The Cottingley fairies: how the photographs were made

The question seems simple: is this photograph authentic? Yet the word contains several different questions. We may want to know whether the paper is old, whether the negative was altered or whether the caption’s claim actually happened. Establishing the first two does not resolve the third. A camera can record a cardboard figure perfectly. The photograph records something that was before the lens; the problem begins when identifying that something.

In Cottingley, Yorkshire, Elsie Wright and her cousin Frances Griffiths made images that became associated with the existence of fairies. The first date from 1917. The National Science and Media Museum explains that the figures were cut-out drawings held in place with pins. In the first four images, no creature needed to be added afterwards: its representation could simply be positioned in the scene. History documented by the museum.

That detail modifies the interest of the case. We are not only faced with an ability to deceive a camera. We are faced with different ways of describing what a camera demonstrates.

The fifth image demands a caveat. Christine Ferguson, in a study of the objects of the case published by Science Museum Group Journal in 2024, distinguishes it from the earlier four and identifies a double exposure. Analysis of a construction placed before the lens should not be applied unchanged to the entire series. Ferguson, "Power at play in paranormal history".

One scene and two descriptions

«A girl poses near figures» and «a girl is accompanied by fairies» may refer to the same image. The second sentence adds the nature of the figures. When this identification enters the title, the reader receives a conclusion before formulating his own question. Even those who doubt may end up looking for signs of defective fairies rather than examining a material montage.

The distinction matters because adding adjectives cannot solve the problem. A scene’s natural, charming or disturbing appearance does not explain its preparation. Nor is it enough to point out that its figures look flat: that impression can suggest a hypothesis, but it requires checking. The observed detail, proposed explanation and supporting document should remain separate.

Similar caution applies to the word ‘fake’. Used without qualification, it seems to detach the whole image from the world. Yet setting, pose and objects are also historical evidence. Recognising a staged construction makes it possible to study choices excluded by a supernatural reading: size, distance, position and framing. The image’s evidential function changes, but it does not become historically useless.

What Conan Doyle put in writing

Arthur Conan Doyle defended the case in The Coming of the Fairies, published in 1922. His preface presents the book as a collection of evidence that the reader can judge. He also objects that the possibility of imitating an effect does not prove that a concrete image has been produced like this. The digital edition allows to directly consult his argumentation, without reducing it to the irony that the creator of Sherlock Holmes believed in fairies. Text by Conan Doyle.

That objection has an interesting limit. Showing that something can be imitated does not, by itself, prove how an original was made. Neither does it authenticate the original. Between these statements lies the investigation of its production. A method of simulation may help formulate tests: what traces to expect, which conditions to observe and which versions of an account to compare.

The name Conan Doyle adds another problem: we can confuse the quality of a literary work with the guarantee of a documentary conclusion. Being a brilliant writer does not certify each identification that one defends. Conversely, being wrong in a case does not allow us to rule out any observation in advance. To judge this argument we have to read it, locate its supports and check which questions leave open.

The archive retains more than the famous image

The University of Leeds gathers a collection of Cottingley with copies of the five photographs, glass negatives, enlargements, correspondence and other materials. Its description also records a copy of Elsie's 1983 confession letter. It is an inventory of documents, not an invitation to treat each piece as independent testimony of the same event. Description of the Leeds collection.

Such a collection suggests more precise questions than ‘why did they believe it?’ Which image circulated at each moment? What explanation accompanied it? Who could access a negative and who saw only a reproduction? Which statements preceded the controversy and which came many years later? Answering requires examining particular documents. The inventory identifies research possibilities; it does not replace that work.

In addition, ten reproductions do not amount to ten observations of the supposed phenomenon. They can come down from the same photograph. The number of publications measures circulation; to measure independence of evidence it is necessary to reconstruct the relations between them. An abundant collection can very well document the dissemination of an affirmation without multiplying the evidence of its content.

The Disagreement That Should Not Be Deleted

The museum places in 1983 a letter from Elsie to Geoffrey Crawley and collects a divergence between the cousins: Frances maintained the authenticity of the fifth image, while Elsie claimed that all five had been prepared. Disagreement is part of the later documentation. It does not make the fifth photograph authentic, nor does it authorize the conversion of two different stories into an identical confession. Letter and explanation of the museum.

Preserving that difference does not make all explanations equally supported. It means stating what each testimony supports without filling gaps with an imagined scene. It also avoids explaining the whole story through a single emotion assigned to its protagonists. A wish to believe, playfulness or the pressure of unexpected fame may be research questions; they should not become thoughts invented for them.

Cottingley remains interesting after recognising the cut-outs in the first four photographs. Those images could record a staged scene without adding fairies during development. The fifth also requires considering overlapping exposures. The extraordinary claim was constructed through interpretation, naming and circulation. Before asking whether a photograph is true, it is worth completing the question: true as a record of what, and supported by which documents?

Sources and references

• National Science and Media Museum (2012). The story of the Cottingley Fairies shows that image manipulation is nothing new.
• Conan Doyle, A. (1922). The Coming of the Fairies. A primary source for his argument, not proof that fairies exist.
• Ferguson, C. (2024). Power at play in paranormal history: The contested object biography of the Cottingley Fairy artefacts. Science Museum Group Journal, 22. DOI: 10.15180/242201.
• University of Leeds, Special Collections. Cottingley Fairies Collection. Archival description of the collection.