Almost. Vampires are visible, but they don’t reflect (although I didn’t know they were camera-proof as well).
Didn’t early cameras use mirrors?
No, they just used a separate lens for the view finder, which gave rise to a parallax problem (what you see in the view finder isn’t exactly what the film will see, so the image will be slightly different); so clever people invented the Single Lens Reflex, whereby an angled mirror is placed in front of the film, so the view from the lens in reflected up to the view-finder, so what you see is what the film will see: when you click the shutter, the mirror is lifted away from in front of the film, and the film records the image from the lens, which is exactly the same view you just saw in the view finder. (This also explains why when you click the shutter, the viewfinder goes dark — the mirror is moved away, so you can’t see anything until it come back, after the film exposure.)
Anyway, point is, even when there was a mirror involved, it just showed you the preview image — the view for the film was always direct, no mirrors involved in exposing the film.
And since the explanation I’ve seen for vampires not showing in mirrors involved the silver backing…cameras are no problem (though there is silver emulsion film) and digital cameras even less so. Which is also the comment on the site.
The Invisible Girl (presumably the Invisible Man’s daughter?) also relates to a recent comic of a mummy making the same comment to his daughter. But I’ve no idea what strip it was – single-panel, but not Off the Mark.
So what you’re saying, larK, is that the vampire’s photo should be fine, but the photographer would have no idea whether he had his eyes closed.
Of course in the end, there are as many “facts” about vampires as there are people writing about them.
Bill: exactly.
“Didn’t early cameras use mirrors?”
Polaroids must have… the lens is in the front of the camera, but the film waiting to be exposed is flat on the bottom. Or at least, the model I had was arranged this way.
In the movie “What We Do In The Shadows” (which I recommend) the vampires have to rely on each other’s impressions so they can dress for an outing (since they can’t see themselves). Once they make a friend who has a digital camera, that all changes. They can apparently be photographed digitally.
An entire DiscWorld mythos about vampires (or vampyres, as some prefer), including those who have sworn off blood by joining the Überwald League of Temperance . . . https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Vampires
I just watched a few minutes of “What We Do In The Shadows” on YouTube and I think I’ll watch it – thanks for the suggestion!
Enough stories have stated that vampires can not be filmed that I take it as a give one can accept. ANd supposedly the cartoonist did as well. Buffy the Vampire Slayer oddly enough didn’t use it. But they did have the vampire clothing issue. Why doesn’t their clothing reflect?
“Why doesn’t their clothing reflect?”
A wizard did it.
I was thinking if you could get a hold of some vampire clothing, you could play some neat (or mean) practical jokes by giving them to someone, not telling them they are vampire clothes, and then having them walk by mirrors or stepping outside into sunlight.
Wouldn’t work, woozy. The victim, not being a vampire, will notice the effect in the first mirror or reflective surface they pass. That’s going to be inside their house. And sunlight doesn’t have any direct effect on dracula’s clothes. (They get consumed when his flesh bursts into flames, but he burns first and that catches the clothes on fire).
That was actually the intended joke. They’d be walking down a hallway fully dressed, pass a mirror and notice that they, but not their clothes, are reflected. *blush*
Comics I Don't Understand 
Almost. Vampires are visible, but they don’t reflect (although I didn’t know they were camera-proof as well).
Didn’t early cameras use mirrors?
No, they just used a separate lens for the view finder, which gave rise to a parallax problem (what you see in the view finder isn’t exactly what the film will see, so the image will be slightly different); so clever people invented the Single Lens Reflex, whereby an angled mirror is placed in front of the film, so the view from the lens in reflected up to the view-finder, so what you see is what the film will see: when you click the shutter, the mirror is lifted away from in front of the film, and the film records the image from the lens, which is exactly the same view you just saw in the view finder. (This also explains why when you click the shutter, the viewfinder goes dark — the mirror is moved away, so you can’t see anything until it come back, after the film exposure.)
Anyway, point is, even when there was a mirror involved, it just showed you the preview image — the view for the film was always direct, no mirrors involved in exposing the film.
And since the explanation I’ve seen for vampires not showing in mirrors involved the silver backing…cameras are no problem (though there is silver emulsion film) and digital cameras even less so. Which is also the comment on the site.
The Invisible Girl (presumably the Invisible Man’s daughter?) also relates to a recent comic of a mummy making the same comment to his daughter. But I’ve no idea what strip it was – single-panel, but not Off the Mark.
So what you’re saying, larK, is that the vampire’s photo should be fine, but the photographer would have no idea whether he had his eyes closed.
Check the first paragraph on this site. Perhaps they don’t show up in photos:
https://vamped.org/2014/09/15/reflecting-on-vampires-why-dont-they-appear-in-mirrors/
Already sorta done on 9 October 2019:
Of course in the end, there are as many “facts” about vampires as there are people writing about them.
Bill: exactly.
“Didn’t early cameras use mirrors?”
Polaroids must have… the lens is in the front of the camera, but the film waiting to be exposed is flat on the bottom. Or at least, the model I had was arranged this way.
In the movie “What We Do In The Shadows” (which I recommend) the vampires have to rely on each other’s impressions so they can dress for an outing (since they can’t see themselves). Once they make a friend who has a digital camera, that all changes. They can apparently be photographed digitally.
An entire DiscWorld mythos about vampires (or vampyres, as some prefer), including those who have sworn off blood by joining the Überwald League of Temperance . . . https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Vampires
I just watched a few minutes of “What We Do In The Shadows” on YouTube and I think I’ll watch it – thanks for the suggestion!
Found this on Reddit today: https://lolnein.com/2015/10/30/sluttyghost/
Enough stories have stated that vampires can not be filmed that I take it as a give one can accept. ANd supposedly the cartoonist did as well. Buffy the Vampire Slayer oddly enough didn’t use it. But they did have the vampire clothing issue. Why doesn’t their clothing reflect?
“Why doesn’t their clothing reflect?”
A wizard did it.
I was thinking if you could get a hold of some vampire clothing, you could play some neat (or mean) practical jokes by giving them to someone, not telling them they are vampire clothes, and then having them walk by mirrors or stepping outside into sunlight.
Wouldn’t work, woozy. The victim, not being a vampire, will notice the effect in the first mirror or reflective surface they pass. That’s going to be inside their house. And sunlight doesn’t have any direct effect on dracula’s clothes. (They get consumed when his flesh bursts into flames, but he burns first and that catches the clothes on fire).
That was actually the intended joke. They’d be walking down a hallway fully dressed, pass a mirror and notice that they, but not their clothes, are reflected. *blush*