|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 14, 2004 21:31:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Red Lion on Dec 14, 2004 22:29:39 GMT -5
Come on, how can that be a cross between two different people? [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"] Cuz they dont share the same DNA. Its all over FP the ear lobes are the smoking gun.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 14, 2004 22:40:34 GMT -5
Clearly, that IS the same person in both pictures.
There do not seem to be any, or many, pictures of a predecessor.
If there was a previous James Paul, it occurs to me that his images and the common memory of such are soon to pass completely from existence. Only 4 shadowy album covers, circumstantial implications, and a stray long-shot here and there remain. But then again, I'm slightly astigmatic. You have to be exactly 11.3 feet away from me or I can't tell exactly who you are.
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 15, 2004 20:07:40 GMT -5
Another fade... must keep eyes open... There, that's better!
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 15, 2004 20:18:39 GMT -5
Well if the fade is done at a faster pace the changes would be obvious. Most of us see the difference anyway, but you might notice the difference in the nose and teeth.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 15, 2004 20:35:53 GMT -5
Well if the fade is done at a faster pace the changes would be obvious. Most of us see the difference anyway, but you might notice the difference in the nose and teeth. A faster version of SK's comparison of John: His nose goes up and down! He must have been replaced! Paul's left tooth (our left) matches up, it's just that his lip covers the bottom of it. And the right tooth doesn't match up because it's not entirely his real tooth.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 15, 2004 21:11:31 GMT -5
Looks like the same person opening and closing his mouth..
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 15, 2004 21:38:33 GMT -5
Looks like the same person opening and closing his mouth.. ...Just like in my comparison. Come, you heard it from Perplexed himself:
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Dec 15, 2004 21:44:10 GMT -5
that doesn't mean that the "Faul" photo isn't a "combo" of both faces to begin with because it sure doesn't look like these fellows:
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 15, 2004 21:48:47 GMT -5
that doesn't mean that the "Faul" photo isn't a "combo" of both faces to begin with So now they doctor Faul pics to look like Paul?
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Dec 15, 2004 21:49:21 GMT -5
He sure looked like Paul back then! ;D
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Dec 15, 2004 21:49:29 GMT -5
Clearly, that IS the same person in both pictures. There do not seem to be any, or many, pictures of a predecessor. If there was a previous James Paul, it occurs to me that his images and the common memory of such are soon to pass completely from existence. Only 4 shadowy album covers, circumstantial implications, and a stray long-shot here and there remain. Pay attention! The Doc just said something important, but I think his point was missed...
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Dec 15, 2004 21:56:18 GMT -5
So now they doctor Faul pics to look like Paul? I'm sure the intent has always been to make them appear to be the same person. It would've made sense then to make the "Faul" photos look more "Paul-ish"...just as nowadays, it makes more sense to do the opposite. The technique (in general) has been used for years; and can even be done now at home, on your own computer ;D:
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 15, 2004 22:12:28 GMT -5
He sure looked like Paul back then! ;D Xpt, they didn't have those programs back then. And why would they doctor "Faul" if you're gonna doctor Paul? That would just make life 10 times harder for whoever was "doctoring" them.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Dec 15, 2004 22:31:54 GMT -5
...Xpt, they didn't have those programs back then. *sigh* Pie, I didn't say they had computer programs to do it then. Photo editing was around a lonnnnng time before computers. Now read...this...slowly. In 1967, everyone was accustomed to the face of '66-and-earlier-Paul. It would've made sense to "tweak" some photos to make this "new" person look more like that "old" face. In 2004, people are accustomed to the face of The-Artist-Known-As-Solo-Paul-McCartney. So reprints of the early photos -- which are of a different man -- would now be "tweaked" more to look like the McCartney of 2004. The intent is to make them appear to have been the same person all along. If you look at pictures from the actual time periodNOT contemporary reprints of vintage photos NOT internet photos NOT retouched ** publicity photos NOT retouched ** album covers the difference is glaringly obvious. ** this is standard for all publicity photos and album covers, not simply for The Beatles or McCartney.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 16, 2004 4:52:03 GMT -5
Makes sense to me. XPT, you have spoken well.
Now, I'm off to mix a little Tom Criuse and Ben Affleck into my latest head shot. If that doesn't help, I'll try a little George Clooney with about 10% of Matt Damon. Rugged but boyish.
Or, practically speaking, Nathan Lane and Boy George. This would give me an androgynous, cosmopolitan look with a sparkling, comedic flair. Just what my career needs.
Nobody in the world uses a completely honest head shot. What a relief.
