Last substantive update: October 26, 2016

The mystery of the

The Girls on the Negatives

Leads and possible identities
#findthegirlsonthenegatives
Photos discovered by
Meagan Abell
Compiled and written by
Michael Mills, Ph.D.
Contributors:
Jack Herring
Donald Hanson

Short web links to this Google doc file:

http://tinyurl.com/PdrPhotos
http://tinyurl.com/findthegirlsonthenegatives

In 2015 Meagan Abell purchased some old photographs

(transparencies) that she found in a thrift shop in Virginia. She
became curious about where and when the photos were taken,
and the identity of the women in the photos. Meagan found
the women who had donated the photos to the thrift shop.

The women told her her that they had purchased the photos at
2014 Shenandoah Yard Crawl, which is a series of yard sales
along a 42 mile stretch along Route 11 in Virginia. The women
did not recall who they purchased them from. In 2015 Meagan
posted the photos to her Facebook page, and the photos went
viral. Numerous media sources picked up the story, including
CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/12/style/gallery/lost-vintage-photos-me
agan-abell/index.html

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/381544-woman-asks-internet-help-identifying-mystery-wo
man-old-photos/

http://www.lookslikefilm.com/blog/2015/8/2/exclusive-findthegirlsonthenegatives

For more information see:

http://www.lookslikefilm.com/blog/2015/8/2/exclusive-findthegirlsonthe
negatives
https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/findthegirlsonthenegatives

Lets work to solve the mystery.

To discover who the photographer and the
women were, it would be helpful know:
1. Where the photos were taken?
It has been well established that the photos were
taken just north of the Gillis beach jetty at Playa del
Rey (a beach community of Los Angeles). The jetty
can be seen at the bottom of the Google Earth picture
below.

2. When were the photos taken?

Given the evidence that has been reviewed so far, the
most likely date that the photos were taken is Friday,
October 17th, 1958. The adjacent days of Thursday
and Saturday are just slightly less probable.
The key factors in determining the likely dates that
the photos were taken are:
a. the jetty and the crane that are seen in the
background of one of the photos.

b. the hairstyles and style of dress of the women

c. when the roll film that was used was available
for sale
d. astronomical data (sun, moon, tides)
e. weather and visibility data
3. What was the purpose of the photo shoot?
Do the photos suggest that the photographer was an
amateur or professional? If it was a professional
photo shoot, what where the photos to be used for?
Were they used in any publications?
4. What was the chain of possession of the photos?
The chain of possession of the photos could trace
back to the photographer or the women.

A review of the evidence collected so far

regarding where and when the photos were
taken
Again, it has been well established that the photos were taken
just north of the Gillis beach jetty at Playa del Rey (a beach

community of Los Angeles). The most likely date that the

photos were taken is Friday, October 17th, 1958 (or adjacent
days).
The evidence for this includes the following.
A. The jetty and crane seen in the background

A jetty and a crane can be seen in the photo above. The Marina
del Rey jetties were constructed in 1958.

Source:
https://books.google.com/books?id=8tyRBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=%22ballona%20creek%22%20jetty%20extension&source=bl
&ots=2X3YoCooln&sig=M4Q01fTzUcOSvCPVmHb6OjPgZ-8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAWoVChMIzqnU54KQxwIVipeICh109Qae#v=one
page&q=%22ballona%20creek%22%20jetty%20extension&f=false

Here are some additional photographs that were taken by the

LA County Fire Department, which was responsible for
documenting the construction of the jetties. According to
Marina del Rey Historical Society, the date of October 16, 1958
was written on the back of the photo. Photo source: Marina
del Rey,Images of America (Arcadia Publishing), 2014.

Here is what may be the most likely ranking of possible years

that the photos were taken given just the information about
the jetties and crane:
1. 1958 - Construction of the Marina del Rey Jetties.
Marina del Rey jetty construction dates: December 1957 November 1958. Source: http://www.chacepark.com/History.htm
2. 1947 - Extension of the Ballona Creek jetties. Source:

https://icce-ojs-tamu.tdl.org/icce/index.php/icce/article/viewFile/934/031_Kenyon

3. 1947 - 1958 - Maintenance dredging operations at

Ballona Creek.

Note: later than 1958 is not a possibility because the

Marina del Rey jetties were not yet extended to their full
length in the photo.
The photo below was taken from the Gillis Beach, Playa
del Rey jetty on 8/8/2015. The Marina del Rey outer,
crescent shaped cap breakwater can be easily
distinguished from the channel jetties because of its white
color (it is covered with guano -- bird droppings), and, its
position relative to the Santa Monica Mountains in the
background can be discerned.

