The Voynich Ninja

Hello,

My name is Emmanuela. I am a professional graphic designer and have been fascinated by the Voynich manuscript since 2015.

I have been using photoshop to try to decipher the VM. I have a pretty good feeling this manuscript is illuminated and is done so in 3d.

There is a technique that needs to be done to see beneath the pages. I have discovered many incredible things such as the 2 sections in the attachment, there you can see the gold and 3d illustrations.. 

I believe there are many jewels and finials in this manuscript. I am currently working on the cover. So far I have spotted a few things such as a star and 
keyhole in the middle left part. I will post soon.

Anyway, let me know your thoughts,

Thanks,

Emmanuela

Here is the image. On the right, you can clearly see the golden item, let me know your thought. thanks.[attachment=8119][attachment=8119]

Hello Moonchild!

I appreciate you sharing your artwork with us. Given that these images were crafted using ink and quills, which might not offer the highest precision in drawing, it's important to approach interpretations with caution to avoid overly projecting personal biases. Nonetheless, I wish you the best in your artistic endeavors and look forward to seeing more of your work!

I am referencing your original post from the other thread here as it may add a little more context to this one.

(30-01-2024, 09:25 PM)Moonchild Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hello,

If anyone is interested, I use photoshop and try to mimic the effect of scrubbing it with water to remove the top layer gently.

Maybe that is why deciphering the Voynich is difficult, and maybe that is why some pages are missing..

I believe and notice almost every cell on each page inked or blank area, contain hidden information.

This book is meant to be looked at in a 3D fashion. And what appears to be behind this top layer amongst other things, golden objects such as handles. I can show you some examples and you can actually see through the items I am mentioning..

Anyway

Let me know your thoughts : )

Thank you,
Emmanuela

It is good to see a couple of examples of what you were referring to in the other thread. However, it raises doubts and questions. I'm no expert or professional and I haven't used Photoshop myself. But I have dabbled a lot with image manipulation, usually with nothing better than Windows Paint and Microsoft Word and PowerPoint to edit images (I have also done some image editing with the Photos app in my iPhone). One thing I have learned all too well is it is possible to completely alter an image so that it is nothing like it was originally. Another thing I have learned is there is often only so much you can do with a poor original or one which is too low a resolution. In the other thread, I mentioned in particular the digital restoration (and reconstruction) work that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is doing. They also use Photoshop and they go in-depth about their process, including the potential pitfalls. But your work, on the surface, seems more manipulative and less restorative.

I fear that all this work you have done has manipulated the images so much it only amounts to wishful thinking instead of any sort of proof of your hypothesis. It may be no more interesting than what several members here have done, for fun, in playing with software like StableDiffusion. But I am keeping an open mind and would like to see more of your work and learn more about your process.

Here are some questions I have about the work you are doing:

• What source images did you use?
  • Many here will likely recognize the folios you used but it helps if you indicate that (left: f76v; right: Rosette f86, which is referred to differently depending on the source). 
    
  • Which source did you use to get it (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (and Ros or Ros2?), the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. on this site, the Folio browser on this site (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.?), or some other location)? As others have pointed out, the different sources have different resolutions.
    
  • In which You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. did you save the images in your computer before working on them in Photoshop (JPEG, TIFF, or some other format)? Many prefer using JPEG but in my experience there are some disadvantages to this file format that can affect the quality of the image editing. When I save your image here, it defaults to JPG. 
    
  • And perhaps most importantly what DPI resolution, filesize and width and height pixels did you save the images as before working on them in Photoshop? When I save your image here, I see that it is 150 DPI (which is pretty low and you can really tell when you zoom in), 2240 x 2386 pixels (which isn't bad) and 1.9 MB filesize (which may seem high but only by comparison to the filesizes most people use for uploads).
    
  • Bear in mind too that regardless how high quality your source image is, it is still a digital copy, albeit a really good one, and not the original manuscript, which itself is far from the quality it was when it was first made.
    
• Can you walk us through your process in Photoshop, step by step and what tools and options you used along the way? You said that you try to mimic the effect of using water to remove the top layer but is that truly what the Photoshop options you are using are actually doing?
  
• The VM has already been examined to determine whether or not it is a palimpsest (re-used manuscript sheets) and it was found to not be one. Despite clearly having underdrawings which have been painted over to colorize them, the folios don't appear to be pentimenti (images painted over previous still existing but hidden images underneath). Steganography has been discussed on this site before and one such technique is using invisible ink, both of which have been around a lot longer than the VM. But this doesn't appear to be what you are trying to reveal as you specifically refer to 3D images.
  
• And are you referring to 3D in the modern, computer-era sense or perhaps the linear/graphic perspective technique first described and experimented with by Filippo Brunelleschi in the early 15th century? 
  
