We left off, we had just very briefly touched upon your experience with photography and particularly, creation of altered photographic images.
But before we get into a little more detail about your background, I'd like to show you a photograph and ask you if that's the photograph that you focused your analysis on.
MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 1930.
I found the process and the concept of photography, the creativity of it, extremely interesting, the mechanics. I pursued it initially as a hobby.
Did you, throughout your childhood and teen years and into your early adulthood, continue to be involved in photography?
I was hired and went to work in a photo optics house in New York as a photo optical technician.
I created film elements through the use of an Oxberry optical printer, created special effects, inserts, things of that nature.
Let me stop you right there.
You've used some terminology that I'd like you to explain. You talked about optical effects and so forth.
Would you, first of all, just explain to us what optical effects are.
Optical effects are any one or variety of a number of processes, whereby one would take an original film and element, and convert it to another, either positive to negative or negative to positive, doing dissolves, fades, zooms, inserts of one element into another, adding titling, things of that nature.
Now, you were involved in that type of work beginning in 1969 in the motion-picture field; is that right?
After that, did you continue to work to some extent with optical effects in other areas of photography?
Yes. I -- I worked for a slide duplication house, doing special effects, adding titling, product inserts, things of that nature, in slide form, which is still form.
Now, the type of special effects that we've been talking about, or optical effects with regard to both motion-picture film and still photography.
In their basic elements, they are pretty much the same?
In other words, the mechanisms that are used with regard to the motion -- motion-picture film and still photography, are they the same in their basic elements?
In most cases, yes.
In the instance where you would be superimposing one image inside the other, you would use the same technique; except in motion pictures, you're doing frame after frame, after frame, as opposed to just a single type.
Why don't, just so it's a little bit clear of the type of thing you're talking about, why don't you give us an illustration, first of all, with motion-picture film.
Can you given us an illustration of what you're talking about, the type of effect?
There is a vast variety, but as a for-instance, I would say if you had a TV commercial and you have a background, say a sunset or a -- a desert or a swimming pool or something of that nature, and you wanted to insert a product shot, on motion-picture film, you could have it come in from one side or -- or start very small and get larger. We see it on TV every day.
It's an involved process. But the main difference between doing it on film for motion pictures and doing it as a still, is the motion itself, the movement.
The technique of doing it for a still photograph is basically the same, but there's no motion involved.
Okay. We're going to -- we're going to get back to some of the details of these methods that you're talking about. But I want to continue on a little bit with your background.
Did you continue after your employment in still -- doing duplication and still photography -- did you continue on doing that type of work on your own, working for yourself?
Okay.
Can you describe that, the type of work you did, under what circumstances, and provide us with some illustration and some of the clients that you work for?
Well, to give an idea, I work -- one of my clients was Glamour Magazine in New York. If they had four or five individual photographs of different models wearing a different dress, or something of that nature, and they wanted to combine them all on a single slide, they'd send it to me, and I would do an insert effect, whereby I'd photograph each of the elements separately onto a single piece of film, going back, repositioning, registering, things of that nature, and creating a composite, in effect.
Another -- another possible thing that we -- say, for a client like the Quilty Group --
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, can you spell Quilty?
Q-u-i-l-t-y.
If they had a client who had a product and they wanted to show the product against a particular background for a particular mood, a forest, or a lake, or something of that nature, what we would do is, we would create a series of mattes.
Well, let me try to explain that.
The final position of where you want your product to be, whether it's straight up and down or at an angle, probably on one side of the screen with maybe some text on the other side, but with a specific background.
In the background, each of these things is called an element. And each of these elements has to be positioned and dealt with in its own way.
Now, let me stop you right there. I don't want you to get into a detailed explanation at this point.
But is what you're saying, that you, when you were working in the motion-picture field, in the still photography field, creating these, as you say, composite photographs of --
Basically, what you're saying is, you were creating fake photographs, correct?
In other words, photographs that were -- would appear to be portraying something, but actually it was not genuine; is that fair to say?
