You forget that artists and chemists and alchemists were obsessed with these types of issues for since antiquity:
“The notion that light can affect various substances - for instance the suntanning of skin or fading of textile - must have been around since very early times. Ideas of fixing the image seen in mirrors or other ways of creating images automatically may also have been in people’s mind long before anything like photography was developed.
However, there seem to be no historical records of any ideas even remotely resembling photography before 1725, despite early knowledge of light-sensitive materials and the camera obscura.
It has been suggested that some lost type of photographic technology must have been applied before 1357: the Shroud of Turin contains an image that resembles a sepia photographic negative and is much clearer when it is converted to a positive image. The actual method that resulted in this image has not yet been conclusively identified. It first appeared in historical records in 1357 and radiocarbon dating tests indicate it was probably made between 1260 and 1390. No other examples of detailed negative images from before the 19th century are known.
Albertus Magnus (1193/1206–80) discovered silver nitrate and noted that it could blacken skin. Silver nitrate would later be used as a light sensitive material in the photographic emulsion on photographic glass plates and film.
Georg Fabricius (1516–71) discovered silver chloride, later used to make photographic paper...
In 1614 Angelo Sala wrote in his paper Septem Planetarum terrestrium Spagirica recensio: “When you expose powdered silver nitrate to sunlight, it turns black as ink”. He also noted that paper wrapped around silver nitrate for a year had turned black....
Wilhelm Homberg described how light darkened some chemicals (photochemical effect) in 1694...”
.
I don’t forget, you simply fabricate.
Sorry. It has been conclusively proved by three different scientist using three different approaches, that what was tested in the 1988 C-14 test of the sample taken from the Shroud of Turin was hopelessly flawed from the beginning by the breaking of the sampling protocols when instead of taking the samples from several areas of the Shroud, at the last minute one person decided to cut a single master sample from a single area and distribute THAT to the three C-14 labs.
Unfortunately, he chose to cut that master sample from the one area the scientists involved in the 1978 examination of the Shroud (STURP) all agreed should be avoid due to the observed fact that area was both physically and checally DIFFERENT than the main body of the Shroud in that it fluoresced under a black light (the main body did not), showed an inconsistent weave, tested chemically different, and reflected visible light differently (had spectroscopic differences).
"Ultraviolet and x-rayphotographs taken in 1978, before the carbon 14 dating samples were removed, indicated that there were chemical differences between the sample area and surrounding areas of the cloth. Moreover, Alan Adler, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut State University, had found a significant quantity of aluminum in yarn segments from the general area of the sample. It is not found onother samples from else where on the shroud. Alum, an aluminum compound, the common mordant used with Madder root dye, was certainly an explanation."
The main body of the Shroud is 100% Linen made from Flax. It is not dyed. It was hank fullerene and bleached which was by a soapwort plant, consistent with middle eastern practices of the first century.
The main sample was cut in five pieces, A, B, C, D, and E. A and E were sent to the University of Arizona, the C-14 lab which had invented the technique which was to be used by all three labs. B was sent to Zurich, Switzerland, C was retained as a control, and D was sent to British Museum lab at Oxford, which was in charge. They only announced the averaged results: 1340AD.
However, the devil and his statistical red flags were in the actual results each lab reported for the supposedly homogenous pieces of the master sample they tested. None of the four tested sub-samples agreed!
Sontagged. . . they SHOULD HAVE AGREED! It wasn’t even close. Each of these tests had a range of confidence of plus or minus twenty-five years, yet not a single one of the supposed homogenously composed samples woven from plant materials, assumed to have been harvested at the same time, even over-lapped the fifty year range of confidence of another! That’s not possible on a test that is generally accurate to the around 3% experimental error. Remi Van Haelst, a Belgian Statistician, was the first to publish a credible mathematical challenge to the C-14 results in 1997.
"CONCLUSION :
Facts :
The Arizona error was arbitrary enlarged from 17 to 31. The Wilson & Ward mean 689-+16 was replaced by the UNWEIGHTED mean 691-+31. The multiplying t-factor for 95% confidence was enlarged from 1.96 to 2.6. The claimed "at least 95 % confidence" for the medieval dating of the Shroud is NOT supported by statistical analysis. One may wonder, why these OBVIOUS facts, were not spotted by the "team of peers" who judge all papers before publication in Nature. Even stranger is the FACT, that Prof. Bray of the "Istuto di Metrologia" of Turin, confirmed that the results of the 3 labs were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the means WERE questionable. Prof. Bray declared not to be at liberty to answer any questions. His answer was : "On the evidence submitted, no averaged results APPEAR questionable. The scatter for sample 1 is about equal to the limit." The only possible explanation is, that NOT all evidence was submitted to Prof. Bray. Prof. Bray refused to comment on the "combination from EIGHT to FOUR Arizona dates. I asked the editor of Nature, to compare my calculations with the results given by Damon et al. Following Dr. Laura Garwin (Physical Science Editor) : "You are asking me questions that are beyond my ability to answer. The Damon et al paper was refereed by qualified referees and no dissatisfaction was raised with the assignment or errors." I also asked the advice of Prof. Bene (University of Geneve). "I would like to congratulate you for the quality of your work. You established definitive evidence, that the measurements made on the linen of the Shroud are NOT homogeneous and that they should be rejected." Prof. Jouvenoux (University of Marseille-Aix) : "Van Haelst was probably the first to question the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in a scientific way."
