From: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
I'm satisfied the painter changed the position of the hand to meet the
requirements of a narrower image for the postage stamp ... the same
reason the guitar neck & hand got moved between the Robert Johnson photo
and the Robert Johnson stamp.
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
Now all you have to do it prove the United States Government, and ONLY
the United States Government is responsible for retouching the 1950
publicity still used on the dust jacket of an "autobiography" released 7
years after her death.
And that the retouching was taken with malice aforethought for the sole
purpose of hiding the fact that she smoked.
I just don't see it.
Occam's Razor sez the painter "moved" the hand so it'd fit on the stamp.
--
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.