Well, one must paint the face. But every good artist knows you need a good, even, clean canvas to get started. So,
I start with spackle, two layers. Then add on a thin thin layer of Clown White Number 3. Follow up with any good store bought water-based foundation. Nothing too red, nothing too brown. A subtle light tan is best. Add a good under eye cover stick, rouge and touch of mascara (nothing too colorful if you're a man), THEN, and only then, you are ready to start painting on a face.
When you get to the photographer, remember, you're best friend in any photo session is the gel. Never never use anything but a warm amber or pink, depending on your skin color. Green is a very bad choice. Pale yellow is bad if you are really white; blue is not good if you happen to be very dark.
Keep the wattage conservative. Find good shadows. Got a facial flaw? A bad acne scar on the left cheek? A drooping puffy right eye? A cauliflower nose? The right shadow and the right angle will help you save face. What they can't see won't hurt you! Or, devise an obstruction. Your hand, a vase of fresh cut flowers....breaking the rules a bit, but then, its YOUR head shot.
Got thin lips like an alien? I know I do. Scr*w the lip line! Paint over it, paint beyond it! Paint on big fat, rich ruby lips.
Mascara can make little eyes big, big eyes little, and a heavy lids sparing.
Other solutions? Contact lenses, radical plastic surgery, wigs, falls, and weaves, enormous sunglasses and a big floppy hat are all possibilities.
When all else fails, there is latex, latex, latex.
Photgraphic blending may become a wave of the future. In tandem with a halographoc presentation for an actual live display of one's, er, uhm, "face."
But, why get all obsessed with glamour, beauty, so fleeting, so elusive. Why worry that our head shot must compete with Hollywood actors or pop icons. rankly, for 93.86% of us, there is no hope of that. Is there another option?
Yes.
We could just decide that the true purpose of the face is mainly for communicating to others what we are feeling and thinking at the moment. The face is a screen, a fleshy monitor that shows whats up on the desktop of our CPU brains hidden just behind it. My God, the human head is like an iMac. But, with one distinct advantage.
No visible cables or USB ports. Wow! Gotta hand it to Him! God. The greatest technical engineer of them all. Musta' gone to MIT. Or, Georgia Tech! Hey, wow, God might be a Yellow jacket!
Which, in a odd way, indicates to me that, well, praying is resemblant to communicating with a distant, unseen receiver, via a wireless, long range, REALLY long range, modem.
Which makes te Holy Spirit, in a sense here, effectively the spiritual ISP. Intersteller Spirit Provider.
Heavenlink. Cosmos spring. and, the evil competition: A.O.H*ll.
Everything under the sun has an inter-face.
The Hebrew word is panam, PNM. In yiddish, someone's face is a punum.
A flat plate, a screen, a 2 dimensional display, a plane, a platter, a "pan", panaramic, panavision, pandemic, Pan-American, panel, pan-demonium, pan across with a camera.
All ideas relating to, making a picture of, encircled by, the notion of height and width, a wide display, across, a stretch, an extension of two dimensional space, a view taken by the eyes, a landscape or portrait image, an extent of territory or geographic plat, a sur"face" dedicated for emblems, expressions, information, or plain old identification.
Though faces are three dimensional, everything relevant about them can be expressed graphically in two dimensions.
And, of course, we know as humans we can never physically view the face of God. But, that is a different post.
But, the final conclusion--what is a face? What is it's significance? How it looks? Or what it says to others about ourselves, and what we feel?
Because, if it is what we look like? Well, that has some significance.
But, what if a face is really all about what a person thinks and feels? Then a picture will never show that person's true face, merely the sur-face of the front of their head. The real face mirrors the inside; remember, it's an interface. A photograph is a soulless record of a moment in time. You can't interface with a photo, you can't interface with a face. You can only interface with a person.
To see what a person is about, looking a facial picture may be of no help. You have to look at the words and more importantly, the deeds of the person. That is seeing a person's TRUE face.
Just like with God. We can only, in faith, see what He does, in order to "see his face." But, then again, that is another post.
For now, you'll just have to take everything I write at face value, though, to kind of see me. A person's face means nothing in a post, we interface ONLY with ideas.
So tell me truthfully, have I yet learned how to put on a good face, or have I only begun to scratch the surface?
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Dec 16, 2004 5:06:55 GMT -5
Xpt, they didn't have those programs back then. And why would they doctor "Faul" if you're gonna doctor Paul? That would just make life 10 times harder for whoever was "doctoring" them. OK, there is like, a walrus thing going on with that moustache overlay. See it? Is it just me? I mean, no offense, I have a picture where I look totally like a turtle. So, pictures'll do that. But, like, a walrus has a moustached kind of look....sort of.....its that wiggly brushy thing on their top lip--what is that for? So they llok like a French waiter, just call him Maurice?
