Photograph of a Fairy [culture]
Sep. 10th, 2009 02:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Reported Sept. 8, 2009, in the Daily Mail, a British tabloid est. 1896: One night in 2007, Phyllis Bacon, a 55-year-old woman living in New Addington, near Croydon in South London, casually took a photograph of her garden without looking into the camera. To her surprise, the photograph—shown in this news article—looks as though the flash has illuminated a fairy. The light shape looks like a small creature flying through the air, with wings, legs, and a head with antennae. Either it has awfully long arms, or it’s carrying something crosswise.1
To me, the fairy in this photograph looks like it’s not real… but not an intentional fake, either. It’s probably just a blur caused by a slightly shaky camera and a long exposure. Compare another photo with a similar apparition, where a winged angel seems to be standing beside a girl on stage, analyzed by the skeptical blog Forgetomori.2 There are other floating white dots in the “Croydon Tinker Bell” photo, and one of them has a double-image look to it, suggesting that the fairy is indeed an artifact of long-exposure blur.
I wonder what these motes are? Insects, perhaps, or cottonwood, or snowflakes. The photographer didn’t say what time of the year it was, and that would make a difference.
That said, this “fairy” is a pretty neat-looking example of an accidental film artifact. I’m impressed at just how fairy-shaped it is. I’d sure be tickled to see one of my photos come out with a fun surprise in it like this.
Years ago, I remember happening across a website about artifacts that mysteriously appear in photos. (Unhelpfully, I have no idea of the site’s name, or where to look for it now.) Most of them looked an awful lot like dust on the lens or the flash, or a hair hanging into the frame… rather boring. None of them looked so intriguing as this one! The people running the website believed that these motes represented paranormal activity, or that a spirit had been present at the time when the photo was taken. I suppose they would look at this photo and say, “Yes, there are indeed ‘motes’ in this photo, but they are fairies, too, and not cottonwood at all.”
- O. Scribner
- Rebecca English. “Croydon Tinker Bell… are there fairies at the bottom of the garden?” Daily Mail Online. September 8, 2009. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211845/Croydon-Tinker-Bell--fairies-the-garden.html
- Kentaro Mori. “Blurred by an angel.” Forgetomori. September 5, 2009. http://forgetomori.com/2009/skepticism/blurred-by-an-angel/
no subject
Date: 2009-09-11 01:14 am (UTC)Just now, I checked on Snopes.com, which is—yes—always a good idea regarding news articles such as this. So far, there’s a thread about the “Croydon Tinker Bell” on the Snopes message board in the “Fauxtography” section. (What a neat title.)
The highlights of the conversation: A suggestion that the fairy might be a white plume moth (Pterophorus pentadactyla), a marvelous insect that looks like an albino grasshopper wearing wings made of ostrich plume fans. That bug would look like a fairy even in broad daylight! Some of the people in the forum were wondering about why someone would take a photo of an empty yard without looking into the camera… one person thought that she might have been “testing” the camera before taking a group photo.
Source:
“Are there fairies at the bottom of the garden?” Snopes message board. Thread started September 8, 2009. http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?s=fc100ba149b23001337a4c5ad106a58d&t=50598
no subject
Date: 2009-10-28 10:37 pm (UTC)By the way, I've just discovered this community and I'm quite enjoying skimming through all the posts. It's very interesting. :) Thanks for creating it.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-04 01:53 pm (UTC)