RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
I'll show you mine if you show me yours: http://picasaweb.google.com/FarrAnthony/Illustrations#5256802623552356754 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Sessoms Sent: Monday, 20 October 2008 4:22 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] And the stamp image is squeezed horizontally. Try downloading both the photo the stamp image and layering the stamp over the photo at 50% opacity. Scale the stamp image until the two faces are the same size. Didn't you follow ~any~ of the links I posted? It's no wonder your side of the discussion is out of synch, you repeatedly raise matters that I've previously dealt with. FYI I already did what you suggested, and put the result up for the list to see. Look back in the thread if you want the link. The difference in crop between the two pictures is insignificant for the purpose of the stamp design, and wouldn't have justified a hand transplant. You'll still have to stretch the stamp image horizontally to make the two faces match up. No you wouldn't. You're just guessing, aren't you? No, merely stating what I had to do to get the two images to line up. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
John S., Seems to me we are in violent agreement with each other. :-) best, Jostein 2008/10/19 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]: From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008/10/18 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So what is the basis for claiming the government sanitized history? And who is being revisionist? That's the second time you ask who's revisionist. What are you actually trying to imply by that? The government is not the only bad guy in town, either. Indeed. The SUBJECT is Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history It's established to my satisfaction that the photograph was NOT doctored BY A GOVT AGENCY. It appears to me the PHOTO was not doctored at all. *Did the government revise (sanitize) history? No, I would say they did not ... or at least, no one has shown that they did so in this instance. *Might they have done so at other times? Arguably, and where they have, I do not support that action. But that's not what we have here. *Is someone else revising history if they make a false accusation of government duplicity? Yes, I would say someone making such a false accusation is as much guilty of revising history as they claim the government to be. That's all I'm saying. Somebody got all bent out of shape over something that didn't happen. Better to save your indignation for things that DO happen. -- 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. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
You mean those signals where they do their best to make their fingers look like sausages in the making? 2008/10/19 William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Original Message - From: Anthony Farr Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history My lingering doubt arises because, if the Bette Davis Speaks version of the picture is the true depiction with no smoke, then why on earth would the stamp artist depict, from his creative mind, a hand that looks to be holding a deleted cigarette? Maybe she's doing one of those hand signals that the kids do these days. Sorry, please don't accept this as an attempt to add to the discussion. William Robb -- 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. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original literally and exactly or not. I can't agree more, that it's the artist's privilege. It's his medium after all. My lingering doubt arises because, if the Bette Davis Speaks version of the picture is the true depiction with no smoke, then why on earth would the stamp artist depict, from his creative mind, a hand that looks to be holding a deleted cigarette? Why create conspiracy where it doesn't exist? Occam's Razor needs an answer. This is JUST MY OPINION, but possibly the artist isn't very good at drawing hands. And the stamp image is squeezed horizontally. Try downloading both the photo the stamp image and layering the stamp over the photo at 50% opacity. Scale the stamp image until the two faces are the same size. You'll still have to stretch the stamp image horizontally to make the two faces match up. After you do, the hands are dis-proportionate. -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
John, Answers after quotes: This is JUST MY OPINION, but possibly the artist isn't very good at drawing hands. Not even a consideration at this level of his profession. And the stamp image is squeezed horizontally. Try downloading both the photo the stamp image and layering the stamp over the photo at 50% opacity. Scale the stamp image until the two faces are the same size. Didn't you follow ~any~ of the links I posted? It's no wonder your side of the discussion is out of synch, you repeatedly raise matters that I've previously dealt with. FYI I already did what you suggested, and put the result up for the list to see. Look back in the thread if you want the link. The difference in crop between the two pictures is insignificant for the purpose of the stamp design, and wouldn't have justified a hand transplant. You'll still have to stretch the stamp image horizontally to make the two faces match up. No you wouldn't. You're just guessing, aren't you? Just a reminder, early in this discussion you dismissed totally even the existence of a Bette Davis photo that resembled the stamp, claiming that the stamp was an elaborate montage of individual elements. You're not pissy , are you, that not only did I find the source image you claimed didn't exist, and prove it with the overlay that you're only now suggesting I try, but I did all that ~before~ your claim that there was no picture? Are you? Show me evidence if you make a claim, please. Just like I've done. It's all in the thread. From now on, for the sake of the rest of the list's tolerance, I'd prefer to discuss just evidence and examples that are pointed to. Form an opinion about that, but don't insult me by making up opinion out of the ether and expecting me to swallow it. Regards, Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Sessoms Sent: Monday, 20 October 2008 12:27 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original literally and exactly or not. I can't agree more, that it's the artist's privilege. It's his medium after all. My lingering doubt arises because, if the Bette Davis Speaks version of the picture is the true depiction with no smoke, then why on earth would the stamp artist depict, from his creative mind, a hand that looks to be holding a deleted cigarette? Why create conspiracy where it doesn't exist? Occam's Razor needs an answer. This is JUST MY OPINION, but possibly the artist isn't very good at drawing hands. And the stamp image is squeezed horizontally. Try downloading both the photo the stamp image and layering the stamp over the photo at 50% opacity. Scale the stamp image until the two faces are the same size. You'll still have to stretch the stamp image horizontally to make the two faces match up. After you do, the hands are dis-proportionate. -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] And the stamp image is squeezed horizontally. Try downloading both the photo the stamp image and layering the stamp over the photo at 50% opacity. Scale the stamp image until the two faces are the same size. Didn't you follow ~any~ of the links I posted? It's no wonder your side of the discussion is out of synch, you repeatedly raise matters that I've previously dealt with. FYI I already did what you suggested, and put the result up for the list to see. Look back in the thread if you want the link. The difference in crop between the two pictures is insignificant for the purpose of the stamp design, and wouldn't have justified a hand transplant. You'll still have to stretch the stamp image horizontally to make the two faces match up. No you wouldn't. You're just guessing, aren't you? No, merely stating what I had to do to get the two images to line up. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
John Sessoms wrote: Occam's Razor sez the painter moved the hand so it'd fit on the stamp. Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original literally and exactly or not. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
