The Cottingley Fairy Photographs

Taken from a book published by Edward L Gardner Entitled “Fairies”

Fairy photographs published

The Christmas number of the strand magazine in the year 1920 contained an obstacle pastor Arthur Conan Doyle and myself entitled “An epoch making event fairies photographed”. The bookstores at the beginning of December and the issue was sold out in three days. Very much public interest was aroused; the magazine story spread around the world, and many newspapers referred to the photographs and narrative, naturally with reserve and in some cases, with frank criticism. Both the photographic and personal evidence submitted at the time were shortly afterwards tested and probed to the limits possible bar photographers, news reporters and many private investigators.

A year or so later Sir Author wrote a book on the subject under the title of the coming of the fairies, published by Hodder and Stoughton and a second edition of this appeared a few years after that, about 1928 – long since sold out. Post since the first publication was issued and in no particular, then all scenes, has any floor being discovered in the evidence presented, nor any trace of deceit or fraud. Indeed, further corroboration has presented itself from an unexpected source.

Book making event? Yes, if true. In response to many requests, I have sat down here in careful sequence a plain and straightforward account of the way our investigation opened and of the course we took to disprove or establish the genuineness of the photographs. The subject and the incidents are well worth such a record at first hand. Most people know something today of the possibilities of faked photography and the reader can form his own opinion as to whether we were justified in reaching the conclusion we did.

The first photographs it was a morning in May 1920 that the post brought to me two small prints, with a covering letter from a friend asking for my opinion. One print showed a group of fairy lack figures dancing on the back of a stream in front of a little girl and on the other was a winged gnome- like creature near a girl’s beckoning hand. The letter merely stated that they were taken some time since by two girls in Yorkshire. My friend, it seemed, had mentioned fairies in a lecture and a woman had approached afterwards to ask if the lecturer thought that fairies were really true. , said the woman, then two photographs which her young daughter had taken might be true after all. Though, she added neither she nor her husband had been able to believe it. The next day the Prince were brought to my friend and then were forwarded to me, as I was known to be interested in examples of abnormal photography.

The two prints numbered one and two commonly looked like an ordinary studio fake, or merely photographs of a picture, or adapted plate such as had been plentifully produced in the name of spirit photography and with which I was more than familiar. So I just wrote to say that a print was of little use for testing purposes and could the negatives be sent. I quite expected to hear no more. A few days later however, a small cardboard box came in closing two quarter plate negatives on glass and a note from a missus Wright, off Cottingley near Bradford, to say the her daughter Elsie had taken them in a glen near the cottage, where they lived; nothing more. The negative of the group certainly looked better, for it bore no trace of double exposure that I could detect; it was, in fact, a very good clear snapshot. The second one of the single figure was badly underexposed, little detail could be made out and the girl’s hand was abnormal. The very poor Ness of its quality though, was a point perhaps in its favour. Anyway, I thought them at least worth and experts careful examination and are determined to get this before replying. A new and Mr Snelling and without preliminaries, asked him to make me a few prints of both with the hope that he could strengthen the underexposed plate. He took the negatives, smiled a little as he glanced at them and started to ask a question, but stopped wait a moment he said, and went over to a gloss topped desk, switched on the light underneath, placed the first negative on top and began examining it with sundry lenses. He spent so long over it that I broke in with the question as to what interested him. The reply was something of a shock. Several things said Snelling. This plate is a single exposure; These dancing figures are not made of paper nor of any fabric; They are not painted on a photographed background, but what gets me most is that all these figures have moved during exposure. That’s how ever skilled Mr. Snelling might be, I felt that the brief examination was insufficient; It must be as searching as it was possible to apply. So I talked to the problem presented over with him, told him I knew of the photographs, which was little enough then and asked him to analyse the two negatives exhaustively at his leisure, to enlarge them that any irregularities might be shown up and in short, to break them down as faked work if it was possible to do so.

On calling a week later, as arranged, Snelling told me of his analysis and results. These can be summed up in the statement, that he made with emphasis, that both negatives were straight outdoor shots and showed no trace of any faking process with which he was familiar. His first examination had been confirmed in all particulars and on my pressing him still further, he declared that he would stake his reputation on the plates being unpacked, though he added, they were not good ones, the first being a little overexposed and the second badly underexposed. “I don’t know anything about fairies”, Snelling concluded, ‘but these photographs are straight, open air, single exposure shots.”

The instructions are then left him with were that the originals must be absolutely untouched; Contact positives were to be made from them and the negatives from these could be modified or strengthened to get good class prints, but nothing more, no retouching or treatments and their two glass Lantern slides be made. It may be mentioned here that as soon as these copies had been made the original negatives were returned to me for safekeeping. They are still in my possession, as arrangements were made later with Mr. and missus Wright to this effect. Mr. Snelling’s opinion written by myself, was given to me later and a copy follows.