First, note that the outer, crescent shaped breakwater,

which was constructed in 1965, is not there in the photo
of the woman wearing the blue dress.
In the following two photos, lets zoom in to compare the
length of the jetties relative the mountains in the
background...

Note that the jetties in the photo are not as long as they
are today. Compare the end of the jetties to the
mountains in the background -- it is clear that the jetties
today extend out further into the ocean. This suggests
the photos were taken either in 1958 shortly before the
Marina del Rey jetties were completed, or, in 1947 if the
crane is working to extend the length of the Ballona Creek
jetties.
There is also a slight possibility that the crane was being
used for maintenance dredging of the Ballona Creek
channel sometime between the time that the Ballona
Creek jetties were extended (1947) and when the Marina
del Rey channel jetties were constructed (1958).
Since the photos were taken at sunset, it is likely that the

crane was not in operation at that time, but had been

parked for the evening.
B. The hairstyles and style of dress of women
1950s:
Here is a dress from the 1950s that is very similar to the
one worn by the blue dress woman. In fact, it looks to
be the identical style of dress.

Source: http://www.bluevelvetvintage.com/images/T/xctmpkFPjel.png

Also see:
Womens 1950s Hairstyles: An Overview
http://hair-and-makeup-artist.com/womens-195
0s-hairstyles/

1940s:
See:
1940s Hairstyles for Females
http://www.modelhaircut.com/hairstyles/1940shairstyles-for-females.html
C. When was the film that was used available? It was 2 x 2
frame (6x6 cm format) on 117 or 120 (or 220) roll film.
If the film was 117, that product was discontinued in 1949
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format )
There were 23 photos total. Donald Hanson noted on
Facebook that 23 frames suggests a single roll of 220 film
(or two 120).
At this point, the film type doesnt help much in narrowing
down possible dates.

Possible years that the photos were taken

Considering what is known so far, 1947 - 1958 seems to be
the likely range of possible years (the Ballona Creek jetties
were extended in 1947 and the Marina del Rey channel
jetties were constructed in 1958).
It is possible, but probably unlikely, that the crane in the
photo was being used for maintenance dredging of the
Ballona Creek channel. This could have occurred any time
between 1947 - 1958. At this point it is not known when,
or if, such maintenance dredging occurred.
If the crane was being used for jetty construction (not
dredging), the years that the photos were taken can be
narrowed down to 1947 (extension of the Ballona Creek
channel jetties) or 1958 (construction of the Marina del
Rey main channel jetties).
If the style of dress and hair is more consistent with late
1950s than the late 1940s, then the best guess estimate is
that the photos were taken in 1958.

Best guess of the month and day that the

photos were taken.
Beyond knowing the year, determining the exact date that
the photos were taken will probably not help much to

discover who is in the photos. But it may help to rule out

certain years and months if the historical tide, moon phase
and weather data dont match what is seen in the photos.
Position of the setting sun
The position of the setting sun on the horizon suggests
that the photos were taken in either the fall or spring. The
fall date is more likely, and will be considered in more
detail here.
The geometrical analysis here is based on several
assumptions:
1. The location of the photo shoot was the short rock
jetty located at Gillis Beach, Playa del Rey.
2. The same camera and lens were used for all the
photos.
3. The horizontal field-of-view has not been altered
from shot-to-shot by cropping or any other digital
processing.
The basis of this analysis is the photograph of the woman
in the blue dress with the Santa Monica Mountains in the
distance. Using Google Earth, the field-of-view of this
photograph was investigated. Shown below is a view
taken from Gillis Beach with lines shown in red at a 37
degree angle from the point of origin. Below this is a
composite of a section of the Google Earth image that

showed the best match with the full width of the blue
dress photo. From this composite, it appears that the
photo has a horizontal field-of-view of approximately 37
degrees.
While the field-of-view will vary from lens to lens, a
medium format camera with a 90 mm lens will have a field
of view in this range (e.g.
http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/filmf
ormats.html).