2008/10/18 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Actually, that was someone else's initial comment. Apologies. Wrong John. My initial comment was Tempest in a teapot; and IIRC, something to the effect if you read the article, you'll see it's a painting, NOT A PHOTOGRAPH. Because it's a painting, the artist is free to paint the subject in whatever manner he pleases; with or without a cigarette. And, while the painting was inspired by a photograph, no instance of that photograph has been produced that shows the actress holding a cigarette. So what is the basis for claiming the government sanitized history? And who is being revisionist? That's the second time you ask who's revisionist. What are you actually trying to imply by that? The government is not the only bad guy in town, either. My argument is that if you're going to rail against the guberment sanitizing history, you should save that argument for an instance where the government actually HAS sanitized history. Well the other John should probably thank you for speaking up on his behalf. Show me where the cigarette is actually removed from the image to sanitize history; to hide the fact that people used to smoke. I find the evidence underwhelmingly insufficient in the cases presented. You keep harping about _this case_ and _government_. So I will for the third and hopefully last time repeat that I withdrew my comments particular to this image and commended the work of the painter. In my previous post I also pointed out that both moralism and business-making as alternative culprits. You may change the title of the thread if that's what's needed to broaden the scope of our exchange. :-) I also presented a different case which definately _is_ a manipulated image; the photo of a certain Soviet leader at UN. I doubt very much that the _government_ was involved in that fix either; more likely the free press took some extra liberties to pretend they had a shot which they hadn't. Doesn't make it more right in my book. Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Sessoms wrote: Occam's Razor sez the painter moved the hand so it'd fit on the stamp. Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original literally and exactly or not. That's one of my points, i.e the artist is entitled to his vision. My other point, to which I refer Occam's razor is that without evidence, it's unreasonable to claim some sinister government plot to sanitize history as the reason why he chose to paint it as he did. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008/10/18 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So what is the basis for claiming the government sanitized history? And who is being revisionist? That's the second time you ask who's revisionist. What are you actually trying to imply by that? The government is not the only bad guy in town, either. Indeed. The SUBJECT is Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history It's established to my satisfaction that the photograph was NOT doctored BY A GOVT AGENCY. It appears to me the PHOTO was not doctored at all. *Did the government revise (sanitize) history? No, I would say they did not ... or at least, no one has shown that they did so in this instance. *Might they have done so at other times? Arguably, and where they have, I do not support that action. But that's not what we have here. *Is someone else revising history if they make a false accusation of government duplicity? Yes, I would say someone making such a false accusation is as much guilty of revising history as they claim the government to be. That's all I'm saying. Somebody got all bent out of shape over something that didn't happen. Better to save your indignation for things that DO happen. -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
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. Where did I claim that an agency of the U.S. govt, or the government itself, had any part in the presentation of the Bette Davis Speaks image? That was between the publishers and Davis's management, and any alterations made were for their purpose. Funny thing is, I had invoked Occam's Razor in support of my proposition, but edited the passage out in the name of brevity. To me, Occam's Razor dictates that the stamp artist would not have created a complex, ambiguous and, smokingwise, incriminating fictional hand when he could have more simply just obscured a cigarette. Plus, the biography cover looks dodgy to anybody with the experience to recognize the dodginess. Regards, Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Sessoms Sent: Saturday, 18 October 2008 9:56 AM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history 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 BW 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
My other point, to which I refer Occam's razor is that without evidence, it's unreasonable to claim some sinister government plot to sanitize history as the reason why he chose to paint it as he did. John, If you read the interviews accessible on the web (which I'm not going to cite this time because I've read them before and can't be arsed to plough through again, just trust me that they're there) you'll find that the US Postal Service did, in fact, specify to the artists that they were not to show cigarette smoking on the stamps designs. So, there was indeed a government plot to sanitize history. Sinister was not specified (I searched the entire thread just to be sure, and you're the first to use that word), it is your personal introduction of hyperbole, falsely attributed to an opposing argument, in order to paint your opponents as paranoid. Regards, Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Sessoms Sent: Sunday, 19 October 2008 9:48 AM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] John Sessoms wrote: Occam's Razor sez the painter moved the hand so it'd fit on the stamp. Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original literally and exactly or not. That's one of my points, i.e the artist is entitled to his vision. My other point, to which I refer Occam's razor is that without evidence, it's unreasonable to claim some sinister government plot to sanitize history as the reason why he chose to paint it as he did. -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original literally and exactly or not. I can't agree more, that it's the artist's privilege. It's his medium after all. My lingering doubt arises because, if the Bette Davis Speaks version of the picture is the true depiction with no smoke, then why on earth would the stamp artist depict, from his creative mind, a hand that looks to be holding a deleted cigarette? Why create conspiracy where it doesn't exist? Occam's Razor needs an answer. My belief, in case you missed it, is that the biography picture was radically altered by the book publisher or Davis's agency. I also believe that the stamp follows the earliest version of the picture that can't be found on the web, but which the artist had a copy of. BTW, Bette Davis also wore a fur coat which was changed into some generic fuzzy fabric, I suppose to appease PETA. It's just a painting. It's also the image the Postal Service wants to present. It doesn't matter too much to me. It's interesting and I have time to discuss it. We the Sheeple get lied to all the time, all around the world ;-) Regards, Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Saturday, 18 October 2008 10:09 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history John Sessoms wrote: Occam's Razor sez the painter moved the hand so it'd fit on the stamp. Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original literally and exactly or not. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
- Original Message - From: Anthony Farr Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history My lingering doubt arises because, if the Bette Davis Speaks version of the picture is the true depiction with no smoke, then why on earth would the stamp artist depict, from his creative mind, a hand that looks to be holding a deleted cigarette? Maybe she's doing one of those hand signals that the kids do these days. Sorry, please don't accept this as an attempt to add to the discussion. William Robb -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
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 BW 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
2008/10/17 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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. Agreed. 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. Then I will have to say again; I backed down from my first reaction. Please re-read the thread. Which makes objecting to the artist not depicting her holding one foolish. Who exactly ARE the revisionists in this case? Thing is, this debate is going on at multiple levels at the same time, and they keep getting mixed up. One level is whether the particular photo was manipulated to remove a cigarette. That level seems settled; that Ebert was mistaken, and his essay fooled both me and others. Then there is the level of whether it would have been OK to remove a cigarette like that. Your initial comment in this thread was: I'd much rather have the government not portray smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old photo. I cannot escape the impression that you think it would have been OK, and for moralistic reasons. I will repeat my opinion; that smoking was so much an integral part of social life of the period that it should not be written out of the images from the era. I don't think any moralistic overlay can change that (I regard the detrimental effects of tobacco is an axiom in this case, just for the record). I'd be happy to hear your arguments against, if you have any. Then there is the level of whether old pictures of smoking movie stars promotes smoking today. I think no more than the thin waists of 19th century ladies with corselets inspires anorexia in girls today. best, Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