(BY MR. LEONARD) Of course, these were legitimate fakes, right? These were for purposes of advertising in the --
That's correct. No one would look at a final picture like that and assume there was a can of hair spray lying in the middle of the air. It's obvious what it is. It's not meant to deceive anybody.
KEY QUOTEOkay.
Now, during the time that you were doing this type of work, did you become familiar with the various methods to accomplish these composite photographs?
Okay.
And again, we're going to get back into that in some detail today as we move on.
At some point, did you become involved as a consultant or analyst for a governmental committee?
There they were investigating the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior.
No, this was an organization that was created to investigate the workings of the Warren Commission and their results.
And what did you do?
What were -- in general terms, what were you doing for the committee as a staff photographic consultant?
The duties were several. One was to analyze photographs; one was to identify issues relating to the photographic images in regard to the assassination of the president; one was as a consultant for the photographic panel; as a consultant for the medical panel; answering questions for the congressmen themselves, if they had specific questions that related to issues of photography, and as to whether photographs were genuine or not.
I had input with the actual photo panel, itself.
Okay.
How long were you acting as a consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
Well, the committee's entire life lasted two years, from the beginning of 1977, to the end of 1978.
I had actually started working with them before their actual, formal investigation began, by about six months, and stayed with them for another six months after that. So I was with them for about three years.
You say "with them." Was this a full-time job?
Were you, for instance, in Washington every day for three years?
No. I was an independent consultant. They called me when they needed me. I would do things by telephone or in person, depending on what they actually needed.
In the course of your work as a staff photographic consultant to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, did you have occasion to review many photographs and motion pictures?
Okay.
And you were reviewing them, in some cases, to determine what was -- what they depicted, correct?
Okay.
And in the course of your research and your writing on the Kennedy assassination through the years, have you had an opportunity to review and examine hundreds and hundreds and thousands of photographs?
In some cases, to determine they're relevance and possible evidentiary value for the investigation itself; in some cases, to determine whether they're legitimate or forgeries; in other cases, just simply to determine part of a time line.
There are varied reasons for each individual photograph.
Now, as a result of your experience as you've described it, your actual work experience and also your work with the committee, and also the independent work you have done over the years, have you come to be knowledgeable about the various methods there are to alter photographs?
Have you come to be knowledgeable about the indications or signs in examining the photograph, as to whether or not it has been altered?
Do you occasionally consult with entities and individuals with regard to the authenticity of photographs?
Can we put that image back up again, the first photograph. And this is number 1930.
Standing in line at the checkout counter of a grocery store, in the National Enquirer.
KEY QUOTENow, have you, in the past, been consulted by the National Enquirer to authenticate -- attempt to authenticate a photograph?
The Enquirer, as they told me, had received a photograph taken by a photographer at what was purported to be some kind of a voodoo ritual. The photographer was trying to tell them that an image, a light image that appeared on the -- on -- on a photograph was a spirit that had been conjured up. And this was a picture of a -- of some paranormal entity.
And the Enquirer contacted me and asked me if I would verify its authenticity. They sent me -- as I recall, it was a contact sheet of the actual photograph itself and the frame area around it, showing the sprocket holes on the original film.
I don't know how many frames there were. I don't remember. But it clearly showed more than the actual frame itself.
And I examined it and I noticed that this entity that they're talking about was not only in the photographed area, but beyond -- went beyond, into the photograph area, into the sprocket area, indicating it was an artifact beyond the photograph image.
I gave them a report on that, stating that, in fact, my -- in my opinion, it was simply static electricity that had left a visual imprint on the film.
You were contacted by lawyers -- the lawyers for Mr. Simpson to examine this photograph, correct?
Now, prior to that time, had you been contacted by the National Enquirer to examine this photograph?
Did they -- did the National Enquirer contact you again after their first contact, asking if you would attempt to authenticate the photograph?
Now, just in general terms, sir, I would like you to describe how a photograph is -- can be altered.
I want to start off with -- with the basic processes, when they were begun. And if you can illustrate using a pad how that's done, I'd appreciate it.
