>>
I was watching this thread with interest before it went down, and I wanted to contribute, but the site went down before I could. I just wanted to see which way the general consensus went before I spoke up and made myself sound like a complete mad man.
I have been a photographer since 1964 and professional since around 1972. Most of my work has been freelance, with the majority of my pictures appearing in various magazines, and then of course in the late 90's and 2000's on web sites. Although I like to call myself a jack of all trades photographically speaking, I specialized in female nudes, and have worked with some of the worlds most famous and beautiful adult models. As you might have guessed I'm now retired, but still like to keep my hand in and I'm still very active taking pictures.
So enough of my credentials and on to where I think I can contribute to this discussion. I have on occasions during my career photographed scenes that I have not been able to explain "rationally". Form my earliest pictures taken with some fine Pentax equipment to my latest Canon EOS 5D IV, there have always been those pictures that get binned because of a ghost image, dust, lens flares or aberration of the lens or mirror. Most of these peculiarities have not been apparent visually at the time of shooting, but have revealed themselves in either the dark room, or in post processing on the computer.
However, one example, was back in the mid 70's when I pictured a young model (obviously can't give her name) who had never modelled before. Unfortunately for her, although she most certainly had the body, she didn't have the "look" to be a top nude page 3 model, which she wanted to be. However, I was fairly prolific with some much lesser known "adult" publications at the time and her "girl next door" look was more suited to this genre. (remember pornography was far more taboo in the U.K. then)
She only did three paid shoots, two for 'pussy cats' and one for 'Fiesta', but as a result of her unusual ability I ended up picturing her many more times out of my own pocket because of some of the images I captured of her. Some of the pictures I took of her were very similar to some of the pictures posted here. I would say that out of 100 pictures of her 3 or 4 would be unusual, these were usually taken around the same time, but more often than not her pictures were quite normal.
I actually discarded many images early on where annoying lines and odd distortions appeared to be either emanating from, or surrounding this this young model, and I would put them down to the above optical defects or chemical deficiencies within the film at the time of developing. The interesting thing of note which I find fascinating now, and confirms what I saw back then is that in these modern pictures you can see blues, reds, and greens in the features. In all my images (obviously pre-digital) all these shapes were in varying degrees of greys and whites. Even in my colour images these lines were a very pale greyish white, no colour at all, which would make perfect sense as the C41 we used at the time probably wouldn't be able to show those very faint details in such colour.
Because these things only occurred with this particular model, I suspected that what I was seeing was actually "there" and not a product of the film, as the lines and such only appeared around her and not around any of the other models. At the time I was photographing probably 15 to 20 different models a week for hours at a time, so you can imagine how many pictures I'd taken. Not one of them produced a single picture like hers. What would the chances be of taking positively thousands of pictures of different women only to have these features show up with only one of them? In the intervening 45 years I have to this day not had one single model who has given me pictures like her.
I can remember at the time (mid 70's) we in the U.K. had an unknown mysteries series on ITV (can't remember the name of it now) where they would discuss pictures of ghosts, U.F.O.'s, and the Loch Ness Monster. I can clearly remember at the time wanting to send in some of my pictures, but obviously not being able to as all my mysterious pictures had a naked woman in them!! But it did make me wonder if there was some ghostly spirit attached to this woman, or indeed if she herself was "out of this world" perhaps!!
Alas, I shared what I had photographed with a good friend at the time - the only friend and person I could trust, he managed to convince me that this woman wasn't an "angel" (yes I suspected it!) and what I was seeing was either not even there because he couldn't see it, or it was simply defects in the film. Remember this is the 1970's, you couldn't share things on the internet with others, it was a very closed society where images of a naked woman surrounded by strange shapes wouldn't be shown or accepted publicly. As a result all my pictures of her were lost in my huge clear out sometime in the 90's, and despite spending several hours last weekend in my loft I can't find any of those pictures.
I sort of forgot about this strange time in my career until I saw the original posters image. Seeing that and these other pictures has not only brought all those memories back, but now convinced me that there are some women out there that radiate this light/energy from their bodies which is obviously invisible to the eye but not the camera. Whether these particular pictures are real or manipulated I have no idea, but what I see here is identical to what I saw back in the 1970's, and I know for a fact that I didn't "create" those images short of just taking them. The one thing I do regret that I can't understand to this day why I didn't do it at the time was to actually show her the strange pictures of her I took! I never once mentioned the lines or fuzzy pictures I took of her and never explained why her pictures never got published. Thank you to those who have posted their images here, its made an old man feel not so crazy anymore.
]
[
a /
gfx /
grim /
hi /
me /
rx /
vg /
wp /
x
]
[
aisfw /
civ /
co /
diy /
eh /
fit /
halp /
jew /
lit /
phi /
pr /
rnb /
sci /
tg /
w
]
[
ai /
cake /
cd /
d /
di /
elit /
fur /
gif /
h /
men /
pco /
s /
sh /
ss /
unf
]