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 BW 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008/10/17 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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. Agreed. 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. Then I will have to say again; I backed down from my first reaction. Please re-read the thread. Which makes objecting to the artist not depicting her holding one foolish. Who exactly ARE the revisionists in this case? Thing is, this debate is going on at multiple levels at the same time, and they keep getting mixed up. One level is whether the particular photo was manipulated to remove a cigarette. That level seems settled; that Ebert was mistaken, and his essay fooled both me and others. Then there is the level of whether it would have been OK to remove a cigarette like that. Your initial comment in this thread was: I'd much rather have the government not portray smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old photo. Actually, that was someone else's initial comment. My initial comment was Tempest in a teapot; and IIRC, something to the effect if you read the article, you'll see it's a painting, NOT A PHOTOGRAPH. Because it's a painting, the artist is free to paint the subject in whatever manner he pleases; with or without a cigarette. And, while the painting was inspired by a photograph, no instance of that photograph has been produced that shows the actress holding a cigarette. So what is the basis for claiming the government sanitized history? And who is being revisionist? I cannot escape the impression that you think it would have been OK, and for moralistic reasons. I will repeat my opinion; that smoking was so much an integral part of social life of the period that it should not be written out of the images from the era. I don't think any moralistic overlay can change that (I regard the detrimental effects of tobacco is an axiom in this case, just for the record). I'd be happy to hear your arguments against, if you have any. My argument is that if you're going to rail against the guberment sanitizing history, you should save that argument for an instance where the government actually HAS sanitized history. Show me where the cigarette is actually removed from the image to sanitize history; to hide the fact that people used to smoke. I find the evidence underwhelmingly insufficient in the cases presented. I don't even see it in the Robert Johnson stamp, where the painter chose not to show the cigarette from the original photograph. The painter had artistic license to include or not include the cigarette in the same way he chose to move the guitar neck hands or change the background from a white sheet to plank siding. The painting is based on the photograph. The painting is inspired by the photograph. The painting interprets the photograph ... BUT ... the painting IS NOT the photograph. Then there is the level of whether old pictures of smoking movie stars promotes smoking today. I think no more than the thin waists of 19th century ladies with corselets inspires anorexia in girls today. best, Jostein I don't know whether they do or not, but I see no evidence the government is suppressing those old movies as part of an anti-smoking campaign. What I *DO* know, is no one has yet shown that indeed a Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history. -- 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.
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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Read KunderaThe Book of Laughter and Forgetting. Norm 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. regards, Anthony Farr -- 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. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Anthony, What struck me when going through those web archives was that so few of her portraits featured a cigarette. Makes me wonder how extensive the history rewriting is... Somehow it's difficult to believe that they've systematically removed every little fag they could come over just because public attitude has shifted away from smoking. It would be very scary indeed if they did. Jostein 2008/10/13 Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -Original Message- From: AlunFoto (snip) Now it looks like the artist has improved the shot to hint at her smoking habit. (snip) Agreed. It seems to me that the artist, with access to the unaltered original (which we haven't found on the web), has omitted the cigarette at his client's (US Postal Service)request, but changed little else. The earlier airbrush retouching seems more invasive in order to resolve the 'empty hand' effect that just erasing the cigarette creates. I suspect that the postage stamp rendition is more authentic than the Bette Davis Speaks version of the picture, within the limitations of political correctness. Apparently the postage stamp artist wants us to know that the cigarette is missing, but the biography artist wanted to conceal the fact. Regards, Anthony -- 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. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Not at all - it's a perfectly good way of providing useful work in these troubled times. I have a friend, Winston Smith, who is a civil servant with the Ministry of Truth. His job consists of spending most of the day on Google Images looking for pictures of people smoking; he then removes the offending cigarette, cheroot or hookah and writes the image back onto Google's servers. The past must reflect today's orthodoxy. He's a very interesting chap. We met a few months ago when I had a day off and was walking along Whitehall. I stopped to ask directions while he was standing down an alleyway next to the Minitrue office, having a cigarette break. Anthony, What struck me when going through those web archives was that so few of her portraits featured a cigarette. Makes me wonder how extensive the history rewriting is... Somehow it's difficult to believe that they've systematically removed every little fag they could come over just because public attitude has shifted away from smoking. It would be very scary indeed if they did. Jostein 2008/10/13 Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -Original Message- From: AlunFoto (snip) Now it looks like the artist has improved the shot to hint at her smoking habit. (snip) Agreed. It seems to me that the artist, with access to the unaltered original (which we haven't found on the web), has omitted the cigarette at his client's (US Postal Service)request, but changed little else. The earlier airbrush retouching seems more invasive in order to resolve the 'empty hand' effect that just erasing the cigarette creates. I suspect that the postage stamp rendition is more authentic than the Bette Davis Speaks version of the picture, within the limitations of political correctness. Apparently the postage stamp artist wants us to know that the cigarette is missing, but the biography artist wanted to conceal the fact. Regards, Anthony -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
2008/10/14 Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Just so you know, I'm not a smoking defender. I'm a political correctness hater. LOL... I'm not even that. It's just that what's happened has happened. Removing the ubiquitous tobacco from the pictures of that era is a denial of history. Go that way and you end up with the folly of either David Irving or the stalinists... :-) Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
