|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 10, 2011 21:43:50 GMT -5
Actually it's really not that hard. Check out our forum for a goldmine of these. what? flashing GIF's? Why would I want to see that. LOL - -I'd like to see the original photos please, or at least a link to them.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Sept 10, 2011 23:10:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 11, 2011 1:41:39 GMT -5
Thank you for the links. You're right, I'll post the image later on, but yes it did match. I also checked the image online with the 1969 photo sessions in my Beatles Monthly magazine (I think it's issue 71 or 72), and though that particular photo was not in that issue, it's safe to say the image online was not "manipulated". But I also went checking for the Jean Marie Perier photo sessions to make sure what else I was getting wasn't "compromised" or whatever. Didn't find that image itself but i did find something interesting along the way ... This image by Perier shot in 1964 of The Beatles. March 1964. It is very evident to me some tampering has gone on with Paul. Very evident. Look at his jawline, and his neck. That picture's just wrong. Why it's been altered, or another image put on his face I don't know, but being an artist/illustrator and kinda knowing proportions, I can see that photograph has been tampered with. It looks like the face has been cut out and put on, but the angle it's at, and the neck and his right ear, aren't natural. At all. Not asking you to explain it or anything. I'm just wondering why an image by Perier has Paul tampered with while the other 3 remain untouched.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 11, 2011 2:05:33 GMT -5
And I'll explain what's exactly wrong with that March 1964 Perier picture, and every version I've found of it online is the same, copyright symbol or not.
1. McCartney's jaw line should not be that defined with the amount of lighting coming in on him. If you look at Ringo's neck/jawline, even with a bit more weight on his face hiding this line, there is not enough light to show that definition. You can see where his ear meets his neck, and his neck meets his jaw, but the lighting does not create definition. So why does Paul have definition of jawline? With THAT amount of light on his face.
2. Obviously the hair has been put on, at least over his right ear. Totally playmobile.
3. His ear is at the wrong angle for his face to be in that position. That's just obvious.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Sept 11, 2011 10:00:29 GMT -5
You don't think the bottom of George's bangs looks airbrushed in, or Ringo's sideburn looks too well defined compared to the blurriness of the rest of his hair? Also, if that pic is doctored, you have to give them credit for altering it in the EXACT same way in a pic taken a fraction of a second later. www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Album6/paulringoear.jpgEither way, let's not go off topic. Paul can match up fine before and after '66, which shows that the overlays where they don't are due to other variables. I can make John and George not match up with themselves if you'd like.
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 11, 2011 11:00:17 GMT -5
You don't think the bottom of George's bangs looks airbrushed in, or Ringo's sideburn looks too well defined compared to the blurriness of the rest of his hair? Also, if that pic is doctored, you have to give them credit for altering it in the EXACT same way in a pic taken a fraction of a second later. www.jamespaulmccartney.org/album64/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Album6/paulringoear.jpgEither way, let's not go off topic. Paul can match up fine before and after '66, which shows that the overlays where they don't are due to other variables. I can make John and George not match up with themselves if you'd like. The whole thing looks like it went to one of those shows where they make your car look better. (why can't I remember the name of these shows???) and no,you don't have to make George & John not match up for me I can do that too After seeing the match I just thought to myself, research is confined to the internet. And the internet is just dodgy as it is. Anyone can do anything to this photo, that photo, so it's all dodgy. As easily as I could make one image match, I could make them not match. All I know is ... well that remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by FP on Sept 11, 2011 16:24:03 GMT -5
Anyone can do anything to this photo, that photo, so it's all dodgy. As easily as I could make one image match, I could make them not match. By admitting that anything online is dodgy, how do you know the pics you use for your own PWR comparisons are reliable?
|
|
|
Post by vOOdOOgurU on Sept 11, 2011 17:15:16 GMT -5
Anyone can do anything to this photo, that photo, so it's all dodgy. As easily as I could make one image match, I could make them not match. By admitting that anything online is dodgy, how do you know the pics you use for your own PWR comparisons are reliable? eggsacklee
|
|
|
Post by GN on Sept 17, 2011 7:49:32 GMT -5
And I'll explain what's exactly wrong with that March 1964 Perier picture, and every version I've found of it online is the same, copyright symbol or not. 1. McCartney's jaw line should not be that defined with the amount of lighting coming in on him. If you look at Ringo's neck/jawline, even with a bit more weight on his face hiding this line, there is not enough light to show that definition. You can see where his ear meets his neck, and his neck meets his jaw, but the lighting does not create definition. So why does Paul have definition of jawline? With THAT amount of light on his face. 2. Obviously the hair has been put on, at least over his right ear. Totally playmobile. 3. His ear is at the wrong angle for his face to be in that position. That's just obvious. This is the same analysis I did years ago of the same photo color version.
|
|