(BY MR. LEONARD) If you -- if you can step down to the board. And what I want to direct your attention to first, okay, is -- if you could start off with the basic methods that are used in a particular -- you talked about what a matting method, and you talked about some other methods.
If you could, illustrate how that's done, with particular emphasis on the reinsertion of the image onto the original negative.
A matte technique would require, depending -- again each -- each instance is different; it's unique. You would start with an original photograph, something with a tree and a flower or whatever, and then you've got a product, can of hair spray, furniture polish, cookies, doesn't matter. And that's this element here. (Indicating.)
It's photographed as what's known as a product shot. You have a positioned photograph taken of whatever that insert item is going to be. And that ends up being the second element.
Now, if you have a blue sky here (indicating), that blue sky is going to wash out the product shot, so you have to eliminate that area on the original picture.
And the way you do that is, you photograph your product shot and create something that is called a black-core matte, the core being the center area of it. And what you're left with --
By the way, you use -- these are very high contrast black-and-white film to do this. This is usually something of the nature called Kodalith. And Kodalith is a piece of high contrast black-and-white film, which eliminates all the gray scale. It's only black and white, nothing in between.
The product shot may have individual things that would turn out as gray. What you would do is, take a brush and you would manually brush out the area completely, so this is what you've got, a piece of solid black against clear.
Now, all of this is done in pin register. In other words, take a piece of glass or some kind of a negative carrier, and you insert two very fine, exacting pins. You stamp the all elements of the film, so they all fall into register; that is, they all fall into the same place.
Once you've created your --
When you say they fall into register, and all fall into the same place, can you be a little more specific about that?
It's a matter of positioning. If you don't have exact register, your -- your shot will fall slightly off center, and either you'll end up with a clear or lighter line on one side, or a black, dense line on the other.
Everything has to fall exactly into the same place; otherwise, it's useless and easily detectable.
So, in other words, if -- if in the case of a product shot, you have -- you have a can that is superimposed over a blue sky -- if it's not in register, somebody looking at the photograph could see the effect wouldn't be complete; you could see some space. You could see a site, the fact that the can was out of kilter with the background, or something like that. Is that what you're saying?
The next step in this process would be to make what is known as a clear-core matte.
The way that's done is in a darkroom, where there's no light, or if you use something called orthochromatic film, which is not red sensitive, where you can use a safety light, which you would do in black-and-white processes a lot.
You take this, which again is pin registered, and put on a piece of unexposed film, which is the same type black-and-white Kodalith, and you expose it to light, with the black-core mattes falling between the light source and the new piece of film.
And what you're left with is an exact negative of this, which is called a clear-core matte.
So everything around that will be black. You have your clear core.
Now, we're up to the last step of the -- of the creation of the composite right now.
When you say "composite," that's another word for "fake," if you want to use that term, or altered photograph, right?
What you would do is, you would sandwich the pin-registered original with the black-core matte and project that down onto a final piece of paper or film, whatever carrier for the image that you want.
Once you have done that, without ever moving this, you go back and you sandwich the product shot and the clear-core matte together, and you then project that down in exactly the same spot on the final carrier for the image, be it film or paper.
And what you're left with then, down at the bottom, is a composite image of your tree, your flower, your product shot. And you can also burn in, which is again another technique like this, where you've got, say, white type. You would project that down from another piece of Kodalith, and have that fit whatever you want your product copy to be. And it all falls in and makes a composite image.
This has been done in advertising for many, many decades. It's a standard way of doing this.
Okay.
And there are there other subtechniques, or additional techniques that are sometimes used to make the composite photograph?
Yes, there are several.
One that's been used, again, for many, many decades is basically a cut-and-paste situation. You start with your background photograph, and all you do is, you take your product shot and have an artist very carefully take an X-acto knife or a very sharp razor blade, something of that nature, and you cut it out so it physically fits, and you physically paste it on. That's very simple. That's the way it's done.
You can also insert an area of text, as well.