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. Sure he's not actually Agent Smith, btw? :-) Jostein 2008/10/14 Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Not at all - it's a perfectly good way of providing useful work in these troubled times. I have a friend, Winston Smith, who is a civil servant with the Ministry of Truth. His job consists of spending most of the day on Google Images looking for pictures of people smoking; he then removes the offending cigarette, cheroot or hookah and writes the image back onto Google's servers. The past must reflect today's orthodoxy. He's a very interesting chap. We met a few months ago when I had a day off and was walking along Whitehall. I stopped to ask directions while he was standing down an alleyway next to the Minitrue office, having a cigarette break. Anthony, What struck me when going through those web archives was that so few of her portraits featured a cigarette. Makes me wonder how extensive the history rewriting is... Somehow it's difficult to believe that they've systematically removed every little fag they could come over just because public attitude has shifted away from smoking. It would be very scary indeed if they did. Jostein 2008/10/13 Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -Original Message- From: AlunFoto (snip) Now it looks like the artist has improved the shot to hint at her smoking habit. (snip) Agreed. It seems to me that the artist, with access to the unaltered original (which we haven't found on the web), has omitted the cigarette at his client's (US Postal Service)request, but changed little else. The earlier airbrush retouching seems more invasive in order to resolve the 'empty hand' effect that just erasing the cigarette creates. I suspect that the postage stamp rendition is more authentic than the Bette Davis Speaks version of the picture, within the limitations of political correctness. Apparently the postage stamp artist wants us to know that the cigarette is missing, but the biography artist wanted to conceal the fact. Regards, Anthony -- 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. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Just today, when researching the Robert Johnson photographs, I read an anecdote about Walt Disney. In his old Disneyworld office in Florida in a photographic portrait showing him sitting or leaning on the edge of his desk, and looking very satisfied with himself. Reflected in the glass desktop is a cigarette in his hand, but his hand is empty in the direct view. The old pictures we're seeing now are mostly re-released versions rather than the archival copies. It's bad timing that my copy of The Art of the Great Hollywood Photographers compiled by John Kobal hasn't yet been unpacked from storage since my home was renovated. If it was I'd have a fair chance of finding an early version of the Bette Davis photo, as well as which it's a sumptuously printed book (Stonetone gravure printing, yum yum)and I'm hankering to browse through it again. It's becoming evident that cigarette smoking is often being retouched away as the new commercial users seek to distance themselves from smoking. The Johnson picture from which the postage stamp was derived is seen as much without cigarette as with it, e.g. http://g.sheetmusicplus.com/Look-Inside/covers/5449537.jpg is a sheet music cover. I'd have thought musicians would be more forgiving of bad habits than most people, and one of the last bastions of smoking. It's almost enough to make me take up smoking ;-) Regards, Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AlunFoto Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2008 6:03 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history Anthony, What struck me when going through those web archives was that so few of her portraits featured a cigarette. Makes me wonder how extensive the history rewriting is... Somehow it's difficult to believe that they've systematically removed every little fag they could come over just because public attitude has shifted away from smoking. It would be very scary indeed if they did. Jostein 2008/10/13 Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -Original Message- From: AlunFoto (snip) Now it looks like the artist has improved the shot to hint at her smoking habit. (snip) Agreed. It seems to me that the artist, with access to the unaltered original (which we haven't found on the web), has omitted the cigarette at his client's (US Postal Service)request, but changed little else. The earlier airbrush retouching seems more invasive in order to resolve the 'empty hand' effect that just erasing the cigarette creates. I suspect that the postage stamp rendition is more authentic than the Bette Davis Speaks version of the picture, within the limitations of political correctness. Apparently the postage stamp artist wants us to know that the cigarette is missing, but the biography artist wanted to conceal the fact. Regards, Anthony -- 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. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Fascinating indeed. Although I have a fair deal of Soviet background instilled in me, this still strikes me as a rather stupid thing to do. Suppose that in 20 years from now, it will be proven that smoking is extremely healthy for some reason. Say, those who smoke are better endowed to survive the atomics... Does it mean that all such images will be re-planted with proper smoking devices??? Boris 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. regards, Anthony Farr -- 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. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
2008/10/14 Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Does it mean that all such images will be re-planted with proper smoking devices??? This thread now just _begs_ for this: http://turl.no/2ht vbg, Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
LOL! ann AlunFoto wrote: 2008/10/14 Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Does it mean that all such images will be re-planted with proper smoking devices??? This thread now just _begs_ for this: http://turl.no/2ht vbg, Jostein -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Smoking is such a bad thing to do that you can encourage as many people as you like to emulate a man who famously sold his soul to the devil, but you can't show him smoking! Bob It's becoming evident that cigarette smoking is often being retouched away as the new commercial users seek to distance themselves from smoking. The Johnson picture from which the postage stamp was derived is seen as much without cigarette as with it, e.g. http://g.sheetmusicplus.com/Look-Inside/covers/5449537.jpg is a sheet music cover. I'd have thought musicians would be more forgiving of bad habits than most people, and one of the last bastions of smoking. It's almost enough to make me take up smoking ;-) -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Interesting to see your arguments, John. Some comments are interspersed below: 2008/10/13 John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So you *want* government-sanctioned art portraying smoking as cool? Golly gee, that's a fabulous idea. What's next, Scottish stamps of Ewan McGregor shooting up heroin? Jamaican stamps of Bob Marley smoking pot? Great, send them to the presses! Maybe we could make them old-fashioned lick-em stamps and put some LSD in the paper. How's that for stretching an argument? None of those drugs were ever socially accepted and you know that. Why on earth do you want those pics on stamps in the first place? But okay, if that's what you want on your correspondance, I still think that portraits should go undoctored. Can't say that I remember any famous photogs of the situations you describe, btw. It's a painting of a photo of a dead celebrity. I'd barely count that as history. I can see being mad about a stamp portraying important historical figures like Douglas MacArthur without his pipe or George W. Bush with a brain, but an actress (who made no significant contributions to human history besides looking pretty and becoming the subject of a Rod Stewart song) without a cigarrette? Come on. I'm coming on. :-) There are countless photos of Dubya out there trying to portray him more favourably than (in my opinion) his foreign policies should give him credit for, but I'm sure they'll pick one of those when it comes to honor him with a stamp of his own. But it'd be wrong to tamper with it nonetheless, wouldn't it? I don't know who Douglas MacArthur is. As for the actress in question, she smoked. So what? If it's so damned important to decorate letters with her portrait, then choose either (1) to use a portrait that shows her for what she was in a time when smoking was socially acceptable, or (2) go find a portrait where she's without the cigarette in the first place. As it stands now, it really is just another case for the photoshopdisasters blog. On a tangential note, I would like to ask you about another famous historical photograph, where Nikita Khrushchev was banging his shoe on the table in the UN assembly: http://www.kp.ru/upimg/logo/18951.jpg The event is documented in many places, but the photo is a hoax. A rather bad one too, as you can see even on the small web-image that the shoe is pasted in. Would you consider this manipulation to be acceptable too, since the event took place without being photographed? sincerely, Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Prompted by Jos's efforts, I found the base image here: http://classicmoviefavorites.com/davis/davis051.jpg It also happens to be the image on the cover of Bette Davis Speaks as pictured on Amazon.com. Even though the image has differently posed hands, I overlaid one on the