While there are a number of images that show the setting

sun or the horizon just after sunset, only one contains any
recognizable geographic points of reference:

On this photograph are labeled the proposed locations of

the just-set sun, and the leftward extent of the visible
slope of the Santa Monica Mountains. Photo comparison
in Google Earth showed that this slope was the ridge just
above Malibu, and that a view angle of 284 from the
photo location was the best fit for the leftward extent of
the slope (note that this is to the right of Point Dume,
which is not discernable in the photo). Assuming that this

photo shares the 37 field-of-view, the horizontal angle

from the just-set sun to the leftward extent of the
mountain slope was estimated to be 25. This implies a
sunset azimuth of approximately 259.
There are several sources of uncertainty in this analysis,
including possible inaccuracies in any of the assumptions,
the accuracy of the measurements, and the fact that the
sun continues to shift towards the north after it dips below
the horizon. In any scenario, however, it is highly unlikely
that the sunset azimuth is greater than 270. This seems
to rule out dates after March 21 and before September 21.
If the calculated sunset azimuth is taken at face value, and
if the other indications (e.g. phase of the moon) are used
to rule out a late-winter date, then the dates that best
match an azimuth of 259 are October 17th and 18th. A
more conservative estimate would suggest any date
between October 15th and 20th is consistent with this
analysis of the setting sun location.
First quarter moon
The photo below shows a first quarter moon.

If the photos were taken in October 1958, the first quarter

moon occurred on the 18th.
Moon phase for October 18, 1958 (source:

http://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/1958/october )

This date is consistent with the stage of the construction

of the jetty in the photo -- the jetty was almost, but not
yet fully, extended out to its current length. The jetty was
not completed to its full length until sometime in
November of 1958.
(http://dpw.lacounty.gov/pdd/marinadelrey/index.cfm?ID=6).

If the photos were taken in 1947, the dates of the first

quarter moon for these months are September 21st or
October 21st.

Tide
From the photos, it appears to be low tide, and the tide
has been ebbing.

Historical tide data can be accessed here:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/waterlevels.html?id=9410660&units=standard&bdate
=20151018&edate=20150819&timezone=GMT&datum=MLLW&interval=6&action=

For example, tide data for Los Angeles on October 16-17,

1958 can be seen at the link below. (Note that these times
are in local standard time)
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/waterlevels.html?id=9410660&units=st

andard&bdate=19581016&edate=19581017&timezone=LST&datum=MLL
W&interval=h&action=

The only dates in October, 1958 in which the low tide is at

or just after sunset are the 3rd, 4th, 16th, 17th and 31st.
Weather
Air Temperature
October 1958 was an an unusually warm month in Los
Angeles. According to weather records from the Los
Angeles International Airport (adjacent to Playa del Rey), it
was the warmest October since record keeping began
there in 1944.
(http://weather-warehouse.com/WeatherHistory/PastWeatherData_LosAngelesIntlArpt_LosAngeles_CA_Oc
tober.html).

The warmest temperature was reached on October 16,

with a record high of 103 for that date that still stands
today. The adjacent dates of October 15 and 17 were also
warm, with high temperatures of 93 and 100. By the 18th,
it cooled a bit, with a high of 87, and by the 19th the high
temperature was 80.
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:USW00023174/detai

l).

The high temperatures on these dates is consistent with

the warm weather dresses worn by the women, and, an
inclination (or willingness?) to wade into the ocean.
Visability
Below is a table showing the visibilities measured at the
Los Angeles Airport for the month of October, 1958.
(http://farmersalmanac.com/weather-history)

Date in
October
1958

Visibility in
Miles

Date in
October
1958

Visibility in
Miles

3.5

16

23

3.6

17

17.4

18.4

18

9.4

6.6

19

9.2

6.3

20

6.8

8.9

21

8.2

5.5

22

8.2

4.4

23

15.1

3.2

24

8.9

10

25

12.6

11

2.8

26

9.8

12

3.1

27

10.4

13

3.1

28

5.3

14

5.7

29

15

7.8

30

21.7

31

21.7

The Santa Monica Mountains that are clearly visible in one

photograph are over 10 miles from the Gillis Beach
location. Analysis on Google Earth indicated that the
visible ridgetops ranged from 11 to 18.5 miles in the
distance. Thus, is seems likely that the photographs were
taken on a day when the air was clear enough for visibility
to be well over 15 miles, perhaps even as high as 20. This
was not a particularly common occurrence in the
notoriously polluted LA basin of 1958. Strong
northeasterly winds (locally called Santa Ana winds) at
that time of year, however, bring in dry, relatively clean air
from the interior deserts, and commonly also lead to the
highest temperatures in the coastal regions of the LA basin
as well as high visibilities.
The days closest to the first quarter moon (Saturday
October 18th) with the highest visibilities were Thursday,
October 16th (23 miles) and Friday, October 17th (17.4
miles). Saturday, October 18th had the lowest visibility,
9.4 miles; however, visibilities might have varied at
different times of the day.