Now, I've heard the term "air brush," and I usually hear that in terms of fashion photography, where some rather vain celebrities -- but could you describe that for us?
What is air brushing, and how is that used, if at all, in creating these alternate photographic -- altered photographic images?
Well, if you had two pieces of elements that did not quite aesthetically match each other, an arm that didn't quite hit or something of that nature, or a finger with dirty fingernails, something of that nature, and you wanted to air-brush it out, you wanted to get rid of it, you take a small, precise spray mechanism, and you spray over the area that -- that is offending to the vision or the eye, and eliminate it.
If somebody had a scar, let's say, and they wanted to eliminate the scar, you would -- what you would do is, match the color background of the skin or -- however you do it -- either there's a tear in the jacket or a shirt, and you just air-brush it out. You just simply cover it up.
The advantage to air-brushing is that it gives you a tapered edge, as opposed to a very sharply cut one.
What you said, it's -- is it like a small can of -- a really small can of spray paint? Is that what it is?
Yes.
Normally, it would be a jar. They usually use glass jars, which attach to a little sprayer. It's the reverse of an air compressor; it blows air, instead of sucking it in.
So it's clear, what does the air brush actually -- is it spraying fluid? Is it moving fluid that's already there?
So -- and if you're trying to do a really good job of creating a -- a believable composite, I take it that you -- that you try to, for instance, make sure the elements are all in register, right?
And you try to make sure that if there isn't anything that's not quite in register, that you air-brush it so that it becomes -- the fact that it's out of registration, is masked, right?
(BY MR. LEONARD) If you don't do a perfect job, are there often indicia or indicators of this type of manipulation that are apparent on the original -- on what -- on the photograph of the negative, are they -- are there?
Okay.
Let me direct your attention specifically to this air-brushing method.
What would be -- what would you look for, in general terms, to determine whether there has been any air-brushing-type manipulation to a photographic image?
The image, instead of being continuous grain -- or, for instance if you look at a hand, it's not just one solid color; they're subtle. There's changes; there's shadows.
Normally, in an air-brushing situation, you're dealing with a flat background. If you try to use it in something where there's a great deal of detail, the detail will simply be there.
If you examine what purports to be an original photograph, using that technique, what you would detect is a plain background without the detail, or an irregular, unnatural edge.
And with that regard to the registration or proper positioning of the various elements in a photograph, what would you look for to determine whether that exists?
In other words, when you're looking at a photograph and you want to look for out-of-registration elements, what do look for?
Well, you would inspect, again, depending on the method used and the type of indicator that might be there. You would end up with examining the edges from where one element would come in contact with another element. For instance if we were to use a matte insert technique, if the matte were off slightly from the sizing or were off -- or the positioning were off, even by a fraction of a millimeter, you would end up with an odd-colored edge, meaning that didn't belong, something that would be -- it would look somewhat like a halo, something of that nature. Either that, or it would be a dark line.
In other words, if matte were too small, as opposed to being too large, you'd end up with an irregular density.
Now, is there another wholly different type of method used to utilize to create a composite or alterated -- excuse me -- altered photographic images, that involves computer technology?
Yes. There is --
The technique of digitization has been refined again and again and again and again, through the last decade or so. And it is totally different than everything else we've got here.
What we have here are mechanical or photographic or art-type techniques. In a computer, in what they call the digital domain, what you're doing is, you are not manipulating a photographic or physical entity; what you're doing is, you're manipulating elements or picture elements that are known as pixels within the original picture.
And --
You know, would it be helpful -- sorry to interrupt you -- would it be helpful if you go down and actually draw what you're talking about with pixels and so forth?
Standing in line at the checkout counter of a grocery store, in the National Enquirer.
Basically, what you're saying is, you were creating fake photographs, correct? In other words, photographs that were -- would appear to be portraying something, but actually it was not genuine; is that fair to say?
No one would look at a final picture like that and assume there was a can of hair spray lying in the middle of the air. It's obvious what it is. It's not meant to deceive anybody.
If it's not done right, yes. It's easily detectable.