other and found that Davis's face is 100% identical in both. The problem is that there is no cigarette in this shot, so I'm left with egg on my face and with much diminished respect for Roger Ebert who has apparently misled me. Still, I'm not too sure. WTF, I wonder, was the artist thinking when he altered Davis's hand to a position that seemed to hold an invisible cigarette when the source image unequivocally lacked a cigarette. But I'm not so certain that the book image is the source. The tonality of the glove is strange, and the coat looks patchy where Davis's hand would be according to the postage stamp version. I suspect that Bette Davis's smoking has been censored both times. The book cover version has concealed her smoking habit as much as airbrush retouching could achieve. Paradoxically, the modern artist has very likely made the truer rendition by leaving the cigarette's omission evident. It's a shame that the oldest findable version of this picture is the biography cover. The original studio release would settle any doubts. BTW the Robert Johnson portrait is without a doubt the same picture that has been massaged so that it fits better onto a postage stamp. Regards, Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AlunFoto Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 9:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history I will moderate my stance on this one. Spent the lunch break zooming through a couple of internet databases on stills from Bette Davis career. There was a link to a youTube clip from All about Eve on the original blogpost, which came close as a possible inspiration for the stamp, where she's wearing the same coat, haircut and mittens. However if this is the source, the stamp must be regarded as an independent work of art however photorealistic it seems. So only one question remains. Would depicting Bette Davis with a cigarette in hand on a stamp actually promote smoking? I don't think so, but I'm open to arguments... :-) best, Jostein -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Well done to find that image, Anthony! Now it looks like the artist has improved the shot to hint at her smoking habit. Not sure if I accept the tampering yet, but all of a sudden the stamp pic is more in the same class as is the Shoe Incident with Nikita Khrushchev... Although this is more cleverly done. I was certainly had. :-) Best, Jostein 2008/10/13 Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Prompted by Jos's efforts, I found the base image here: http://classicmoviefavorites.com/davis/davis051.jpg It also happens to be the image on the cover of Bette Davis Speaks as pictured on Amazon.com. Even though the image has differently posed hands, I overlaid one on the other and found that Davis's face is 100% identical in both. The problem is that there is no cigarette in this shot, so I'm left with egg on my face and with much diminished respect for Roger Ebert who has apparently misled me. Still, I'm not too sure. WTF, I wonder, was the artist thinking when he altered Davis's hand to a position that seemed to hold an invisible cigarette when the source image unequivocally lacked a cigarette. But I'm not so certain that the book image is the source. The tonality of the glove is strange, and the coat looks patchy where Davis's hand would be according to the postage stamp version. I suspect that Bette Davis's smoking has been censored both times. The book cover version has concealed her smoking habit as much as airbrush retouching could achieve. Paradoxically, the modern artist has very likely made the truer rendition by leaving the cigarette's omission evident. It's a shame that the oldest findable version of this picture is the biography cover. The original studio release would settle any doubts. BTW the Robert Johnson portrait is without a doubt the same picture that has been massaged so that it fits better onto a postage stamp. Regards, Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AlunFoto Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 9:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history I will moderate my stance on this one. Spent the lunch break zooming through a couple of internet databases on stills from Bette Davis career. There was a link to a youTube clip from All about Eve on the original blogpost, which came close as a possible inspiration for the stamp, where she's wearing the same coat, haircut and mittens. However if this is the source, the stamp must be regarded as an independent work of art however photorealistic it seems. So only one question remains. Would depicting Bette Davis with a cigarette in hand on a stamp actually promote smoking? I don't think so, but I'm open to arguments... :-) best, Jostein -- 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. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
AlunFoto wrote: So only one question remains. Would depicting Bette Davis with a cigarette in hand on a stamp actually promote smoking? I don't think so, but I'm open to arguments... :-) Because some people seem to think that if you photograph it, it becomes cool, or something like that. I guess. Kinda like how video games promote violence, rap music tricks all who hear it into joining a gang, and LOLCats makes us believe that cats have really bad grammar. I once saw a picture of a man who was completely covered in tattoos. As soon as I have enough money.. ;) -- Scott Loveless New Cumberland, PA http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Ok, Jostein -- Never heard of Douglas McArthur? If I said WWII and Midway and called him a General will a light bulb go on? is Old soldiers never die, they just fade away a phrase you might heard ? anyway -- here is stuff about him. http://tinyurl.com/53pjzv Here is a much reprinted photo I googled for: http://tinyurl.com/3pzqbz http://www.gallerym.com/images/work/big/mydans_carl_general_macarthur_landing_luzon_philippines_1945_16x20_L.jpg Throughout my childhood I was told that the short soldier beind him and to _his_ right was my half-brother, LT. Sterling A. Blackstone... who was killed in April of 1945 when a plane he was in was either shot down or just crashed. He is buried in Luzon. However, while he was one of McArthur's lieutenant's, he may have been elsewhere in that group - one of my kin thought something about him didn't look quite right -- but she is 5 years younger than I am and is judging only from photos - where as I idolized him I think it was New Years eve of 1942 when he picked up a sandwich from the floor and ate it. I was 6... I thought him very brave. :-) As to Robert Johnson, I have this recording of his work (an ebay listing, not mine) http://tinyurl.com/3gus7h no cig. I never knew the bit about Khruschev photo doctoring. ann AlunFoto wrote: Well done to find that image, Anthony! Now it looks like the artist has improved the shot to hint at her smoking habit. Not sure if I accept the tampering yet, but all of a sudden the stamp pic is more in the same class as is the Shoe Incident with Nikita Khrushchev... Although this is more cleverly done. I was certainly had. :-) Best, Jostein 2008/10/13 Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Prompted by Jos's efforts, I found the base image here: http://classicmoviefavorites.com/davis/davis051.jpg It also happens to be the image on the cover of Bette Davis Speaks as pictured on Amazon.com. Even though the image has differently posed hands, I overlaid one on the other and found that Davis's face is 100% identical in both. The problem is that there is no cigarette in this shot, so I'm left with egg on my face and with much diminished respect for Roger Ebert who has apparently misled me. Still, I'm not too sure. WTF, I wonder, was the artist thinking when he altered Davis's hand to a position that seemed to hold an invisible cigarette when the source image unequivocally lacked a cigarette. But I'm not so certain that the book image is the source. The tonality of the glove is strange, and the coat looks patchy where Davis's hand would be according to the postage stamp version. I suspect that Bette Davis's smoking has been censored both times. The book cover version has concealed her smoking habit as much as airbrush retouching could achieve. Paradoxically, the modern artist has very likely made the truer rendition by leaving the cigarette's omission evident. It's a shame that the oldest findable version of this picture is the biography cover. The original studio release would settle any doubts. BTW the Robert Johnson portrait is without a doubt the same picture that has been massaged so that it fits better onto a postage stamp. Regards, Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of AlunFoto Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 9:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history I will moderate my stance on this one. Spent the lunch break zooming through a couple of internet databases on stills from Bette Davis career. There was a link to a youTube clip from All about Eve on the original blogpost, which came close as a possible inspiration for the stamp, where she's wearing the same coat, haircut and mittens. However if this is the source, the stamp must be regarded as an independent work of art however photorealistic it seems. So only one question remains. Would depicting Bette Davis with a cigarette in hand on a stamp actually promote smoking? I don't think so, but I'm open to arguments... :-) best, Jostein -- 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. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2008/10/13 Mon PM 02:20:08 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history AlunFoto wrote: So only one question remains. Would depicting Bette Davis with a cigarette in hand on a stamp actually promote smoking? I don't think so, but I'm open to arguments... :-) Because some people seem to think that if you photograph it, it becomes cool, or something like that. I guess. Kinda like how video games promote violence, rap music tricks all who hear it into joining a gang, and LOLCats makes us believe that cats have really bad grammar. I once saw a picture of a man who was completely covered in tattoos. As soon as I have enough money.. You're going to get them all lasered off? - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
-Original Message- From: AlunFoto (snip) Now it looks like the artist has improved the shot to hint at her smoking habit. (snip) Agreed. It seems to me that the artist, with access to the unaltered original (which we haven't found on the web), has omitted the cigarette at his client's (US Postal Service)request, but changed little else. The earlier airbrush retouching seems more invasive in order to resolve the 'empty hand' effect that just erasing the cigarette creates. I suspect that the postage stamp rendition is more authentic than the Bette Davis Speaks version of the picture, within the limitations of political correctness. Apparently the postage stamp artist wants us to know that the cigarette is missing, but the biography artist wanted to conceal the fact. Regards, Anthony -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
I will moderate my stance on this one. Spent the lunch break zooming through a couple of internet databases on stills from Bette Davis career. There was a link to a youTube clip from All about Eve on the original blogpost, which came close as a possible inspiration for the stamp, where she's wearing the same coat, haircut and mittens. However if this is the source, the stamp must be regarded as an independent work of art however photorealistic it seems. So only one question remains. Would depicting Bette Davis with a cigarette in hand on a stamp actually promote smoking? I don't think so, but I'm open to arguments... :-) best, Jostein 2008/10/13 AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Interesting to see your arguments, John. Some comments are interspersed below: 2008/10/13 John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So you *want* government-sanctioned art portraying smoking as cool? Golly gee, that's a fabulous idea. What's next, Scottish stamps of Ewan McGregor shooting up heroin? Jamaican stamps of Bob Marley smoking pot? Great, send them to the presses! Maybe we could make them old-fashioned lick-em stamps and put some LSD in the paper. How's that for stretching an argument? None of those drugs were ever socially accepted and you know that. Why on earth do you want those pics on stamps in the first place? But okay, if that's what you want on your correspondance, I still think that portraits should go undoctored. Can't say that I remember any famous photogs of the situations you describe, btw. It's a painting of a photo of a dead celebrity. I'd barely count that as history. I can see being mad about a stamp portraying important historical figures like Douglas MacArthur without his pipe or George W. Bush with a brain, but an actress (who made no significant contributions to human history besides looking pretty and becoming the subject of a Rod Stewart song) without a cigarrette? Come on. I'm coming on. :-) There are countless photos of Dubya out there trying to portray him more favourably than (in my opinion) his foreign policies should give him credit for, but I'm sure they'll pick one of those when it comes to honor him with a stamp of his own. But it'd be wrong to tamper with it nonetheless, wouldn't it? I don't know who Douglas MacArthur is. As for the actress in question, she smoked. So what? If it's so damned important to decorate letters with her portrait, then choose either (1) to use a portrait that shows her for what she was in a time when smoking was socially acceptable, or (2) go find a portrait where she's without the cigarette in the first place. As it stands now, it really is just another case for the photoshopdisasters blog. On a tangential note, I would like to ask you about another famous historical photograph, where Nikita Khrushchev was banging his shoe on the table in the UN assembly: http://www.kp.ru/upimg/logo/18951.jpg The event is documented in many places, but the photo is a hoax. A rather bad one too, as you can see even on the small web-image that the shoe is pasted in. Would you consider this manipulation to be acceptable too, since the event took place without being photographed? sincerely, Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2008/10/13 Mon AM 12:07:13 GMT To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history 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. regards, Anthony Farr 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. Or maybe he left it at the crossroads... According to the correspondence lower down, that's the only known photograph of Robert Johnson. The stamp looks like a photo but maybe, like the Bette Davis picture, it's a painting or something - looks like it to me anyway. Not correct. The one shown is not even the better known one. This is. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/RobertJohson.png It's strange how quickly attitudes to smoking have changed. I gave up over 15 years ago, after smoking for about 20. A few days ago I mentioned in passing something about smoking at my desk to one of my younger colleagues and he was aghast at the thought of people smoking in the office. He didn't know it had ever been legal, let alone normal, but if I left work without a medium-sized Alp of fag-ends in my ashtray I felt as though I hadn't been trying hard enough. Now it already feels strange being in countries where smoking is allowed in public places such as bars and restaurants. When they make stamps of Keith Richard I wonder if they'll airbrush the cigarette out of his machine head. Bob -- 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. - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
On Oct 13, 2008, at 08:10 , Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW the Robert Johnson portrait is without a doubt the same picture that has been massaged so that it fits better onto a postage stamp. Regards, Anthony You obviously missed my post on this image, Tony. 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. As far as the Kruschev photo that was referenced, I had never seen it from that angle before, and a google search indicates that the image in question was doctored. The original just shows a raised open fist. However, the whole incident was televised and recorded by the media, and probably by several United Nations photographers. It was most certainly not a 'fake' staged or doctored event. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even a stamp should portray visual fact. Visual reality. Correcting history should be permanently buried in the past. The Russians, the Germans, whoever else perpetrated this unconscionable editing to change reality of what was, were wrong. Almost literally everyone who sees this stamp says, Where's her cigarette? Suckin' on a smoke is Bette Davis! Quite. It's not just that they edited the cigarette out of the photograph (although even that would be pretty bad) - it's also that the photograph is so well known that most people who recognise the subject also spot the fact that the cigarette has been removed. Tempest in a teapot. Actually read the article, and you might see 'The PORTRAIT by Michael Deas was inspired by a still photo from All About Eve.' [emphasis added] It's a painting, not a photograph. The photo itself has not been edited. In fact, I don't think there IS *A* photo. Looking through all the Bette Davis images Google brings up I didn't find one that I could say for sure is THE ONE. What I did see is the face appears to be based on one All About Eve photo, one in which she isn't smoking BTW; her hands are not even visible. The hair appears to be from a publicity still for Watch on the Rhine and the fur coat is from Deception. There is a photo of her holding a cigarette where the glove is similar to the one in the painting, her hands face are in a completely different position. Then there are all those other photos where she doesn't appear to be holding a cigarette. Seems to me, y'all are guilty of the same kind of political correctness you accuse the government of. -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Besides, it is a famous photographic image. Yeah, it's so famous Google Image doesn't seem to have a link for it. Not one I was able to find anyway. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