“These two negatives are entirely genuine and faked photographs of single exposure, open air work, show movement in all the fairy figures and there is no trace whatever of studio work involving cold or paper bottles, dark backgrounds, painted figures, etc. In my opinion, they’re both straight untouched pictures.”

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

On the strength of Selling’s analysis I ventured, a week or two afterwards, to show the slides to an audience at the Mortimer Hall London, as a postscript to a lantern lecture i was giving there. I wanted to see for myself the photographs projected on the screen and hence greatly enlarged. They certainly looked extremely well and many questions were asked. I explained that they were submitted as alleged photographs of fairies only; That I had not positive proof beyond the assurance of an expert photographer and for the moment, merely wished to see them projected. The outcome of that brief view was that, through a mutual friend, news of the pictures reached Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and a letter I received soon after asked if it was true that I had fairy photographs and if so, could he see them or hear something about them. Correspondence lead to a meeting and a discussion of the situation. Sir Arthur I learned, had arranged to supply an article to The Strand magazine for its Christmas number, then seven months ahead, on Fairy Lore.

Hence, fairly naturally, his interest in possible photographs to illustrate it, especially when I showed him the beautiful Prince that had been made, and interest that was increased when he examined the original negatives.

On hearing of Mr. Snellings opinion, it was proposed and we agreed, that if the negatives survived a second expert judgment, preferably Kodak, then we should join forces and make the photographs a leading feature in The Strand article. Accordingly an appointment was made with Kodak’s manager in Kingsway for the following week. We were received by Mr. West the manager and found that he had very kindly invited his studio chief and two other expert photographers to be present. The negatives were produced and examined by all at some length and the results of the inspection and interview can be summed up as follows, all agreeing.

The negatives are single exposure.
The plates show no sign of being faked work, but there cannot be taken as conclusive evidence of genuineness.
Kodak were not willing to give any certificate concerning them because photography lends itself to a multitude of processes and some clever operator might have made them artificially.
The studio chief added that he thought the photographs might have been made by using the gleam features and the girl as a background; then in lodging prints from these and painting in the figures; Then taking half plate and finally quarter plate snaps, suitably lighted. All this he agreed, would be clever work and take time.
A remark made by 1:00, as we were thanking them and bidding goodbye, was that after all, as fairies couldn’t be true, the photographs must have been faked somehow.

We came therefore, from Kodak without a certificate. The support given to Snelling’s view was impressive but, by itself, it was not enough. The absence of any sign of faith work must be coupled with positive testimony on the personal side. It’s clearly necessary for the family concerned and all the circumstances to support the photography favourably, and indeed very adequately, before we should be justified in accepting and sponsoring the event. It was decided therefore, the end then that one of us should go to Yorkshire, interview the family and learn all that could be obtained on the spot. It was the month of July and as Sir Arthur was off on an Australian tour in August I undertook the task.

Elsie and the Gnome

Photograph taken in September 1917 by Francis. Camera the Midg.

The original negative has been tested, enlarged and analysed in the same exhaustive manner as the first, and declared to be a perfectly straight single exposure photograph, rather badly under expert. This site is at the top of the Bank of the Glen and is a stretch of level grass bounded by a stone wall on the left. Elsie was playing with the gnome and beckoning it to come onto her knee. The name leaped up just as Francis, who had the camera, snapped the shutter. He is described as wearing black tights, a reddish jersey and a pointed bright red cap. Elsie said there was no perceptible weight, though when on the bare hand the feeling is like a little breath. The wings were more moth like than the fairies and of a soft neutral tint. Elsie explained that what seemed to be markings on his wings or simply his pipes, which he was swinging in his grotesque little left hand. The music of the pups can only just be heard as a tiny little tinkle if everything is quite still. Neither of the children could distinguish any tune.

Francis and the leaping fairy

photograph taken in August 1920 camera the cameo quarter.

This negative and those known as numbers four and five, were as strictly examined as the earlier and similarly disclosed no trace of being other than perfectly genuine photographs. They all proved also to have been taken from the packet given to the girls, each plate of which had been privately mocked by the manufacturer. The fairy is leaping up from the leaves pillar and hovering for a moment, it had done so three or four times. Rising a little higher than before, Francis thoughts it would touch her face and involuntarily tossed her head back. Fairy is in a close fitting costume with lavender coloured wings.

Please keep your eyes open for the next installment of this really interesting story – I will be publishing them through the rest of this month.