• Regardless, there is a difference between the presence of three dimensional drawings in the VM and how they came to be invisible without the need for such extreme alterations as the ones you have used in order to reveal them. So that begs the question not only how but also why would the VM author have gone to such effort to hide such images on these folios, given what it took you to reveal them?
  

Thank you very much merrimacga for your insight and questions. I will answer them all tomorrow and elaborate on each one.

In the meantime, here is another image.

Emmanuela

Hello,

Please note that this just my theory and opinions. I am not saying I have the answers. Or that my theory is correct.

At first, when I started researching, I was definitely using high resolution 300 dpi which seemed to be the obvious way to go.
I spent countless hours and was not happy with the results I was seeing.
One day, I decided to use a low res just for fun and I noticed some shapes forming a little "clearer"...
Finally, I now am lowering the resolution to about 45 to 65 dpi from any original pdf file of the Beinecke which are by default at 300dpi at 2218 x 3358 px.Whatever VM file you use that has not been modified will “work”.

As I previously mentioned, I try to simulate the effect of adding, rubbing, dripping water on the page. ( If you write on a piece of paper with ink and add water on it, there will be distortion and blur on the writing, the darker areas of the ink will spread around that spot more and stay dark.. ) and that is why the use of images that are not high definition work better to achieve those results. In other words, the slightly pixelated image mimics the wet page.

The illustrator is demonstrating that the elements have depth by adding a darker stroke in certain areas. To me that is a big clue. It tells me that the creator knows shadows and chose to represent depth, yet in other areas he cannot draw normal arms, or legs or even finish coloring inside some green foliage and does so in multiple directions. This is not coherent in my opinion. Instead, are perfect shapes of metallic objects among other things. There is also an invisible grid on the pages some more visible than others which I think play a role in the VM..

Almost every cell inked or blank has some kind of information embedded in it only activated with water. That is why penti- menti and palimpsest results were non conclusive. The info is in a bulb . I don’t know how this is even possible to achieve..

When I say 3D, I mean similar to the jewelry book of Anna of Bavaria: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The process is quite simple and anyone with photoshop can do this. What I found difficult for me to achieve these results was figuring out the lower res work better which when you think about it makes no sense but we are talking about the VM.. nothing makes sense lol

Why I believe in my work is because what I discover is not random. If an image would transform, as you say in photoshop and give me random results, I would’ve given up this theory a long time ago. It’s the fact that whatever uncovers is a recur- rent theme throughout the book. For example the shape of the “leather strap” I presented on Image 3 which is not visible at first glance without manipulation is a shape we see as well in the Rosette of image2.

Finally why would someone go through this length, I don’t know why. To impress, to hide important information.. These steps are to simulate the water effect:

1. Open file in photoshop, jpg or pdf or psd to me makes no difference..
2. Make the image slightly lower resolution to see a bit of pixels.
3. Go to image - Levels - and slightly lighten the image.
4. Go to Filter - Blur - Gaussian Blur a little to kind of blur the pixels

After that, I only use the Dodge and Burn tool.

I slightly burn what is blank or light colour and make sure to go over the outlines. I dodge the dark areas as if I am scrubbing them and then use the burn tool again.

That is what I do.

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
Emmanuela

Photoshop has many amazing tools, but they are not magical. A destructive process like burn and dodge will not extract meaningful "3d" information when applied so heavily, especially after blurring, another destructive process.

A burned toast can show an image too, even a portrait.

Hello nablator, thank you for your feedback.

I hear what you're saying and it is precisely what I am trying to do. Destroy it.

As I was saying, I am trying to mimic a wet page. If you wet a page, blur will happen 100% so yes it will get "destroyed".
It will also get darker (I invite you to try it, write on a piece of paper and then put some water on the ink and see what happens)

Without the actual manuscript I cannot see how I can explore this theory in any other way.

I strongly believe in my theory even if it sounds ridiculous.

When I was a kid, I had an activity book similar to this theory, it had faint paint and some outline and when you used a wet paint brush on it the colours would spread out and some image would appear..

If you look at the last image I sent of a section on folio 116v (the strap / ribbon) the idea is not so far fetched... notice on many of the pages in the VM, elements and illustrations reach the top, bottom, left or right edge. For me that is a clue.

I am glad the general public cannot access the MS.

(07-02-2024, 08:23 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am glad the general public cannot access the MS.

Hello,

Here is another wishful thinking burned toast, from a person from the general public.
Enjoy!  : ) 

And as for your comment Koen G, it is like the Voynich Manuscript, we see your true colours...


Your blog's about section: 
"...My own background is in historical linguistics, especially in Dutch. I do not consider this background particularly useful in the field of Voynich studies, so I am definitely not an expert. Then again, I believe that very few people are when it comes to this very particular artifact.

In the face of the Voynich, we are all amateurs."