Married couple notice they're randomly both in a photo taken 11 years before they met


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/03/19/married-couple-notice-theyre.html


#2

Who was at the DuPont Pavilion? Why was the bench still warm? Who had been there?


#3

Trippy happenstance, but my inner pedant questions the timeline; if the couple in question were married in 2011, 11 years prior to that would be 2000… yet the photo pictured on the left seems to be timestamped '82.

O_o


#4

Yep, the interconnections sometimes get a little odd. In the early 60’s, my dad (Air Force) was stationed in Germany. The woman I’m proud to call my partner for the last 20 years, her dad (Army) was there at the same time. We used Google Earth once to find our old homes, they weren’t that far apart.

I accuse her of stalking me as a kid. :rofl:


#5

Or 28 (as in the day of the month)?


#6

It could be that the datestamp is DD MM YYYY and the picture was taken on the 28th


#7

I had considered that the photo may be inverted, and that not everyone writes the date the same way; 3/19/18 here in the US is written as 19/3/18 in other countries, for instance… but even flipping the image doesn’t explain the lack of a year and month in what appears to be the timestamp.

Photo

Furthermore, if the year shown is correct; were timestamps even a thing back in 1982?

It could be, but where are the rest of the numbers, then?


#8

I don’t think my mother’s camera stamps anywhere near the correct date on her photos.


#9

It’s called the May Wind or Wind of May sculpture in May 4th Square but I can’t find any info on when it was built.


#10

they-might-be-giants-ana-ng


#11

Camera timestamps are dependent on the battery. They can easily be reset–esp. older digital cams.


#12

Groovy; that’s a valid thesis… but again, where’s the rest of the stamp, then?

Not that it matters overall, and it has nothing to do with the subject; it’s just an oddity that caught my attention.


#13

The image presented isn’t 4:3, so my guess is it’s cropped and the original would show the full date. The discussion of the some of the pixels and having seen many shops is hot over at the original article, though, for sure.


#14

Yeah… it’s not even that serious to me. Like I said, it’s just an odd detail that caught my attention.


#15

Did they even make consumer-grade cameras capable of timestamping photos back in ‘82?


#16

Doesn’t seem likely, but I’m no expert.

Again, I wasn’t trying to go down a rabbit hole…


#17

In your inverted picture, the “2” is reversed and looks like a distorted 5, so I don’t think that’s the case. To me the number in the original shot looks like 28. Since there are no other numbers, it could be the 28th shot on the card, the 28th picture taken that day or month or whatever.

But we are thinking digitally. In 2000 they might still have been using film cameras, in which case it could be the 28th frame on the roll or the 28th picture printed from that roll (number added by the processor).


#18

That, and sometimes the film processing lab will add a numeric sequence to each frame of the roll to ensure correct identification of specific shots, e.g. for re-prints of different sizes.


#19

That makes the most sense out of all the offered explanations.


#20

Canon Databack A dates to the mid 70s