Why an Atheist Thinks the Shroud of Turin is the Real Deal

Why Picknett and Prince Are Wrong

The simple fact of the matter is that to encode distance information with light in a photograph, the light coming from a more distant point such as the recesses of the eyes must be less than the light coming from a closer point such as the tip if the nose. Now, in fact, that really happens, but not in a way that is sufficient to create the height-field image that exists on the shroud.

Assuming a 16 foot distance between a body and a piece of cloth—about as short a distance as you can use to make a life-size photograph—a one inch difference between the tip of the nose and side of the nose where it meets the cheek would produce a 1% difference in the amount of light striking the cloth. The difference would be imperceptible. On the shroud the difference between these two points on the face is about 60%. Variations in color and reflectivity of the body’s surfaces caused by natural angles would dramatically affect the amount of light that would strike the cloth. The shadows and the variations would overwhelm the slight difference in light caused by distance. We need only recall the metaphor of Russell’s desk to realize this. A photograph made with light is simply and unequivocally, without the need for further qualification, a representation of a 3D shape in 2D space. It is not, it cannot be, a height-field. Hence, the image on the shroud is not in any way a photograph.