Best guess so far as to the date the photos were taken.

Given the information gathered so far, the most likely date
that the photos were taken is Friday, October 17, 1958.
The adjacent days of Thursday and Saturday are just
slightly less probable. These dates are consistent with
information gleaned from the photos with regard to the
setting sun position, moon phase, ebbing low tide, warm
air temperature, excellent visibility, the almost-completed
Marina del Rey channel jetties, and the style of the blue
dress worn by one of the women.

A review of the evidence regarding the likely

purpose of the photo shoot
What was the purpose of the photo shoot? Do the photos
and the type of film used suggest that the photographer
was an amateur or professional? If it was a professional
photo shoot, what where the photos to be used for?
Were they used in any publications? Were the women in
the photos professional models or amateurs?

On Facebook, Donald Hanson noted that he contacted

Rocky Mountain Film ( www.rockymountainfilm.com ) to
inquire about the numbers seen on the edge of the film.
They replied:
"Edge numbering wasn't that consistent all those years ago, and as
you note it could be a date code. It doesn't look like Kodachrome,
could be Ektachrome, but we are leaning toward something like
Ansco at the moment. ...Large format transparencies weren't nearly
as common as negatives, so we don't have a lot of hope that we
have a sample."

Some relevant discussion regarding the film used and the

photography can be found on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/3f5ujs/found_negatives_in_
a_richmond_va_thrift_store_why/

Comments:
Comment from Greta Rachel Morton:
Suggestion: I dont think the photos are fashion editorial. The fact that the
faces are mostly masked and turned away from the lens indicates that nothing
is being sold here. There is a mise en scene (perhaps partial, photos in series
may be missing) that implies a narrative or filmic approach.
Why are the identities of these women hidden?
The european womans face is always turned away from camera and the
women of mixed-heritage ( possibly African-american) is wearing a blonde
wig which disguises her. Her face is in shadow.
What is the link between these two women?
Mixed race relations in the 1950s were tense so these photos are somewhat
edgy on this level.
There is a Hitchcock style darkness to the theme.
Reply from MIchael Mills:
I agree that these photos were likely taken for non-commercial
purposes, mostly likely by a photo hobbyist who was related
to, or was friends with, the women. The photo session was
likely hastily planned at the last minute to take advantage of
one of a series of hot, clear days with spectacular sunsets. The
primary focus was not the women, but the stunning scenery -the colors of the sunset, reflections on the glassy water, and
the moon.
I am skeptical that the red dress woman was of mixed race,
or that she was wearing a blonde wig.
It is likely the photo shoot was likely unplanned and
opportunistic -- largely motivated by warm, clear weather,
calm winds, and spatacular sunsets. Rather akin to amateur /
hobbyist photos that are hastily posed in front of a beautiful
tourist destination (or, in this case, a rare and spectacular
sunset with reflections off of a glassy ocean).

Reply from Greta Rachel Morton:

Just an historical note on blond hair fashion for
Afro-americans found here:
"Black women have been going blonde since
the late 1950's. When Lady Clairol created the
"Miss Clairol" home coloring kit in 1956, it
made it easy and very accessible to go blonde.
Black actresses, singers and models such as,
Dorothea Towels, Dinah Washington and Etta
James formed a trend with their bright
platinum hues. If they weren't dyeing it, they
were wearing blonde wigs. It was all simply for
a different look."
Source:
http://www.blerdnation.com/blog/being-black-and-bl
onde-my-thoughts-and-experience

Note: Many of the above questions have yet to be

thoroughly examined.

What was the chain of possession of the

photos?
The chain of possession of the photos could trace back
to the photographer or the women.
Meagan Abell, who found the photos at a thrift shop,
described her efforts in this regard:

As for the ownership of the transparencies- I was in

contact with the ladies who bought them before me,
and basically they ended up getting them at this thing
called the "Shenandoah Yard Crawl" last year, which is
a 42 mile stretch route along a highway [Route 11] in
the Blue Ridge Mountains that happens once a year,
where people will set up yard sale booths and whatnot
to try and clean out some old goods from the past year.
They couldn't remember exactly which stop along the
way they picked them up (and of course paid in cash),
and there were thousands of booths that were
participating. They gave me an approximate chunk of
where they stopped, and I ended up grabbing a friend
and going this year asking everyone who might have
seen or sold the images, but we didn't have any luck.
I'm going to try and talk with them again and see if
they have any other info that could help!