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 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: Anthony Farr Prompted by Jos's efforts, I found the base image here: http://classicmoviefavorites.com/davis/davis051.jpg It also happens to be the image on the cover of Bette Davis Speaks as pictured on Amazon.com. Even though the image has differently posed hands, I overlaid one on the other and found that Davis's face is 100% identical in both. The problem is that there is no cigarette in this shot, so I'm left with egg on my face and with much diminished respect for Roger Ebert who has apparently misled me. Still, I'm not too sure. WTF, I wonder, was the artist thinking when he altered Davis's hand to a position that seemed to hold an invisible cigarette snippage Perhaps he was thinking the same thing that motivated the painter of the Robert Johnson stamp to move HIS hands so they fit better on the stamp? BTW the Robert Johnson portrait is without a doubt the same picture that has been massaged so that it fits better onto a postage stamp. Artistic license. Or maybe he just don't draw hands so good? -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Diligence fail for you. I found it. Read my posts. Regards, Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Sessoms Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2008 9:23 AM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Besides, it is a famous photographic image. Yeah, it's so famous Google Image doesn't seem to have a link for it. Not one I was able to find anyway. -- 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. -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
About the Robert Johnson picture The blog post that claimed there to be only one ever photograph of Johnson is wrong, there are two confirmed photographs, this one and the one that Anne pointed to, and there is a third unconfirmed photograph that was more recently discovered at (a) swap meet digging through a photo album of old south delta type photos: http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/01/long_lost_third.html As to the alterations between the cigarette smoking Johnson against a sheet compared to the smoke free Johnson against the weatherboards, whose guitar neck is nearer and steeper what is your point, Joseph? The work involved to make these changes is trivial, and producing a postage stamp is not a trivial job. I think they'd make the effort. Here is an illustration I made of the postage stamp images of Robert Johnson and Bette Davis, which matches them to the images they were derived from: http://picasaweb.google.com/FarrAnthony/Illustrations#5256802623552356754 But don't take my word, here's the NY Times take on it the topic: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE2D91F30F934A15753C1A9609 58260 BTW, the US Postal Service aren't the only cigarette censorers: http://g.sheetmusicplus.com/Look-Inside/covers/5449537.jpg Just so you know, I'm not a smoking defender. I'm a political correctness hater. regards, Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph McAllister Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2008 5:47 AM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history On Oct 13, 2008, at 08:10 , Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW the Robert Johnson portrait is without a doubt the same picture that has been massaged so that it fits better onto a postage stamp. Regards, Anthony You obviously missed my post on this image, Tony. 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. As far as the Kruschev photo that was referenced, I had never seen it from that angle before, and a google search indicates that the image in question was doctored. The original just shows a raised open fist. However, the whole incident was televised and recorded by the media, and probably by several United Nations photographers. It was most certainly not a 'fake' staged or doctored event. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian -- 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.
OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
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. regards, Anthony Farr -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
We live in a world gone insane. G On Oct 12, 2008, at 9:47 AM, 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. regards, Anthony Farr -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
It's just a stamp. I'd much rather have the government not portray smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old photo. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto - Original Message - From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 9:47 AM Subject: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history 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. regards, Anthony Farr -- 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1717 - Release Date: 10/9/2008 4:56 PM -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Ditto. In fact, only the Davis pic suffered from the deletion. And then only mildly. Paul -- Original message -- From: John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's just a stamp. I'd much rather have the government not portray smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old photo. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto - Original Message - From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 9:47 AM Subject: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history 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. regards, Anthony Farr -- 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1717 - Release Date: 10/9/2008 4:56 PM -- 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. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Looks good. Rewriting history is ok as long as it's politically correct. Not. Jostein 2008/10/12 John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's just a stamp. I'd much rather have the government not portray smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old photo. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto - Original Message - From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 9:47 AM Subject: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history 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. regards, Anthony Farr -- 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.8.0/1717 - Release Date: 10/9/2008 4:56 PM -- 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. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
John Celio wrote: It's just a stamp. I'd much rather have the government not portray smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old photo. John Sorry, John. No, it's NOT just a stamp. Even a stamp should portray visual fact. Visual reality. Correcting history should be permanently buried in the past. The Russians, the Germans, whoever else perpetrated this unconscionable editing to change reality of what was, were wrong. Almost literally everyone who sees this stamp says, Where's her cigarette? Suckin' on a smoke is Bette Davis! Stupid thinking, stupid act, almost perfect photograph. keith whaley -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 01:25:49PM -0700, keith_w wrote: John Celio wrote: It's just a stamp. I'd much rather have the government not portray smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old photo. John Sorry, John. No, it's NOT just a stamp. Even a stamp should portray visual fact. Visual reality. Correcting history should be permanently buried in the past. The Russians, the Germans, whoever else perpetrated this unconscionable editing to change reality of what was, were wrong. Almost literally everyone who sees this stamp says, Where's her cigarette? Suckin' on a smoke is Bette Davis! Quite. It's not just that they edited the cigarette out of the photograph (although even that would be pretty bad) - it's also that the photograph is so well known that most people who recognise the subject also spot the fact that the cigarette has been removed. There are many other photographs that could have been chosen if showing a cigarette was unacceptable. Of course you could argue that going with one of those photographs would also be a selective portrayal of reality. That's essentially unavoidable. But changing images to fit conceptions is an affront to photography. After all, that's effectively what was done with the recent missile launch, and with the OJ Simpson magazine cover - both despicable decisions, IMNSHO. