Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2004 17:54:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 9, 2004 21:09:52 GMT -5
That does seem mighty coincidental. Especially since SPLHCB was supposed to have been mostly Faul's idea. |
|
|
|
Post by jpm4266 on Aug 22, 2004 4:02:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 22, 2004 14:57:19 GMT -5
You're saying that guy is Faul?
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 22, 2004 17:00:36 GMT -5
You're saying that guy is Faul? It would seem so, yes.. Sure wouldn't mind hearing a recording of them, just to look into it further. |
|
|
|
Post by ecenzo1 on Aug 22, 2004 20:32:32 GMT -5
If it's true, it would answer the question of Faul's musical abilities. Easier to teach a musician to adapt a particular style than to teach a non-musical person from scratch.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 22, 2004 21:46:35 GMT -5
I thought Billy's old job was being a Canadian police man or something.  |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Aug 22, 2004 22:15:02 GMT -5
I'm sure there's plenty of musical cops out there.
There's an LP on Ebay right now with 40 hrs left on the bidding.... at the time of this posting.
I think I'll pass on this one, but I'm sure another copy will show up eventually.
Hell I don't even have a record player right now.
God I love Ebay!
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 22, 2004 23:28:12 GMT -5
I'm sure there's plenty of musical cops out there. But how many have time to be in a band? Plus, I though Bill wore glasses, and had a moustache, like his "before" photo.  |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 23, 2004 8:24:52 GMT -5
I agree with FP. I don't think that guy in the band is Faul.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 23, 2004 12:43:14 GMT -5
I agree with FP. I don't think that guy in the band is Faul. It just doesn't make sense. Yet it is conincidental. Very. But I see a 0% resemblance between this guy and Faul. Haha, let's start a new forum debating that they're the same guy or not. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 23, 2004 15:45:16 GMT -5
But how many have time to be in a band? Plus, I though Bill wore glasses, and had a moustache, like his "before" photo. Yes the guy in the picture with the glasses from the White Album looks very little like the guy in the band. Many people thought this was Paul in disguise in this picture but i accept like many others that this is Bill before the surgery. On the Miss him! Miss him! cd set, Neil Aspinall says that this is a picture of Paul in disguise taken in Sweden at a restaurant when Paul was goofing around. Oh yeah and the photographer just happened to catch Paul in front of a white backround!  |
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Aug 26, 2004 14:01:10 GMT -5
Hey eyesbleed...I know a helicopter pilot who is musical ;D  . Umm...pardon my naivety (spelling probably wrong), but aren't we comparing a really super poor .jpg image which has been stretched so much from it's original tiny demensions that it is aliased all over with a cartoon drawing? HAHA! Can we REALLY be expected to draw (no pun intended) any conclusions from this? Ok, I get it, it was a joke ;D |
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Aug 26, 2004 14:08:52 GMT -5
Yes the guy in the picture with the glasses from the White Album looks very little like the guy in the band. Many people thought this was Paul in disguise in this picture but i accept like many others that this is Bill before the surgery. On the Miss him! Miss him! cd set, Neil Aspinall says that this is a picture of Paul in disguise taken in Sweden at a restaurant when Paul was goofing around. Oh yeah and the photographer just happened to catch Paul in front of a white backround! I always thought this picture looked more like it came from one of those photo booths where you get 4 shots for a buck or something. It COULD have been taken in front of a white wall though...don't you think? I mean there ARE some restaraunts with white walls...or it could have been in the Men's room...Neil didn't specify WHERE in the restaraunt it was taken did he? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 26, 2004 15:00:46 GMT -5
I googled "passport photo specifications", and this site for Canadian passports popped up to the top of the page. Because this is what it looks like to me, a passport photo. Nothing special about canada or anything, I'm sure the US and Britain are more or less the same. www.ppt.gc.ca/passports/get_photo_specs_e.aspLook at this line, they highlight it to emphasise: The face must be square to the camera with a neutral expression and with the mouth closed.And: Photo must be taken against a plain, uniform white or light coloured background.BUT: There should be no shadows nor any glare from glasses, improper lighting or jewelry.So this picture would be rejected for sure, by ANY govt passport issuing agency, due to the shadow on our right. (well this is the flipped one, but whatever) I wonder about how, if the lighting source (it would have to be a flash, not ambient light, unless he was standing in a spotlight) was so far from one side, why isn't any of the collar on our right in shadow. Since this was taken with a flash, Someone taking a casual snapashot stood directly in front of him and then held the flash to the subject's side? Sounds kinda odd to me. No I'd say this did match all the criteria for a passport photo until a shadow was painted on. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 26, 2004 16:17:10 GMT -5
I always thought this picture looked more like it came from one of those photo booths where you get 4 shots for a buck or something. It COULD have been taken in front of a white wall though...don't you think? I mean there ARE some restaraunts with white walls...or it could have been in the Men's room...Neil didn't specify WHERE in the restaraunt it was taken did he? ;D So do you think it's Paul in the photo? |
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Aug 26, 2004 19:29:42 GMT -5
So do you think it's Paul in the photo? Honestly yes I have always thought it was Paul in disguise. The contrast is not real good either which leads me to believe this couldn't be anybody's passport photo...plus the bit about the shadow on the one side. I've never heard of anyone painting on a shadow like that either, but I won't rule it out as a possibility. But by the same token, at the time this photograph was made we didn't have all the tools to do that sort of thing without leaving some pretty obvious traces. If it was done in the past 5 or 10 years, yea I could agree that a manipulation of that sort was possible... |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 26, 2004 20:35:27 GMT -5
I'd say the obvious trace was the way it cuts itself off cleanly at the shirt collar. Contrast couldn't be that difficult to manage, that seems to be turned up or down depending on which publication published the same vintage photo for example. Anyway, from Dino Brugioni's book "Photo Fakery", we see the Russians and Chinese were certainly ahead of thier time. Various shadowing here on the side of Krushchev's face, and I don't know if there are obvious traces necessarily, other than a spread like this of differing photos points out the obvious.  Hey, fun with Photoshop, right? nope, a pretty good "stone age" facsimile...  And wow, the "clone" tool!!!  Ok, my point is, I don't believe it's correct to say that the tools to do something as simple as adding a shadow were unavailable to determined retouch artists in the 60's or even before. What we be the number one priority? Making it look like it wasn't faked, naturally, regardless of if it was as an employee of a communist government, or if it was simply a joke, or something in between. Having said that, I was only saying it looked a lot like a passport photo, a lot more than it looks like a candid photo in a restaurant. JMO of course... |
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Aug 31, 2004 2:45:54 GMT -5
GAWD, JoJo...I feel like I'm trying to work out the "what are the 6 differences between these two cartoons" in the sunday paper! HAHA! I'm kidding, of course...well then again maybe I'm not ;D
Believe it or not, even though some of these photographs which were obviously manipulated were done so very well, you can still see signs of the manipulations...well ok I'll give you the one with the hair on top of the head...that was done really well...but we aren't dealing so much with shadows in that one. Contrast yes, there is a definate difference in the contrast, and maybe putting a rug on that guys head helped knock off some of the glare to make a sharper image because you can see the rest of the roofline of that one building now ;D Actually the one with the hair added looks poorer than the other one because they introduced a looser pattern of halftones in it...which explains the criss-cross pattern.
