|
Post by matchbox on Jul 17, 2004 10:20:34 GMT -5
This thread is sort of a continuation of FP's effort to take the face from one picture and put it onto another . The reason FP's didn't exactly work was that the angle of the two pictures were a bit different. Here is a well known pre PID Paul pic Here is a post PID Paul picture This is the composite. My opinion is that the reason Pauls appearance changed in late '66 is the combination of weight loss and his change in hair style. IMO when you put Pauls eyes, nose, mouth and jaw from the mid '70's into the context of his mid '60's face width (due to being heavier) and hair style, you get none other than James Paul McCartney. I would be very interested in everyones opinion of this composite. How could this possibly be two different men? By the way, these pictures are courtesy of Larry C and can be found on his newly updated site: www.tlcgraphic.com/paul.htmlLarry has added some funny stuff in there this time, and it's worth the price of admission
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 17, 2004 11:24:13 GMT -5
Whether you are interacting with someone in the real world or looking at a picture, you tend to look at the eyes first. The eyes are JP's, ok. But that is a JP with the most bizzare jawline. You see, it fits the post 66 Paul perfectly, but grafted onto JP's upper face, it's not correct, your brain can't make the necessary leap to accept this as either man. We accept the pre 67 Paul as Paul. We (most of us anyway) accept what the the post 66 Paul lools like as Paul, even though cognitive dissonance should have raised alarm bells. Your composite, for me anyway, makes that feeling even stronger.
If he lost fat on his face, it may somewhat in him, and in anyone else, create an illusion of a longer face. (I think that's your point, no?) The jawline in a thinner person should be more sharply defined, not less, as i see here. Not that it matters too much, but it should be noted that the pre 67 pic was airbrushed somewhat. Nothing untoward going on, it just that it's a professionally done portrait, and they no doubt did it at the time.
And did Paul get a nose job in the 70's? If he's not a different man, then he must have..
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jul 17, 2004 11:34:15 GMT -5
for what it's worth, here's that composite pic completely in B&W:
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jul 17, 2004 11:36:42 GMT -5
....effort to take the face from one picture and put it onto another . The reason FP's didn't exactly work was that the angle of the two pictures were a bit different.... unfortunately, as long as the angles are correct, you can paste anyone's head onto anyone else's body.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 17, 2004 11:42:12 GMT -5
The eyes on the composite are from the '70's Paul. And yes, they are James Paul's eyes. Soft tissue changes over time. Especially after wieght loss. But the hard tisssue areas remain the same over the years, right? Maybe Paul did have a nose job, or other work done for that matter. He certainly wouldn't be the first rich, famous person to do so. I do find it interesting that every time something is shown to be JPM post '66, the claims of being faked or airbrushed always follow. Surely some things are real. Arn't they?
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 17, 2004 11:43:38 GMT -5
unfortunately, as long as the angles are correct, you can paste anyone's head onto anyone else's body. Yes. But it really works best when they are both the same person. Don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Jul 17, 2004 11:57:58 GMT -5
A very good comp. Probably about as close as you can get. To me Faul's nose is noticeably thinner and the nostril shape is different. Faul's eyes are a little closer together and I still see a difference in the shape of the face and head that I do not believe weight loss/hairdo would explain. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jul 17, 2004 12:16:23 GMT -5
....My opinion is that the reason Pauls appearance changed in late '66 is the combination of weight loss and his change in hair style..... hmmm.......let's see....weight loss and change of hairstyle..... uhhhhh........nope ;D
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 17, 2004 12:21:36 GMT -5
Oops, ya got me on the eyes, oh well. Serves me right for not thinking this through more carefully.
I did not say it was faked, i said it's obviously airbrushed, if you've ever done a sitting with a pro, they do that always. It doesn't mean anything else...
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jul 17, 2004 12:23:55 GMT -5
Yes. But it really works best when they are both the same person. Don't you think? actually, it really makes no difference at all.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 17, 2004 12:36:13 GMT -5
actually, it really makes no difference at all. Really? Are you saying that you can put anyones face in there, and it will look exactly like Paul?