The Shenandoah Yard Crawl has a facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialRoute11YardCrawl
A post inquiring about the photos was placed there in
October, 2015. So for there have been no leads.

Identifying the women in the photos

and the photographer
Some of the criteria that can be used to attempt to identify the
women in the photograph are

 facial features (unfortunately, none of the photos show

the full face of either woman, and, the photos were taken
at a distance under low light conditions)
hair color, length and style
height and body shape
apparent age
dress
the possible personal or professional association between
the women, and the photographer
whether a potential candidate was likely to have been at
that location on that date (or other possible dates).
whether a potential candidate had some connection
(friends, relatives, etc.) to the areas around Route 11, the
Shenandoah Highway, which might help to explain why the
photos were found there.
Here are some candidates that have been proposed so far
regarding the possible identities of the women.

1. Emmet Gowins wife (likelihood: slim)

It has been suggested that the photos are stylistically similar to

some of the work of photographer Emmet Gowin, and, that
the woman in the blue dress looks like his wife. There is no
additional evidence to support this hypothesis at this time.
For more info re Emmet Gowin, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmet_Gowin

2. Playa del Rey residents in the 1950s: Lu Mills

and Evelyn Benson (likelihood: slim)

Lu Mills and Evelyn Benson (circa 1995)

Both women were Playa del Rey, CA residents in 1958. They

were neighbors and friends, and they lived directly above the
Gillis Beach jetty where the photos were taken. Evelyns
husband was an amateur photographer who had a photo
developing dark room in his garage.
Lu Mills had a brother, Grady Owens, to whom she may have
sent copies of the photographs. He lived in Charles Town, WV
which is not far (about 30 miles) from Route 11 where the
photos were purchased at the 2014 "Shenandoah Yard Crawl."

A picture of Lu Mills and Evelyn Benson taken in 1970.

In the photo above, Lu and Evelyn would have been 12 years

older than when the photos in question were taken (assuming
they were taken in 1958).
Evelyn Benson, lower center in the above photo, had blonde
hair which she wore in a very distinctive hairstyle similar to the

hairstyle of the red dress woman in the photos. She also had
an upturned nose and protruding lips. Her Adams apple was
noticeable. In the photos below, her chin and jawline also
appear to be consistent with these facial characteristics of the
red dress woman.

Below, Lus facial profile compared to the blue dress woman

in the photos. Similar foreheads, cheeks and noses.

And a similar hairstyle.

The photo of Lu on the right was taken circa 1955 -- three years
before the photo shoot.
Lu was known to cock her head to the left. The way the blue
dress woman cocked her head just slightly to the left and
downward is very similar to this photo of Lu as an adolescent.
Also, notice the distinctive ridge in the forehead in both photos.

In this picture the womans hair appears to be brown/reddish

(although this could possibly be due to the light from the sunset
and orange clouds) and her lower lip looks thicker.

Evidence supporting the Lu and Evelyn hypothesis:

explains the association between the two women in
the photos (they were friends)
places them in that specific location in at that time
(Playa del Rey, near Gillis beach)
the very unusual facial features of the woman in the
red dress seem to match the facial features of Evelyn
Evelyns husband was an amateur photographer with
a dark room for developing photos
this hypothesis may help to explain how the photos
ended up in Virginia near Route 11 (Lu had a brother
who lived near there, in Charles Town, West Virginia).
However, some unsupportive evidence:

 The woman in the blue dress does not appear to be

wearing a wedding ring in the photos that show her
left hand. Lu was married in 1958.
If the photos were taken in October, 1958, Lu would
have been age 38. The woman in the blue dress looks
to be in her twenties. Although Lu appeared youthful
and was slim at 38, despite some of facial similarities,
this apparent age discrepancy reduces the likelihood
that Lu and Evelyn are the women in the photos.
The likelihood would be greater if the crane in the
photos was being used for maintenance dredging of
the Ballona Creek channel. That could move the date
that the photos were taken to an earlier year (Lu
arrived in Los Angeles in 1949 and moved to Playa del
Rey in 1955).

3. ?
Current Status:
As of now there is no conclusive evidence regarding the
identities of the women or the photographer.

If you have information that might help to solve the mystery contact:
Michael Mills, memills@gmail.com
...or, in the menu bar, click on the right-most green icon. Click on Suggesting mode to leave
a comment. Or, click the Comment button at the top right of this page.