From: Mark Roberts
oseph McAllister wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2008, at 12:26 , Anthony Farr wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
>>
>> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
>>
>> I hate revisionist history, even if old practices are now officially
>> frowned
>> upon. If the picture was no good in its original form then they
>> shouldn't
>> have used it at all.
>>
> Different background, different angle on guitar neck, different chord
> fingering on the guitar, shirt open at the top, not closed. Possible in
> Photoshop, but that's a lot to do, even for a stamp. Maybe the guy moved
> for the photographer to a different place nearby and put down the butt.
> Just as plausible.
Wow! I hadn't even noticed all that. The Robert Johnson photos are
clearly different shots!
Actually, no, the stamp image is a painting loosely based on the
photograph. There are only two known photographs of Robert Johnson in
existence, so it's gotta be one or the other, and it ain't the other.
The important part of the painting is the face, the rest is just window
dressing.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
