I am just trying to understand how this could have happened.
I needed to take some pictures so I got my Pentax P3n. I saw that there was film in it, and that I needed to advance the roll a few times to get to the first picture. I shot the entire roll in about half an hour, took the film to the lab to be developed.
When I opened the envelope with the pictures, I discovered they were not the pictures of my newborn filly meeting her mother for the first time and taking her first steps. Instead they were of a bunch of old people I had never seen before. I thought the lab must have given me the wrong pictures back. But as I kept looking at them, I noticed a freaky looking cat, one just like my mother’s, that died 5 years ago. Then I recognize one of the old people, a friend of my mom’s. Then I notice that on all but 5 of the pictures, in the background of each picture I can see the outline of my foal and mare, very faint, but they were there.
OK, I somehow shot the pictures of my foal on film my mom had already take pictures on, 5 years ago.
But how could this film have gotten in my camera? My mother’s pictures were taken in California. My camera has never been in California. My mom could not have taken the pictures with my camera. If she had shot this roll in California with her camera, an automatic point and shoot kind, and then taken the used roll of film out, it would have been a finished roll. Her camera automatically rewinds the entire roll of film when the last picture is shot. So when you take the film out of the camera, all the film is sealed inside the canister. There couldn’t be any left out. So I couldn’t take a used roll of film that she had taken pictures on, thinking it was a new roll, and thread it onto my camera. There would be nothing sticking out for me to thread onto my camera. The film canister said it was 24 exposures, and I received 25 pictures back, so I don’t see how she could have shot the pictures and removed the film from of her camera without exposing some of her shots. So what am I missing?
If in fact you double exposed the role as you would have us believe the prints would also reveal that fact and would not contain images of much value/use. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is 1. above.
No I am not pulling your leg. I would come up with something much more interesting than this if that was my goal.
I am not under the influence. I had a few beers last night while watching UK squeak one by Cincinnati. But the effects of that are gone now I assure you.
Nope, I am as certain as I can be about such things I am awake now.
My mother has no sense of humor, so her playing a joke is not possible.
The roll does appear to be double exposed. The prints do contain images that are of no value. They look to be a picture of the old people, but when you look closely, you can see the images of my mare and foal faintly in the background. Sort of an erie look to them. On some the mare and foal are more visable than on others.
I am just looking for an explanation of how the film could be taken out of the camera and be mistaken for a new roll, when new rolls have film hanging out, and exposed rolls are sealed before you can take them out.
In my limited knowledge of how cameras work, I don’t see how this could happen. Thought someone here more knowledgeable than I, might explain it to me.
Sometimes with the auto-rewind a little film is left sticking out. I think you have simply mixed an exposed roll that was meant to be processed with the other film in your camera bag. I often used to have lots of canisters if I had bought bulk supplies and can imagine it happening.
A friend of mine got the best accidental double exposure I have seen. It is a landscape shot of distant mountains, smiling down through the clouds is Graeme looking like God. By the time he took the mountain photo he could not recall who had photographed him.
Film lead retrievers cost about $5.00 and can be purchased at any large photo supply house. It’s remotely possible that your mother owns one, although I can’t imagine why. They’re really only used in photo labs to get the film out of the canister for processing, although some photographers own them for doing deliberate double exposure work. I haven’t been a serious student of photography in almost ten years, so my knowledge is a little creaky, but I would venture to guess that Adobe Photoshop has pretty much killed the art of double exposing.
Now, if you asked my wife what was going on, she would tell you that the people in the photos are people who have ‘passed on’ but have some unfinished business in this corporeal plane and are trying to get your attention. sigh. :rolleyes: I love her dearly, but someday we are going to have to have a talk…
(There’s even a neat trick to retrieve the lead of a rewound roll by using another roll of film and licking it.)
Anyhow, it’s almost certainly what gotpasswords and don’t ask said. There’s plenty of cameras that rewind not quite all the way back. All my film cameras are set that way on purpose. A lot of point-and-shoots don’t rewind fully. That’s the only explanation that really makes sense, given all the information.
Thanks all for your replies. I have shot hundreds of rolls of film and never had one not rewind all the way. So that just didn’t occur to me that was possible. But I can see now how it could, and does solve the mystery.
