Getty doesn't give any hint as to what type of image the source is - color print, negative, magazine image. This could be a 3rd generation copy, which has blown out the bright "TV" picture. From the lighting, the picture is obviously staged, but how MUCH of it is real is very hard to tell. Colour transparency film at the time was about ISO 12, color negative about ISO 25, so it would have to be a time exposure even with a very bright CRT. So, is the overexposure a mistake with a real CRT, or a rear-lit transparency, or???? One other suspicious thing is that the color balance of the TV image matches the lighting of the living room, which is not likely for a real CRT, more likely for a backlit transparency.

Because it would be MUCH easier to create this photo as a fake than to actually have a full color TV system running and capture this posed and carefully lighted scene.

The small child moved his leg. The girl in orange moved her head. Definitely a time exposure. So maybe the TV image is real. Did they have only one chance to get it correct, and overexposed the TV? Still hard to say.

I can accept the hypothesis that it would be easier to stage the color transmission to the set. Either the cameras would need to be on scene or close by to transmit the images. And yes, the people were positioned for the photo just as many other similar photos like this were "set up".

I can just as easily accept the fact that the image is real based on what we know about Pye and the fact they were working on an experimental color system at this time. We also know they coordinated with Chomatic Labratory and transmitted the color telecast by closed circuit in 1953 to at least two Chromatrons set up in the children's hospital.

Real image on that set in the photo or not, we know that at least two Chromatron televisions were operating in London in 1953 about the same time as the photo was purported to be taken.

My $0.02
 

Here is how I have seen film exposed by professonal photographers to obtain the type of results seen here.

First of all, there is no indication that flash was used to obtain this shot. Floodlamps were used here. I'm suggesting a tripod-mounted camera, such as a bellows camera loaded with 4x5-in. or even 8x10-in. sheet film, with a manual shutter, operated by an experienced photographer, who exposed the film for a few seconds -- with the table lamp off and perhaps even the TV off.

After the initial expsure, the flood lamps were turned off, and the lamp and TV were turned on. The entire set except for those two items is now very dark.

A second exposure is made by the photogrpher. But this time the shutter is opened for many more seconds, which depends on the speed of the film and the brightness of the TV image.

The photographer then repeats the entire procedure three, four, or more times while varying the exposure times.

The odd thing about this shot though is the shadow behind the lampshade, which leads me to believe the lamp was off for the first exposure, and the overexposed TV image, which may suggest it's just one of the outtakes.

We hired studios in NYC in the seventies to shoot magazine covers this way, particularly to get a real-time trace on an oscilloscope.

Pete

Hi, Pete, you are describing exactly the process I personally saw used by ad photographers for ads that could claim "real TV image" (which most did not); and this one being a discard would explain the overexposure. But that means we should be looking for a good one, which should have been published somewhere.

I want to add that with the burned out image, there is no way to tell if there are any reflections in the face of the TV. Sometimes the procedure described actually used two separate shots instead of a double exposure, so the surroundings would be completely dark for the second shot and not reflect in the screen. When the screen image was cut in, it could still be advertised as "actual TV picture."

Couple of things.

1. The"cameras" referred to in my post #18 was meant to be the experimental color television camera that Pye was using in 1953.
2. Today if one uses any camera set on auto in a normally lit room and photographs a television with a television image on the screen, the image on the screen will generally always be overexposed.
3. The television in the image in this post could be the experimental Pye with the Lawrence Chromatron. If this is the case, we know that the Chromatron CRT was extremely bright, being 85% efficient compared to the three gun RCA color CRT's at that time, 1953, which were 15% efficient. Just another reason the CRT image appears overexposed.

After reading the last three comments, in layman terms, I think you are saying that whoever created the image first, took a shot of the room, people and television in bright light. Then second, photographed the television CRT image in the dark and third, them combined the two images. Am I wrong in this interpretation? If this is what they did here, it didn't work because the television image is overexposed.

Just noticed that the same screenshot image from the ETF is not as badly overexposed, unless "it was fixed".

So now we have to consider the sources of the two different exposures in these two photographs and we should actually see the original photograph in its pristine condition to make a definitive judgement as to whether the screenshot is real or fake. I don't see a motive to fake the photo in question way back in 1953-54.

http://www.visions4.net/journal/wp-c...image-157.jpeg

This is the camera that broadcast the closed circuit color images of the 1953 coronation.

http://www.visions4.net/journal/wp-c...image-155.jpeg

.... Which looks very similar to the image of the camera published in the book shown on the ETF website.

http://www.visions4.net/journal/wp-c...image-156.jpeg

How do we know the two images in the book weren't taken at the same time for the publication?

There are two ways to do it: (1) take double exposures as we did with magazine covers, and (2) as Wayne noted, take two pictures, then trim and paste the TV screen picture into the overall scene.

Also, my original post described a professional technique. I actually agree with what Steve said earlier in this thread. I do not think we are seeing an actual photograph of a TV screen. It is probably a picture that was 'stripped in' to the original photograph.

Pete

I can understand both techniques and if either one was used, it would not be a fake. It would be an attempt to show the overall scene and the television screen image, both properly exposed in the same photo.

I'm not convinced the television image we see in the two different exposures is a fake. One is overexposed and the other is much better. We have to consider the sources of those two photo. Are they first, second, third, etc. generation reprints? The only way to determine with some degree of certainty, is to examine the original pristine print.

Pye had working experimental field sequential color televisions with Lawrence Chromatron CRT's operating in 1953 in London.

etype 2, just finished reading your excellent web site on the Chromatron. I have two comments.

1) The site shows some information about Muntz TV's interest in the Chromatron. Muntz was a cagey guy and must have seen the advantages. I'll bet if the Chromatron had gone into production, Muntz would have used it.

2) I worked on a project with Coca-Cola world headquarters in Atlanta in 1996 when I worked with BellSouth Wireless. I was given a grand tour facility and got into the corporate board room. They had two 56" Sony Trinitron monitors for video conferencing. Their performance was outstanding to say the least. They claimed that each monitor weighed 1500 lbs and that it took a forklift to install them. I seriously doubt that no more than a handful of the 56" Trinitrons were every made. No mention was made as to the price of these monitors.

Thank you for your comments.

Yes "Mad man" Muntz was colorful. He was interested in finding cheaper shortcuts in manufacturing televisions and the Chromatron would appeal to him. Beyond a prototype sketch, I known nothing about a working experimental Chromatron from Muntz.

Are you sure about 56 inches? The largest Trinitron CRT I heard about was 43 inches and they were limited addition models. If it was a custom one of a kind special project, it could have been possible, but the weight as you stated would be a major problem to overcome. I'm always learning so if it's true, would like to know more.

The only thing I have to go on about the 56" Trinitrons is my memory. I turned in all my work notebooks when I retired. Of course Coca-Cola will have huge flat screens in their Board Room now. They did say that their Trinitron monitors were special order.

Your web site had an attached article which showed Muntz prototypes with a big shield around the grid wires and CRT to reduce the radiation of the 3.58 MHz switching signal. There was even a photo at the end of the article showing a prototype chassis that was definitely not an RCA chassis.

That chassis was built by Chromatic Television Labratory. They pitched that chassis to the various television manufactures other then RCA in hopes of setting up licensing rights.