Yes Send me a marked up version of the picture .. I have one, we can compare notes.
For the purposes of this discussion just "refer". to the original "wide angle" image on the Dowell site. It negates any possibility/accusations of post processing.
No you are NOT crazy...
Initially. I assumed, I guess subconsciously that the "whiteness" of the block was due to the effects of the inverse square law. However this would effect exposure only in the subjects camera/ plane, in that the block is angled and in a confined space. Relative camera light source distance, I cannot see how such a tonal difference can occur across the image in a lateral plane. Or at least I would expect to see a smoothly gradated falloff. not an abrupt change in colour and density.
Yes The Dowell photographs are JPEGs but they are of good quality and she has used a good camera with a built in automatic flash exposure system . I do not think it is a DSLR because the light source is slightly to the left of the lens axis. Nevertheless Flash exposure systems on modern cameras are remarkable in their control of exposure. In fact idiot proof.
I would argue that a modern digital camera equipped with daylight balanced flash and multi matrix, real time, closed loop flash duration control, would render a tonal and colour difference far more effectively than the human eye. Especially under the normal ambient light conditions in that chamber. It would be impossible to detect under oil lamp lighting. Photography did not exist at the time of Vyse. Well not in a way that would allow him to be concerned about it.
If the block has been whitewashed/painted/ re-surfaced this then begs the question when??, as it obviously must have been applied before the cartouche. So therefore the argument that the cartouch was painted horizontally in the quarry must also apply to the white
The Block colour is identical to that of the heavy plaster infill to the right.
Suggesting that the whitewash is dilute plaster. There is also a band of whitewash between the plaster joint repair and the graffiti on the right hand , adjacent block.
It seems to me that the plasterer "washed over" the block to remove any heavy marks and staining after the plastering had been completed. The crack between the plaster and the block is down to shrinkage and shifting.
Yes there does appear to be residual white underneath the block on the side wall. This is cleaned up "slop", the plasterer would have been working upside down. Ever tried to plaster a ceiling.. messy business..
Also a number of red long vertical drips. Indicating that at least some red painting has taken place in there at some time.
None of this is due to post processing or photographic manipulation..
Post Edited (12-Sep-14 07:14)