My mother must have taken it out and left it on a table or something. When I came to visit, I must have thought it was mine and put it in my suitcase. It must have stayed hidden for 5 years. Then on another trip I must have found it, thinking it was recently placed in there.
I must admit I was more than a little freaked out to see the picture of my mom’s cat, who has been dead five years. And the one friend of my mom’s I recognized was someone that was also deceased. I started thinking that all the old people were probably dead too.
But then I don’t believe in ghosts and such, so I knew I needed another explanation. Preferably before I showed the pictures to my mom who does believe in ghosts and would really freak out. Even when I explain to her what must have happened, when she sees the picture of her cat, with my foal superimposed on it, she will still think that my new foal is her cat reincarnated. So I better not mention that the foal’s dad is named Sir Cat, and this foal’s name will most likely have the name “cat” in it also.
The more I think about this, the more I think I just won’t show her the pictures.
Thanks again, mystery solved. I feel much better now
I’m embarrassed to admit this, but I felt a chill going up my spine when I was reading your first post. My wife has got me hooked on that damn show on NBC about the psychic medium who works for a DA’s office. :rolleyes:
[trying to sound like my mother voice]So why don’t you call your mother and ask about it. You know you never call. Mr. Busyman can’t call his mom and ask a simple question. By the way are you eating enough?[/trying to sound like my mother voice]
I know what you mean. Even though I think that most of that stuff is a scam, every now and then I come across something that sends chills up my spine.
I have also been thinking, now that I know it is possible to purposely double expose film, that could make a good plot for a short story or TV show. Someone could shoot a roll in an eerie location, or of a certain person. Then take the roll out, use a film lead retreiver, and then put it in the “victim’s” camera, and have some scam revolving around the faint images. Someone from beyond is sending the “victim” a message to do something the scammer wants them to do.
Or maybe it could happen accidently, as it did in my case, and the faint images turn out to be from a very old roll of film that ends up being used to solve a crime that happened years ago. And it can be left to audience as to whether the film was found completely by accident, or there was some intervention from beyond to right a wrong from the past.
I wonder if those plot ideas have been used before?
Au contraire! That TV show is based on the life and work of one Allison DuBois, a real-life (to use the term loosely) psychic medium. A snippet from Ms. DuBois’ web page:
Uh, with a lot of Hollywood magic thrown in, sweetie. But who cares—Patricia Arquette is insufferably hot (despite the fact that she’s dumber than a box of rocks), and the show is good, clean wholesome fun for the whole family.
Hey Grits, maybe you play this up for a few yucks and maybe even some bucks—just repeat after me in your best Haley Osment voice: “I photograph dead people…”
Perhaps CurtC’s post should have read “While you’re enjoying the show, please keep in mind that any resemblance to actual persons or events that aren’t a metric buttload of crap is a fabrication.”
Hate to admit it, I haven’t mentioned the pictures to her yet because at age 40, I am worried how much trouble I will be in for ruining her shots. She doesn’t know I have them, so I could just not say anything and live in peace. Or I could show them to her, ( she has moved to a retirement home near me so I can help her with bills, pills, etc.) and either:
A. get the lecture about being more careful about taking things that don’t belong to me. “What else of mine did you steal from me when you would come visit?”
B. get freaked out by the ghost-like appearances on the pictures and want me to call a psychic hotline. “We better find out what this means…I knew that cat was more than just a cat, he KNEW things…this proves it. Maybe he is not really dead, maybe they just TOLD me that, and now he wants me to find him.”
Call me a chicken…but I am not sure I want to deal with any of this right now…
Oh yeah—I forgot to mention that. The cat’s the one with the real agenda here—the old farts are just riding it’s coattails.
Look on the bright side—at least you’re not married to your mother. It’s taken me a long time to convince my wife that tarot cards are just pieces of cardboard, and have no ability whatsoever to predict the future other than to guarantee that some mark will get charged $45 for a half hour session with some huckster who rents a small space behind the Foster’s Donut shop. But then again, I guess that I’m the one who should look on the bright side—as soon as her parents ‘pass to the other side,’ we’ll be saving a lot of money on long distance charges, cuz then she’ll be talking to them through the Ouija board. :rolleyes:
