exposed.

It looks to me like the photographer took a picture of a statue in dull light, then a picture of a tree in bright light without moving the film on. The film was then left for a long time before it was developed and you got the rather spooky looking effect.

Just google "double exposed film" and you'll see lots of similar examples.

E.g. http://favim.com/image/105990/

Double exposure is something that happened in old cameras where you forgot to wind the film after taking one shot. If you forgot to wind it and took another shot you would get whats known as double exposure.

With a disposable however, it has a built in mechanism to prevent you from taking another shot until you wind it again. It would make as an interesting post for the photography forum.

gimmebroadband · 19-02-2012 10:12PM

If it's a statue super imposed on another image, it's not like any statue I've ever seen in Medjugorje!

swiftblade · 19-02-2012 10:17PM

Onesimus wrote: »

Double exposure is something that happened in old cameras where you forgot to wind the film after taking one shot. If you forgot to wind it and took another shot you would get whats known as double exposure.

With a disposable however, it has a built in mechanism to prevent you from taking another shot until you wind it again. It would make as an interesting post for the photography forum.

As was said, crappy circa 80s disposables would sometimes allow you to shoot twice. They weren't exactly cutting edge technology

Solair · 19-02-2012 10:38PM

Onesimus wrote: »

Double exposure is something that happened in old cameras where you forgot to wind the film after taking one shot. If you forgot to wind it and took another shot you would get whats known as double exposure.

With a disposable however, it has a built in mechanism to prevent you from taking another shot until you wind it again. It would make as an interesting post for the photography forum.

Disposable cameras, by their nature, were flimsily made. They had entirely plastic components inside and were made as cheaply as possible. You're not talking about an expensive Canon SLR camera or something like that, which would rarely go wrong.

Giving the camera a good hard whack was enough to get those old disposables to fail to require the user to advance to the next frame before releasing the shutter button.

http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Take_Multiple-Exposure_Photographs_With_Disposable_Cameras

This is not a miracle or some kind of apparition, rather it's just a case of a bad quality disposable camera taking really funky looking double-exposed shots

Quite a lot of people tried to get them to do this deliberately as a special effect.

With modern digital cameras, you rarely get any of these fun effects as they're just solid state CCD sensors.

gimmebroadband · 19-02-2012 10:44PM

.....then where was the photograph of the statue taken? I've never seen such as statue in Medjugorje!

HamletOrHecuba · 19-02-2012 10:45PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

If it's a statue super imposed on another image, it's not like any statue I've ever seen in Medjugorje!

It could be faked, it could be demonic.

swiftblade · 19-02-2012 10:52PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

.....then where was the photograph of the statue taken? I've never seen such as statue in Medjugorje!

Some where else? Maybe a church or the many shrines that dot the country?

Solair · 19-02-2012 10:58PM

This is definitely a case for Moulder and Skully

Fozzydog3 · 19-02-2012 11:05PM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

.....then where was the photograph of the statue taken? I've never seen such as statue in Medjugorje!

But you've seen a giant mary apparition ?

Jesus Nut · 19-02-2012 11:07PM

Thanks for the replies guys.
I guess I will never be able find out the real reason but the double shot over-lap makes most sense to me aswell.
Still though, something very real about it.

I found out a bit more, from what my mother remembers, her freind told her they seen a nice rose bush/tree and just took a random shot of it. Thats the only detail she remembers from the convo and when she got the pic in 1995.
Is there a way you could get it tested or something?

gimmebroadband · 19-02-2012 11:10PM

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

But you've seen a giant mary apparition ?

I said I NEVER saw a statue there anything like the photo, and I asked where it was taken. How does that equate to seeing a giant apparition exactly? :rolleyes:

Peregrinus · 20-02-2012 06:53AM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I said I NEVER saw a statue there anything like the photo, and I asked where it was taken. How does that equate to seeing a giant apparition exactly? :rolleyes:

Well, in fairness, we don't know that the tree is in Medjugorje either, do we? It's a pretty generic-looking tree.

We're basically faced with two options. One, this is a miraculous image. Two, this is an accidentally double-exposed photograph.

The second option look far more likely, I have to say. Your mother's friend confirms that she took the picture of the tree; it's not impossible that on a trip to Medjugorje she would have taken a photograph of a statue of the virgin, either in Medjugorje or in some place that she passed through on the way to or from Medjugorje. There's nothing implausible about the proposition that she took a photograph of a statue which you have either never seen or don't recall seeing. The image looks like a very conventional representation of Mary; you wouldn't be at all surprised to see a statue like that.