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Am I missing something here? My reading of the article is that no one has doctored the original photograph. The stamp is a portrait by an artist based on a photograph. I don't have any problem with the artist not including the ciggy in his work. (Then again, I've never seen All About Eve) Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:55:14 -0400, John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 01:25:49PM -0700, keith_w wrote: John Celio wrote: It's just a stamp. I'd much rather have the government not portray smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old photo. John Sorry, John. No, it's NOT just a stamp. Even a stamp should portray visual fact. Visual reality. Correcting history should be permanently buried in the past. The Russians, the Germans, whoever else perpetrated this unconscionable editing to change reality of what was, were wrong. Almost literally everyone who sees this stamp says, Where's her cigarette? Suckin' on a smoke is Bette Davis! Quite. It's not just that they edited the cigarette out of the photograph (although even that would be pretty bad) - it's also that the photograph is so well known that most people who recognise the subject also spot the fact that the cigarette has been removed. There are many other photographs that could have been chosen if showing a cigarette was unacceptable. Of course you could argue that going with one of those photographs would also be a selective portrayal of reality. That's essentially unavoidable. But changing images to fit conceptions is an affront to photography. After all, that's effectively what was done with the recent missile launch, and with the OJ Simpson magazine cover - both despicable decisions, IMNSHO. -- 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. -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ditto. In fact, only the Davis pic suffered from the deletion. And then only mildly. ...and it's not as if those publicity stills weren't retouched from the start. (If I hadn't been told, I'd never have thought the Davis shot was a photograph at all.) What a silly fuss over nothing. -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
The picture of the stamp on the web page is enlarged to the point that the artistry is apparent, but it has been rendered in a photo realistic style. Reduced to postage stamp size, as it will be seen in everyday use, the image will appear to most as a colourized photograph. Besides, it is a famous photographic image. Just as a photograph of a painting still depicts a painting, then a painting of a photograph, especially a famous one that is rendered photo realistically, will be seen as a photograph. Regards, Anthony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Walters Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 8:11 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history Am I missing something here? My reading of the article is that no one has doctored the original photograph. The stamp is a portrait by an artist based on a photograph. I don't have any problem with the artist not including the ciggy in his work. (Then again, I've never seen All About Eve) Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Looks good. Rewriting history is ok as long as it's politically correct. Not. So you *want* government-sanctioned art portraying smoking as cool? Golly gee, that's a fabulous idea. What's next, Scottish stamps of Ewan McGregor shooting up heroin? Jamaican stamps of Bob Marley smoking pot? Great, send them to the presses! Maybe we could make them old-fashioned lick-em stamps and put some LSD in the paper. It's a painting of a photo of a dead celebrity. I'd barely count that as history. I can see being mad about a stamp portraying important historical figures like Douglas MacArthur without his pipe or George W. Bush with a brain, but an actress (who made no significant contributions to human history besides looking pretty and becoming the subject of a Rod Stewart song) without a cigarrette? Come on. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Brian Walters wrote: Am I missing something here? My reading of the article is that no one has doctored the original photograph. The stamp is a portrait by an artist based on a photograph. I don't have any problem with the artist not including the ciggy in his work. (Then again, I've never seen All About Eve) Cheers Brian What! never saw All About Eve? get you to netflix or it will be an extrememely bump ride :) ann -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
John -- Betty Davis was more than a celebrity - especially to women... I'm not all up in arms over the removal -- because on a stamp I can barely see her face let alone noticing that the cig isn't there,however a different photo could have been used - there actually were lots of photos of Davis WITHOUT a cigarette... by famous photographers... but please don't say she was just a dead celebrity... Movies were major cultural influences when I was growing up - there was no TV, no internet... Betty Davis , for one thing, was liberating for us women for one thing because she never wore a bra... didn't stop here sex appeal... I do look aghast at seeing the old filmsandthe extent to which all my idols smoked... I'm sure I started smoking as a teen due to how glamorous Rita Hayworth was lighting up... and when I acted they were useful props... I approve of making stamps where the person depicted is not doing anything unhealthy or wicked... but I don't approve of the mental sloth that is indicated by the stamp makers not taking the trouble to find a photo of Davis that didn't show her smoking. ann (quit smoking in 1992) John Celio wrote: Looks good. Rewriting history is ok as long as it's politically correct. Not. So you *want* government-sanctioned art portraying smoking as cool? Golly gee, that's a fabulous idea. What's next, Scottish stamps of Ewan McGregor shooting up heroin? Jamaican stamps of Bob Marley smoking pot? Great, send them to the presses! Maybe we could make them old-fashioned lick-em stamps and put some LSD in the paper. It's a painting of a photo of a dead celebrity. I'd barely count that as history. I can see being mad about a stamp portraying important historical figures like Douglas MacArthur without his pipe or George W. Bush with a brain, but an actress (who made no significant contributions to human history besides looking pretty and becoming the subject of a Rod Stewart song) without a cigarrette? Come on. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- 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. -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
On Oct 12, 2008, at 12:26 , Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. regards, Anthony Farr 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. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Joseph McAllister wrote: On Oct 12, 2008, at 12:26 , Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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! -- 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.
RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
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. regards, Anthony Farr 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. Or maybe he left it at the crossroads... According to the correspondence lower down, that's the only known photograph of Robert Johnson. The stamp looks like a photo but maybe, like the Bette Davis picture, it's a painting or something - looks like it to me anyway. It's strange how quickly attitudes to smoking have changed. I gave up over 15 years ago, after smoking for about 20. A few days ago I mentioned in passing something about smoking at my desk to one of my younger colleagues and he was aghast at the thought of people smoking in the office. He didn't know it had ever been legal, let alone normal, but if I left work without a medium-sized Alp of fag-ends in my ashtray I felt as though I hadn't been trying hard enough. Now it already feels strange being in countries where smoking is allowed in public places such as bars and restaurants. When they make stamps of Keith Richard I wonder if they'll airbrush the cigarette out of his machine head. Bob -- 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.
Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:36:03 -0400, ann sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: What! never saw All About Eve? get you to netflix or it will be an extrememely bump ride :) ann That sounds scary - I'll check out the local DVD rentals almost immediately. :-) Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service? -- 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.