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 17, 2004 12:52:15 GMT -5
Bad as they are, at least a fade allows you to compare and contrast the two photos at the same time. Slapping one photo on top of another hides the one underneath. Essentially you are saying that Faul's face with Paul's hair looks like Paul. Faul is that way by design, no kidding.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jul 17, 2004 13:18:56 GMT -5
Really? Are you saying that you can put anyones face in there, and it will look exactly like Paul? don't play word games with me, and don't put words in my mouth. I was very clear in what I said. One more time: any head can be pasted to any body, and made to look like an actual photo. Also, the celebrity lookalike biz is a multi-million dollar industry. Maybe you need to revisit this thread: invanddis.proboards29.com/index.cgi?board=refutals&action=display&thread=1077020790
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 17, 2004 13:50:00 GMT -5
I swore to all things holy I'd never again do one of these stupid things. But since you said : It doesn't look like yours were a perfect match either. I boxed in the ears, chin and eyebrows so as to show the same area, but the post 66 pic is tilted slightly forward. You mentioned Larry, hasn't he said that trying to get pics to "match", be it by fades or overlays is a fool's errand?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 17, 2004 14:15:40 GMT -5
Paul had a smaller head than Faul. The only way to match up the faces is to make Paul's head larger. Even then, as Jojo pointed out above, they still don't match.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 17, 2004 14:23:21 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I was just trying to have a bit of fun with photos. I do admit that I took it a step too far. The idea of this thread was not to make a conclusive match. It was to remove the factors that I believe attribute to the changes in appearance that some people think proves that Paul was replaced. And to some degree it worked, as JoJo thought that I left the original eyes in the composite. Just for the record, Larry had nothing to do with my posting this thread. He just allows me access to his pics. Maybe he should reconsider huh?
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Jul 17, 2004 20:50:37 GMT -5
Oops, ya got me on the eyes, oh well. Serves me right for not thinking this through more carefully. I did not say it was faked, i said it's obviously airbrushed, if you've ever done a sitting with a pro, they do that always. It doesn't mean anything else... Hi guys. I heard my name mentioned so my ears perked up ;D I will describe what I did on this composite image...xpt626's actually looks a bit better than mine because I didn't tune out all of the color on the 70's pic so it looks more b&W...but I left it that way so there would be a little contrast on purpose. JoJo, I didn't use an airbrush tool, my hand isn't that steady...haha. What I did was I used the lasso tool and selected the outline of the area of Paul's face and neck in the 1965 picture, and then after converting the 70's pic to grayscale I copied it INTO the selected area of the '65 pic. I had to reposition it a little and rotate it slightly, and scaled it a little while holding the shift key to maintain aspect ratio until I got the eyeballs and brows lined up. Yea, there are some differences due to camera angle that make it look odd, too. I always figured the reason his face was longer in the 70's shot was because he has his jaw opened, as if he's chewing gum, or about to say something...looking at the position of his mouth it could be either of those...but if the jaw is opened, the perceived jawline will appear different from a pic made when the jaw is not in the same position. That is another one of the little idiums of photo overlay comparisons which are nearly impossible to overcome. Anyways...this photo insert was experimental on my own part and I thought it would be fun to share. I have the full overlay fade on my website, which looks pretty much like the one JoJo made for this thread, except mine is better ;D Here's a really definitive fade for you, I call it Sgt Flarry ;D
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 18, 2004 9:58:08 GMT -5
Hey Larry and Matchbox, just to clear, I wasn't saying what you guys seem to think I'm saying, as a matter of fact, you yourself Larry have mentioned that photos published as they were published in the old early 60's fan mags may have been manipulated in various ways for publication. To fit the page, to take out facial flaws, etc. That's all I was saying, that it was most likely published this way in 1965, you had nothing to do with it. Yes you fooled me with the eyes, and I'm a little p***ed at myself more than anything else, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 18, 2004 10:45:49 GMT -5
Sorry JoJo. After re-reading your post I realized that you said the '70's photo was probably airbrushed, which is a common practice, not altered or faked. My reaction was just an old 60IF acid reflux response, and won't happen again.
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 25, 2004 4:22:55 GMT -5
Paul or Faul?
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Jul 25, 2004 10:36:31 GMT -5
It's very hard to tell because it is so dark, but it looks like Paul to me.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Jul 25, 2004 21:35:11 GMT -5
that one looks like Faul to me....
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 25, 2004 21:57:34 GMT -5
A clearer picture would help. (where do you get these things, sheesh!) Post 66 Paul, unless it's been shopped, no accusations being made here, it's just the only answer possible otherwise, post 66 Paul...
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Jul 26, 2004 19:35:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jul 26, 2004 19:51:22 GMT -5
|
|