Plus, over the Virgin's left arm we can see a bit of background detail; an X-shaped artefact that appears to be standing at something of an angle to the viewer's perspective. That's very much to be expected if the image is in fact an actual photographic image of an actual statue which stands in a particular location which has things in the background; it's less understandble if this is a miraculous image.

Fozzydog3 · 20-02-2012 10:38AM

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I said I NEVER saw a statue there anything like the photo, and I asked where it was taken. How does that equate to seeing a giant apparition exactly?

You should've used your deductive reasoning skills to see that I was being sarcastic

Onesimus · 20-02-2012 11:32AM

Solair wrote: »

Disposable cameras, by their nature, were flimsily made. They had entirely plastic components inside and were made as cheaply as possible. You're not talking about an expensive Canon SLR camera or something like that, which would rarely go wrong.

Giving the camera a good hard whack was enough to get those old disposables to fail to require the user to advance to the next frame before releasing the shutter button.

http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Take_Multiple-Exposure_Photographs_With_Disposable_Cameras

This is not a miracle or some kind of apparition, rather it's just a case of a bad quality disposable camera taking really funky looking double-exposed shots Quite a lot of people tried to get them to do this deliberately as a special effect.

With modern digital cameras, you rarely get any of these fun effects as they're just solid state CCD sensors.

Yes but this photo has been taken by 1995 not in the 80's with the old circa disposables.

In order to get a good double exposure shot with a modern disposable you would have to give it a pretty good hard whacking in order to get it. But you'd only get one shot. The camera wouldnt work afterwards. You would have to almost half break it to get a double exposure shot. So it would be great to ask the photographer the question of whether or not after she took that photo if she was able to take other shots after that one or whether or not it was broken.

But, regardless of whether or not it is double exposure. Our Lord doesnt have to create a big miracle in itself in order to reach out to someone. The photo itself is Divine Providence and a simple gesture by Our Lady to the photographer whether the means God used was something that humans already understand and can create themselves or not.

So with that said, its still a miracle of a photo. For all Gods providential works are miracles regardless of what means he used to create them or allow them to happen.

gimmebroadband · 20-02-2012 01:48PM

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

You should've used your deductive reasoning skills to see that I was being sarcastic

I did....I was being charitable, unlike your comments!

Sut mae! · 20-02-2012 02:04PM

years ago my older brother was big into hobby photography, in the early 90's, still in the film age and well before the arrival of digital SLRs.
He used to make the divine appear at will in the bottom of the garden. I used watch him do it - He'd take a photo of the statue on a dark background and then in his darkened room, slightly open the back of the camera and wind on the mechanism without advancing the film. Then he'd go and take a photo somewhere in the garden or out in the field and voila. pictures exactly like this but without the orange distortion form age.

Well in fact, it was the child of prague statue on the landing window sill that used ghostily appear near the trees. Quite funny really.

Seriously though, anyone who is taken in by these photographs, I actually feel sorry for them. It's pretty sad really. The mary in that photo is exactly like those tacky figurines you see all over in places like Knock.

Paparazzo · 20-02-2012 02:23PM

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Thanks for the replies guys.
I guess I will never be able find out the real reason but the double shot over-lap makes most sense to me aswell.
Still though, something very real about it.

I found out a bit more, from what my mother remembers, her freind told her they seen a nice rose bush/tree and just took a random shot of it. Thats the only detail she remembers from the convo and when she got the pic in 1995.
Is there a way you could get it tested or something?

Really? She took a picture of a rose bush back in 1995? And you just got the photo and scanned it in?
http://www.tineye.com/search/9d8a97464aab424b40919b090756c44e6c51a83a/

Dun · 20-02-2012 02:24PM

http://jesusphotos.altervista.org/Virgin_Mary.htm

So many stories for that one photo..

gimmebroadband · 20-02-2012 06:56PM

Looks like someone was telling porkies!

Jesus Nut · 20-02-2012 10:58PM

Cheers for the above link! So it is well known!!!

My mothers freind must have bought it and passed it onto my mother (and copies to her other freinds claiming credit for it at the time)
If you cant trust your neighbours! Who can you trust!!

Feel free to lock this thread now Mods.

Mystery solved.

Thanks.

Zombrex · 21-02-2012 12:41AM

It is funny how often in cases of miraculous claims the most obvious answers (ie the person is making stuff up) are often over looked due to the nature of humans to be polite and not directly insult people.

Photograph of the Virgin Mary

Comments