|
Post by jonna on Apr 13, 2004 12:49:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 13, 2004 20:27:13 GMT -5
George looks 43 years old there.
Well, ther'll all a little funny, IMO, but I can say that the art department would rule with the idea that THOSE photos are unsuitable for distribution as PR.
OK, in pic one, even allowing for the position of Ringo to be a SLIGHT amount closer to the camera, and for the "horizon" axis to be downhill with respect to us, and the ground to be falling off to the right, and the windows to be climbing to the right, and a different Beatle jacket on each Beatle.........moving along
PIC #2-So they were in D.C> dujring a big snow? I guess that must be right---right after Sullivan? I dont know my history.
PIC 3 looks fine--is that the ribbon mic used on the vocals ballde solos
PIC 4--Rooftop. Blurry faces. Interesting attire. Had the Beatles gone with the Stray Cats look, hhhmm, they could have made it big in 1983.
PIC 5---OK George's face, neck, and arm don't look feasible in this pic.I suppose they are, but he must be uncomforfortable there.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Apr 14, 2004 7:00:58 GMT -5
George looks 43 years old there. Well, ther'll all a little funny, IMO, but I can say that the art department would rule with the idea that THOSE photos are unsuitable for distribution as PR. well i do apologize if you feel that they are unsuitable for PR but with respect Doc that was the very reason i posted them. the very first pic is obviously doctored (no pun intended) and it proves a point. if they are doctoring pictures from the very early years then the question has to be 'why'? maybe i should chat with the art department..
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 14, 2004 7:39:28 GMT -5
OK, point taken. Sorry I was grousy about it. Thanks for the pics----they are new ones to here--I shoulda been glad to see 'em. I am---they are I guess needing some finishing touches. Every pic you make won't be award winning. Dont know who made them or why--doubt I'd understand the specifics of the process anyway. But, they do make your point. But, far as why, well, goes with the territory, yes?
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Apr 14, 2004 7:43:57 GMT -5
Hi Jonna,
I was wondering what it is that indicates to you any of these pics are doctored, apart from the fact that the boy's appearance just looks a bit funny in a couple of them. I have personally found that many of the really old images of them makes them all appear less attractive, if you will, than many of the ones made after they reached the height of their popularity, especially the ones chosen for widespread publication for promotion. Then many of those photos were most likely manipulated in some way to enhance their appearance when make up didn't do the trick...and of course this is just my own opinion.
Poor George, he sort of resembles Lurch from one of the more recent Addams Family movies in that last pic. I once had an old magazine from 1964, was either Tiger Beat, or some other magazine, which had the first picture in it...unfortunately I lost it during one of my many overseas moves with the military...but from what I can remember it looked about the same as this one...my own impression back then was that I thought they all looked much better once their hair was longer.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 14, 2004 8:00:10 GMT -5
BTW, I think that any retouching possibly done on those pics was for standard commercial promotion.I speculate that the make-up approach, light sources, etc, all got better for them after the America Sullivan appearences. Bigger budgets. More interest in springing for higher quality pics.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Apr 14, 2004 19:05:16 GMT -5
Hi Jonna, I was wondering what it is that indicates to you any of these pics are doctored, apart from the fact that the boy's appearance just looks a bit funny in a couple of them. I have personally found that many of the really old images of them makes them all appear less attractive, if you will, than many of the ones made after they reached the height of their popularity, especially the ones chosen for widespread publication for promotion. Then many of those photos were most likely manipulated in some way to enhance their appearance when make up didn't do the trick...and of course this is just my own opinion. Poor George, he sort of resembles Lurch from one of the more recent Addams Family movies in that last pic. I once had an old magazine from 1964, was either Tiger Beat, or some other magazine, which had the first picture in it...unfortunately I lost it during one of my many overseas moves with the military...but from what I can remember it looked about the same as this one...my own impression back then was that I thought they all looked much better once their hair was longer. a little funny? like doc said in the first one George looks like he's about forty. their is no way thats the face of a young George... it looks more like the George of post beatles era.. don't get me wrong i'm not stating that i know these pictures are retouched i'm just saying that in my opinion they sure look very strange.. when i posted them i thought they would be a good way to see the heights better but i'm not sure that they are any good for that now
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 14, 2004 20:35:33 GMT -5
Well, I took a reality check and remembered that all "disciplines" have levels of expertise (with an ever rising "bar") and that includes photographic analysis.
So, a realistic appraisal of my ability is, well, I have no better than a pedestrian ability. No cutting down of myself meant; I do other stuff at higher levels; who can do it all? And, I never studied or made any self-application at it. So, I pause now and recognize that from amateurs (a higher level than street), semi-pros and pros, and all the way up to dead-eye experts: these are all able (in degrees) of doing a competent, point by point, objective photo document analysis.
I note that I, and the millions in my pedestrian class, are likely to miss glaring telltale shadows, contrast variations, and "borders" and other special indications. A learned examiner knows the right lingo, too, for efficient communication between peers.
Having said all that, might not then the bar also be a little higher for the pedestrians? (High enough to get us in trouble!!!!) With 50 years of photos of everything seen, all kinds of PR, candids, mags, billboards, computer images, etc. our unrefined sense percieves a lot of things which register, but lack a clear reason why? I may feel something from a pic, but I might not be sure what it is, or what's causing it! I may just connect to a vibe that the picture is vaguely unnatural, and therefore a "trick" picture. Having gotten started at these sites into anticipating so much rigging, the tendency to PROJECT rigging, or at least sense rigging, even when it is not there, might come along.
Can I comment on one of the pictures above? Regarding the bottom picture with hands on the shoulders of the Beatle in front? Well, I feel the the heads have been moved around. Is Lennon's head on George's body? Should the coats they are wearing match the ones in the top photo? Are these shots made the morning after? Are they hungover in Hamburg? Or, is that a Liverpool ghetto? (The shoulders and arms vs the rotation of the head at the neck on George makes me have a neck ache. I suddenly want to take a Motrin. 400mg.)
I think I will. (You gotta love OTC.)
|
|