Examination of the three labs results shows the further from the edge sub-sample resided, the older the test sub-sample results reported. Shroud researchers Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, noting this discrepancy, discovered a sixteenth century technique used to repair expensive tapestries and wall hangings called "French Invisible Reweaving" in which skilled artisans dyed threads and not only wove them into a cloth needing repair but spliced the new thread to original old thread invisibly. Benford and Marino hypothesized that the 1989 C-14 test had accurately dated a melange of original Linen Shroud material with a sixteenth century repair to a corner frayed from centuries of handling and hanging from that corner.
In 2005, chemist Raymond N. Rogers, a retired chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, decided to falsify the Benford/Marino hypotheses by looking at the remaining C sub-sample. Instead, Rogers, found the remaining sub-sample proved that Benford and Marino were absolutely correct! The side of the sample toward the left edge of the Shroud was composed of dyed European Cotton, not the in-dyed Linen which composed the side toward the right main body of the Shroud. Rogers identified Alizarin dye from madder root and alum mordant and the S twist cotton threads on the portion that were obviously added. These threads were, on average, smaller in diameter than the Flax Linen thread into which they were spliced. The cotton had a high vanillin content while the Flax had zero vanillin, indicating great age (over 1600 years).
"If the cloth had been manufactured in1260, the earliest date suggested by carbon dating, it should have retained about 37% of its vanillin. (But since the Linen has none at all—Swordmaker) Paraphrasing Rogers, Ball writes, “Let’s call it somewhere around the middle of that range, which puts the age at about 2,000 years. Which can mean only one thing…”
Even during the C-14 testing, some of those involved noticed something awry, but did not speak up when they should have:
"Edward (Teddy) Hall, head of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, had noticed fibers that looked out of place. A laboratory in Derbyshire concluded that the rogue fibers were cotton of “a fine, dark yellow strand.” Derbyshire's Peter Southwrote: “It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past…”And
"Giorgio Tessiore, who documented the sampling, wrote: “…1 cm of the new sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads.”
Oops!
Then there’s this:
"Alan Adler at Western Connecticut State University found large amounts of aluminum in yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample, up to 2%, by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis.Why aluminum? That was an important question because it is not found else where on the Shroud.”
Following up on the statistical analysis ov Van Haelst, Bryan Walsh, an expert in C-14 statistical analysts confirmed the sample was not homogenous, an absolute requirement for accuracy in such testing.
"Bryan Walsh, a statistician, examined Van Haelst’s analysis and further studied the measurements. He concluded that the divided samples used in multiple tests contained different levels of the C14 isotope. The overall cut sample was non-homogeneous and thus of questionable validity. Walsh found a significant relationship between the measured age of various sub-samples and their distance from the edge of the cloth. Though Walsh did not suggest invisible reweaving, it is consistent with his findings.
The Los Alamos National Laboratory Tests
"In a presentation the Ohio State University’s Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed new findings showing that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon dating could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton. According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the sampling are awere “definitely not linen” and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out:the [1988] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry, that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three threads amples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to Rogers’ finding in Thermochimica Acta by the late Raymond Rogers.
There are a lot more than three definitive falsifications of the 1988 C-14 test of the Shroud due to sloppy science and confirmation bias in the managers and testers playing statistical games to hide the glaring RED FLAGS that, had it been any other artifact they were testing, would have caused them to STOP and say, "these samples are hopelessly compromised with something making them not homogenous." But because they were WANTING to prove it a hoax, the did many impermissible things and cur corners such as averaging results that just did not make sense until they kinda fit. . . But the statisticians caught them at it because the numbers don’t lie.
There is no silver on the Shroud of Turin to hold an image.
The real problem with the photography theory is it cannot account for the terrain map 3D data encoded in the image. No mere photograph does. Physicists who study light have found no light artifacting on the Shroud which would exist were it a photograph. It only appears to be a photographic negative, but it isn’t. The data is distance encoded representing distance a body part has to the surface of the cloth. I.e., the closer the body part, the more intense the image gradient. The image disappears to the naked eye by about 2.5 to 4 centimeters, light does not work that way. That’s why attempts to replicate the Shroud using photographic techniques never look like the Shroud in detail, failing in significant ways. . . Primarily because light doesn’t care about distance. . . It’s affected by shadows and highlights.
However because there is no shadowing on the Shroud, computer enhancement does bring out body details at greater distances than the human eye can discern, for example, Barrie Schwortz told me that it has been determined that the Man on the Shroud was circumcised.
.
Still grasping at straws!