John Sessoms wrote: > And I'm going to say again, I don't see any evidence that the "original" > image was sanitized. It just doesn't look like she was holding a > cigarette when the photo was taken.
John, The oldest version of this picture I can find on the web comes from the dustjacket of the biography "Bette Davis Speaks" or is a perfect tonal replica of that version, indicating that they are all the same version from a common source (Hollywood portraits were hand made in large quantities and very quickly, so it's common to see noticeable variations from one source to another). Anybody who's ~worked~ in photography for any time, especially with large format B&W involving retouch artists and subsequent copying and printing from the copyneg, can see that this is a 2nd or lower generation reproduction, not a print from the original negative. Davis's hand is tonally and proportionally strange, and the remainder of the picture shows the signature tonality of a 2nd or lower generation copy. As well, why would the postage stamp artist move her hand into an incriminating (for cigarette smoking) position if it was originally in an innocent position? It's highly illogical. It's more logical to conclude that he had access to an original image and that's the position her hand was in. Early in my career it was my job to make copynegs and to print aerial photos which were overdrawn by hand by cartographers (pre-CAD). That work made me very familiar with the difference in tonality from 1st to later generations of reproduction. At the risk of blowing my own trumpet, I can easily spot a later generation, extensively retouched work. Anybody who's done similar work should be able, as well. The Bette Davis portrait in question is such a work and can't be trusted until an original movie studio print, contemporary with the movie's release and not the much later book's release, can be seen. Regards, Anthony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > John Sessoms > Sent: Friday, 17 October 2008 11:12 AM > To: pdml@pdml.net > Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history > > From: AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 1984 is a long time ago already. :-) > > > > Btw, I'm re-reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation triology these days. In > > his universe, projected from the fifties, the habit of smoking has > > persisted through countless millennia into the Galactic Empire and > > beyond. It's quite funny to observe how the human behaviour > > accompanying nearly every dialogue always has something to do with > > tobacco. As if social life was impossible without it. > > Smoking "makes a comeback" in quite a lot of recent Science Fiction; > usually as a result of finding a cure for cancer. Theory seems to be > that once the harm is removed, there's nothing wrong with it. Real > world, I doubt that'll happen, since cancer is only one of the possible > negative consequences. > > And I'm going to say again, I don't see any evidence that the "original" > image was sanitized. It just doesn't look like she was holding a > cigarette when the photo was taken. > > Which makes objecting to the artist not depicting her holding one > foolish. Who exactly ARE the revisionists in this case? > > -- -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
