The Bambino rolled his own cigars

[shilala]

Photochopped or not, I stole it anyways. I'm gonna print it and frame it.

[Rudder]

Originally Posted by shilala

Photochopped or not, I stole it anyways. I'm gonna print it and frame it.

Good idea.

[whiteboard]

Originally Posted by shilala

Photochopped or not, I stole it anyways. I'm gonna print it and frame it.

You can obtain an 8 x 11 black and white print from a copy of the original 1919 negative from the Library of Congress for $25. Not sure which version of Photoshop was available then.

[SIZE=3]link[/SIZE]

[taltos]

Originally Posted by whiteboard

You can obtain an 8 x 11 black and white print from a copy of the original 1919 negative from the Library of Congress for $25. Not sure which version of Photoshop was available then.

[SIZE=3]link[/SIZE]

I pointed out the publication date and the fact that it is in a Library of Congress collection last night and just caught shit from the general populace in here. Good luck with the responses that you get.

[pbrennan10]

Originally Posted by taltos

I pointed out the publication date and the fact that it is in a Library of Congress collection last night and just caught shit from the general populace in here. Good luck with the responses that you get.

It's a conspiracy, man!

[taltos]

Originally Posted by pbrennan10

It's a conspiracy, man!

Not a conspiracy, just with the winter running long, there is a great deal more sarcasm on the board than is normal.

[tzaddi]

Originally Posted by whiteboard

You can obtain an 8 x 11 black and white print from a copy of the original 1919 negative from the Library of Congress for $25. Not sure which version of Photoshop was available then.

[SIZE=3]link[/SIZE]

Originally Posted by taltos

I pointed out the publication date and the fact that it is in a Library of Congress collection last night and just caught shit from the general populace in here. Good luck with the responses that you get.

Thanks guys. I hope I didn't add to your frustration. I just couldn't resist combining the two threads and doing some Photoshopping.

In 1919 I think Photoshop was still in beta and it came bundled with BarneyScan.

[taltos]

Photoshop was only available on punch card for the Underwood Mechanical Tabulator.

[Rudder]

Originally Posted by taltos

I pointed out the publication date and the fact that it is in a Library of Congress collection last night and just caught shit from the general populace in here. Good luck with the responses that you get.

Awww Cmon. Its all in good fun

[RUJohnny99]

Yeah, because all of advertising was truthful before Photoshop was invented and photos were never doctored before Y2k.





Just because Photoshop wasn't around doesn't mean photos weren't doctored back then.

This isn't just a random snapshot of the most famous person in the world at that time busy at work in a suit rolling figurados like a common man in the offseason. It's a publicity photo designed to drum up sales for a business that Ruth invested in. Sure, he may have sat there and stood like a statue for 15 minutes while the photo was taken, or it could have been an actual shot of a roller, and the advertising company cut the boss's upper body into the picture to give it more legitimacy.

Just because it's in the Library of Congress doesn't mean it wasn't doctored. And just because it was doctored doesn't mean that it is not a really cool shot and would look good framed in a smoking room.

[Alyks]

I'd love to be able to roll my own cigars

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by taltos

I pointed out the publication date and the fact that it is in a Library of Congress collection last night and just caught shit from the general populace in here. Good luck with the responses that you get.

I've been a "professional" photographer since 1975 and as I pointed out why I believe it to be a "true" photograph earlier. The effects that some people believe points to this photo being "doctored" can be seen in many historic photographs dating back to the days of glass negatives. But, hey, what do I know.

It is also just as obvious to me that the photo is not of Babe Ruth sitting in a cigar factory working. I believe that the photo is just a publicity shot staged for a purpose by a very good photographer who knew what he was doing. In fact, back then, you really had to know what you were doing because you didn't have digital cameras that allowed you to erase your mistakes and reshoot them time and again. In the dark ages before digital and photoshop, you would shoot your assignment, go back to the lab, process your film and then you would know what you had.

Rant is over. By the way, I'm still shoot professionally and now I use a digital camera for some of my work and I am proficient enough in photoshop to do what I need to do.

[macjoe53]

Originally Posted by RUJohnny99

Yeah, because all of advertising was truthful before Photoshop was invented and photos were never doctored before Y2k.





Just because Photoshop wasn't around doesn't mean photos weren't doctored back then.

This isn't just a random snapshot of the most famous person in the world at that time busy at work in a suit rolling figurados like a common man in the offseason. It's a publicity photo designed to drum up sales for a business that Ruth invested in. Sure, he may have sat there and stood like a statue for 15 minutes while the photo was taken, or it could have been an actual shot of a roller, and the advertising company cut the boss's upper body into the picture to give it more legitimacy.

Just because it's in the Library of Congress doesn't mean it wasn't doctored. And just because it was doctored doesn't mean that it is not a really cool shot and would look good framed in a smoking room.

The two examples you posted were easily done even back then. It's called double exposure.

Could a very good artist have cut out a photo of the Babe and glued it on top of a roller. Yeah. But it would have been a lot easier to just pose the Babe there in his suit and have him hold a partially rolled stick.