I'm still trying to figure out what is so astoundingly different in the first group of photos, save for the two where whomever was standing on the far right of the photo has been removed and the hotdog is missing in one pic, and changes shape due to contrast and lighting in the rest...well the bottom one in that group appears as though someone actually removed the hotdog from the bun leaving him a bun full of ketchup.
I see your point, however, but I can also see that wherever obvious changes were made in the image some signs were left...and of course having the other pictures to look at to compare is giving me the advantage. I did not read any of the text on those pages, just looked at the photos.
Without reference to the first funeral photo, I could have looked at the bottom picture of the funeral and shown you where it appears that a group of people had been removed because there is a latent image there...and the guy standing on the far side of the space has clearly either been manipulated because of the halo or ghosting around the outline of his arm, or he was cut out of another portion of the photo and placed there...or something. What I see after looking at the other photo is that they basically put a different suit of clothes on him from someone else because it is a much different shade than in the first photo. Not a bad job of shopping, really, given what they had to work with...but to the eye of someone who has worked with stuff like this, these anomolies jump out. Looking at these old photographs reminds me of the old Lee Harvey Oswald pictures in the back yard holding the rifle. The same shopping techniques would have been used then, and if you look closely enough at Oswald's face you can see the disparity in the lights and shadows which were never compensated for, or could not be compensated for, when his face was pasted into that photograph.
Going back to the photo from the White Album poster, I don't see any anomolies of this sort, just really crappy contrast which could be caused by a variety of things from the camera type, lens settings, to the halftone process done by the printer, the exposure settings for the line photography camera used to set the halftones for printing...etc. That one image was exposed and processed once in the camera with which it was taken, again by the line camera where the halftones were set, and again when the image was burned onto the metal printing plates for the offset printing press...each process most likely involved a different person in each step and any one or two of them could have screwed it up...assuming they had a worthwhile pic to work with in the beginning.
Another possibility...was the original pic shot with color or black and white film? I have made black and white prints from color film and the contrast of this picture reminds me of that...and you mess it up even more halftoning it. I had to do something like that for a high school brochure one time...I had no printed photo to work with so I was forced to print it myself from a color negative. The brocure was one color so a black and white image was necessary. I think I went through the complete process of printing a black and white photo from a color negative to printing it on the press about 3 times before I got one that sort of looked passable, but it was still bad.
My guess is the problem was with the camera...or the operator thereof ;D And then naturally all the other processes I have mentioned had to run their course and the image was degraded even further still in the process. Anytime you add halftones you degrade an image, but unfortunately halftones are necessary for offset printing, otherwise it will look like a photograph that was copied on a Xerox machine.
|
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Aug 31, 2004 4:52:12 GMT -5
Well, Since worked in a photo lab and also dealt a lot with passport photos for different countries, I have to say that today, that photo would be rejected because he is wearing glasses.
But, it probably isn't a passport photo. So then, what is it. I have no idea, but because it is so washed out, all his important facial features are hidden. There is really no way to compare anything but basic placement of things like nose, eyes and ears.
As far as the Pepperpots photo and the Sgt Pepper image. Looks like a cartoon image of that guys father or something. I heard a rumor that Lou Reed was in that group, but in an interview years ago, he denied it. How could anyone think he was i the Pepperpots?
Anyway, I found a guy in Russia who will get me 2 CD copies or 2 Pepperpots albums. So I will let you guys know when I get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 31, 2004 14:47:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Aug 31, 2004 15:14:14 GMT -5
[img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Good-Post[1].gif"]  thank you JoJo  |
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Aug 31, 2004 23:51:23 GMT -5
xpt is that Johnny Cash in your signature photo? The original Man In Black? /me Well I'm a movin' on....  I don't know why I never noticed that before...doh! |
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 1, 2004 2:03:13 GMT -5
xpt is that Johnny Cash in your signature photo? The original Man In Black? yup. |
|
|
|
Post by kazu on Sept 1, 2004 2:57:34 GMT -5
I concede about the glasses. This was probably just a pet peeve of the place I worked to make sure that photos were not rejected.
But I am at a loss of why that little correction is a big thing xpt626?
Is the issue about who is in the photo or if this is a passport photo?
|
|
