I don't think so. As a professional graphic artist (since 1972) who has worked with both the old style film techniques and modern Photoshop, I would say her image was masked and then double printed with the original masked negative then the final photo would have been touched up with an airbrush to smooth the edges etc.
Something just doesn’t sit right with me. This photo is CLEARLY doctored. So is the one on the bench with grandpa’s floating hand.
So, is someone doing bad jobs on purpose for a reason.
What reason???
It just makes no sense to me.
Or were these faked up photos done in the 60’s when it was harder to fake photos.
This one blows my mind because it is so obvious that is not Dunham’s hand.
I don’t understand what you are saying — can you put in layman’s terms. Like why would someone go through that 3 step process you are talking about.
Also in the WND article (go look at) he mentions 8 more anomalies to this photo — maybe you could comment.
Thanks.ca
You mean like an early version of HDR? Because she was underexposed on film?