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 16, 2004 6:59:29 GMT -5
OK, there is like, a walrus thing going on with that moustache overlay. See it? Is it just me? I mean, no offense, I have a picture where I look totally like a turtle. So, pictures'll do that. But, like, a walrus has a moustached kind of look....sort of.....its that wiggly brushy thing on their top lip--what is that for? So they llok like a French waiter, just call him Maurice? I flipped and pasted the moustace and mouth from the left pic onto the right, trying to equalize the color into a yellower, brighter tone.
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Dec 16, 2004 11:28:47 GMT -5
His nose goes up and down! He must have been replaced! Why not? If it's the same person the nose should stay the same. The teeth are a different size. "Close enough" doesn't do it, it has to match up perfectly(or near perfect) and it is neither.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 17, 2004 18:58:43 GMT -5
In 1967, everyone was accustomed to the face of '66-and-earlier-Paul. It would've made sense to "tweak" some photos to make this "new" person look more like that "old" face. You love comparing Paul with "this guy": Now... where did that come from, and how do you know it wasn't "doctored up to look more like Paul"? My Faul pic may be a blend of the two, but yours wasn't. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Dec 17, 2004 19:55:33 GMT -5
because it's a candid shot for a magazine. the photo you used was a professional ("promo") shot. I have told you repeatedly where that photo was from, and when it was published. um...because it doesn't look like Paul.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 17, 2004 20:10:03 GMT -5
um...because it doesn't look like Paul. ^ Opinion. Even if it was a candid shot, it could have still been "doctored"... I mean it was from a magizine (now I'm not allowed to use those anymore), and you say this one is realiable. What about the red Pepper pic from the 80's? That's not close to vintage, it's not a candid shot, but it's A okay!
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Dec 17, 2004 21:22:28 GMT -5
^ Opinion. Pie, if you think that pic looks like '66-and-earlier McCartney, there is no point in discussing anything at all with you. Seriously. fan mag staff: "Gee, let's take this photo of McCartney and make it look like some other guy!!"...err, no. your memory has returned since your last post? ;D you can use anything you choose to. (And you do, so quit pouting ) We have merely stated that we feel actual material from the time period in question is much more reliable than something published 10, 20, 30, 40 years later, or 'snagged' from the 'net. Most reasonable people would agree. there is no way I will ever believe that photo is of the Paul McCartney that was in the original Beatles. I have worked with many of the BEST celebrity impersonators in the business. (It is a field I almost entered professionally myself.) I have been with these people (more than one impersonator, on more than one occasion) when they were stopped on the street for autographs. I have seen them tell people their true name and occupation, and not be believed. No one would've stopped that cat on the street in 1966 thinking he was Paul McCartney ;D what about it? I've never offered an opinion on the Pepper pic, "red", "green", or otherwise. It's a studio shot, so it's definitely been "worked on". All album cover pix are. There was a Mamas & Papas album cover that was 'tweaked' during a time period when Mama Michelle (Phillips) was fired from the group. Her photo was edited out of the group shot and a photo of (producer) Lou Adler's girlfriend Jill (Michelle's replacement) was placed over it. Looked like it was originally shot that way.
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Dec 17, 2004 22:28:59 GMT -5
Pie, if you think that pic looks like '66-and-earlier McCartney, there is no point in discussing anything at all with you. Seriously. Well Matchbox did make a fade where that pic matched up with Paul, but uh oh, the ear was 3 pixels off. I'm talking about your pic. He could have even looked LESS like Paul before they doctored it. When I was asking you where it came from, I wasn't really asking you where it came from , just reminding you that it came from a magizine, and you said not to use them. I think Darkhorse, Revolver, and lots of other PIDers would disagree with that. See below. Not the cover shot, the one from the 80's CD release. Most people here seem to think it's more reliable than the original.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Dec 17, 2004 22:44:35 GMT -5
Pie, if you think that pic looks like '66-and-earlier McCartney, there is no point in discussing anything at all with you. Seriously. Yep, FP or anybody else. Anybody who thinks that guy was the guy in A Hard Days Night...... I got a real deal for one of y'all!........ It my look like an old cargo van in my back yard. But Jerry Garcia used to drive it to high school back in San Fran. I think he drove it to the Electric Koolaide Acid Yest too! It could be worth a lot on Ebay to some rich Deadhead! I'll make one hell of a deal, just for special folks like y'all.
|
|