ilras
Contributor
Posts: 62
|
Post by ilras on Jul 22, 2006 17:19:36 GMT
We've seen this photo many times...  and everybody says"Paul here really looks like the Paul we know today" That's a zoom on his face:  What's wrong with that? In Germany they are selling the original photos, taken when the Beatles were there and....  Think that I don't need to make any comment... |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Bearer on Jul 23, 2006 8:05:20 GMT
Proof of doctoring?
|
|
ilras
Contributor
Posts: 62
|
Post by ilras on Jul 23, 2006 17:08:31 GMT
the picture has been doctored to make the young Paul more similar to the actual replacement.
|
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Jul 23, 2006 17:48:58 GMT
Wow, and that's definitely the same image?
Smoking gun indeed, well sort of!
Good spot
|
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Jul 23, 2006 18:07:18 GMT
the picture has been doctored to make the young Paul more similar to the actual replacement. I don't see that. It just looks like a really bad reproduction. There are, of course, instances where the original photos have been modified to make Paul look like Faul, but this case isn't one of them, imo. |
|
ilras
Contributor
Posts: 62
|
Post by ilras on Jul 24, 2006 0:20:01 GMT
Even if it's the same pic (look at the position of the hands and at George's guitar), I think that it's clear that there are some differences between the two faces.
|
|
moped
Contributor
Posts: 115 
|
Post by moped on Jul 24, 2006 16:32:35 GMT
Thanks liras for the pic of JPM, that's a good one. It actually comes from a different photo though...
|
|
ilras
Contributor
Posts: 62
|
Post by ilras on Jul 25, 2006 1:47:56 GMT
a couple of better version of the picture...   and a comparison....  |
|
ilras
Contributor
Posts: 62
|
Post by ilras on Jul 25, 2006 22:39:07 GMT
KHAN, makes me notice that the two pics aren't from the same shot.  I thank him for the help. Anyway, this doesn't change the substance of what I meant: the most known pic is for sure modified and the demonstration is that the other one shows that Paul's face had at that time different features, features that were removed in the other one as in all the other pics taken at that time... In fact, those features can't be found in any of the other pics from that period...        Just another note: the two pics are taken one right after the other, the four guys make just little movements but... .... can some one tell me why in the not retouched one (in my opinion) the shadows are so clear (we can clearly distinguish the Hofner's one) and in the other one they are still present but in a more confuse way? signs of doctoring? |
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Jul 26, 2006 0:32:05 GMT
A different lense?
Didn't photographers have to choose between a blue, red or clear lense back then?
(I'm not a photographer, so I don't really know.)
|
|
ilras
Contributor
Posts: 62
|
Post by ilras on Jul 26, 2006 0:42:09 GMT
I don't think they could make so few movement while the photographer was changing the lens.
I mean, if he changed the lens, their positions in the two pics should be more different than they actually are
|
|
davetripper
Welcome new member
It took me so long to find out, but I found out
Posts: 8
|
Post by davetripper on Jul 26, 2006 17:34:13 GMT
Personally, I don't think the doctoring was done to change Paul's features. It looks like nothing more than the standard "clean up & enhance" job which is commonly done to old, fading photographs.
|
|
ilras
Contributor
Posts: 62
|
Post by ilras on Jul 26, 2006 18:57:48 GMT
I don't know why; even if I have my own idea.
May be they doctored it to make Paul look better, for the female fans (this is not my opinion, anyway).
Remains the fact that the pic has been doctored
|
|
moped
Contributor
Posts: 115
|
Post by moped on Jul 27, 2006 12:35:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BeatlePaul on Jul 31, 2006 17:57:01 GMT
There is matching in all the feature .... mouth, irises and ears seem retouched in the picture on the left.... But nose seems more "Paul's" on the picture on the left.... .... and Bill is just another people..... Ilras: Nice Work! |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Aug 1, 2006 11:54:58 GMT
A small "montage."  |
|
