|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 17, 2004 20:59:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Aug 18, 2004 9:59:37 GMT -5
The difference in the nose is obvious to me in these profile shots. |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Aug 18, 2004 14:49:12 GMT -5
Are you saying he looks different?
First step in PIA recovery.. ;D
Ok, I'm joking, I'm joking... ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 18, 2004 20:14:29 GMT -5
Are you saying he looks different? Yes. He looks about 3 yrs. older. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Aug 30, 2004 16:29:00 GMT -5
Don't see much difference in the nose. What is it?  |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 30, 2004 16:48:22 GMT -5
Don't see much difference in the nose. What is it? They're at different angles, so you can't really compare. |
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 30, 2004 17:50:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Aug 30, 2004 21:51:07 GMT -5
You really think the real Paul would ever wear a rose in his hair?  But seriously, for most people alive today, Faul is the only version of Paul they have ever seen. They can only see the similarities between Faul and Paul. When I look at those photos I see two different people, despite the similarities. It's like one of those optical illusion photos that can be seen in two different ways. For example this drawing of a face also spells a word.  Once you see the word, you can't not see it anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Aug 30, 2004 22:17:02 GMT -5
You really think the real Paul would ever wear a rose in his hair? lol ;D |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 31, 2004 8:34:52 GMT -5
Did Paul wear yellow in a 1966 Beatles interview? Yep. Did Ringo wear a pink/purple color on the Sgt. Pepper cover and in the AYNIL broadcast? Yep. Was there a flower on John's shoulder on the Sgt. Pepper cover? Aha.
You guys are making it look like Paul was the only Beatle who's style changed after '66.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Aug 31, 2004 10:40:08 GMT -5
flaming i think you totally missed the joke there... [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"] lighten up.. it wasn't suppose to be a serious comment, it was a dig at a 60ifer  |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Aug 31, 2004 11:06:48 GMT -5
flaming i think you totally missed the joke there... [img src="http://galeon.hispavista.com/akostuff/img/Dunno2[1].gif"] lighten up.. it wasn't suppose to be a serious comment, it was a dig at a 60ifer Oops, my bad. |
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Sept 5, 2004 15:01:00 GMT -5
The difference in the nose is obvious to me in these profile shots. Yeah. You're right. They are way off.   |
|
|
|
Post by FlamingPie on Sept 5, 2004 18:35:55 GMT -5
Yeah. You're right. They are way off. They're just gonna ask you if it's vintage, and if not, it's worthless to them.  But great job! |
|
|
|
Post by matchbox on Sept 5, 2004 18:46:35 GMT -5
Vintage, Schmintage.
Doctored, Schmoctored.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Sept 5, 2004 19:17:45 GMT -5
Gentlemen, I've made it clear in some posts here and there that I'm not a big believer in the "doctoring" of old photos in the sense that there is an effort at making old photos match "subliminally" to ones that came after 1966. No way, especially after all the videos I've seen, many different sources, including the one that's been branded "doctored" the most, Anthology. It's only nice to use vintage sources to rule that out, but I just don't see a big difference between the old and new. What can happen is a multitude of things, discussed by folks from your board regarding vintage sources themselves and the process of printing the pics in the vintage magazine in the first place. Distortion, fitting the page, etc., all arguments made by your camp at one time or another. So is any source totally flawless for comparisons? Yes, the original negatives, anyone got any? |
|
