Oh I see, I thought it was a random image you found. I can remove the unedited version if you like. My point was to illustrate that we dont just look at an image and announce it fake, without testing it. It always has the potential to be a real image, despite how fake it may look.
That is quite amazing actually. I posted that picture on a ghosthunting forum and some of the s*it they came out with to explain it as a fake! They must have guessed about 20 times between them and never came close! A sceptic came close but not on the button - and you got it second time. Nice one mate
As that constitutes exposure of a marketed (and copyrighted) effect - could the link be removed please?
Sure, unfortunately that is where scepticism and magic clash. We explain to educate, magicians prefer to retain the illusion. I was not aware this method was copyrighted, I suspect it isnt, and I certainly have no idea how the hell you could market common sense ;D
I fail to see how something invented in 1861 by william mumler can still remain copyrighted? Andrew is not the first to use this method, I suspect he is just marketing it. Still is hes making new money on an ancient idea, good luck to the lad
That's fair enough then mate - I figured it was older than Andrew Mayne but wouldnt have known who to credit it back to.
As for exposure over education - isn't it enough to say that it uses painted cellophane? It gives the overall idea that photos can be manipulated in this way, without showing all and sundry how exactly it's done.
But ultimately it is your forum and therefore your rules - but that's just my view
And therein lie a problem, you see we quite often deal with very credulous people here at BP. It is not enough to simply explain something to them. Sometimes we have to "paint by numbers" or they just dont "get it". The forum exists not only for chat, but for educational purposes. I do understand your dilemma though, my father was an amateur magician, so I know all about "the code" and why it exists etc