Getty Acquires, Restores Third Robert Johnson Pic

[snakehips]

Hi there !

Wow ! You are right !
All the buttons are the right way, including his trouser fly fabric overlap and buttons.
All thewhite lines in the background, above their shoulders are an exact match, when you flip "Johnnie Shines" around. Obviously individual shots taken then the two spliced together, flipping over the guy on the right.

It is so obvious to see, once it is pointed out !

Well done !

[Deleted]

You should put that flip-pic to Vanity Fair - you'll have everyone in agreement. Maybe you could even replace this 'expert working for the police'....
TT

[davey]

With a quick bit of Photoshop, we get two original pictures which look a lot more convincing than the Composite one.

[davey]

I apologise to Claud Johnson, who it would appear is the copyright holder of the image.

Claud - nobody loves your Pa more than me. Forgive me.

Incidentally, Johnny Shines is now wearing his watch on the left wrist.

[Deleted]

Unbelievably, the 'Johnson / Shines' photo was shown on 'goodalls history of music' last night, when they briefly talked about blues.
TT

[profscratchy]

Is 'Robert' missing a leg?

[Deleted]

peg leg howell?

[davey]

Yes, i think they're both sitting on a box of some sort. You can see something under "Johnny Shines", and if you bear that in mind his position looks natural.

Not sure about Robert though, his legs look odd so he may also be resting on something or doing some kind of pose.

Can't seem to get anyone interested in this story, so I'll give up now but expect to hear me chip in every time this picture is published !

If they had consulted an ordinary High Street Photographer they would have got a much better analysis than the world famous expert gave them. That was a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

[davey]

Looking at Robert again, even his darn box has been removed which smacks of digital manipulation.

The old way to make a photomontage was to physically cut up the prints and glue them together, retouch with paint and brush, and re-photograph.

Even with top quality equipment this has a certain look to it as tones are compressed i.e. the different shades of grey are not represented exactly as per the original.

Also, if the original prints are not pretty much identical in density and exposure the difference is exaggerated.

Digital manipulation is almost impossible to detect, as there are so many different ways to adjust the image.

Sorry about the lecture folks, but it's the one thing I do know about.

[davey]

My last word on the subject.....

[slide496]

Sorry to jump in this way. I am in agreement about the photo being altered but the background was altered by getty. Top is the original and as Davey noted the background was flopped.

Attachments:

[slide496]

Besides the background being retouched.

The photo of Johnson is problematic for me as it lines up perfectly with the features in the alleged booth foto - I am inclined toward the fbi profilers evaluation that they are the same person whoever it is.

1. On the shoulders and rip on the right cheek - it looks like it was digitally composited in the original and a ghost of the original shoulders was left in which I extended in a proposed version.

2. On the guitar the bottom in the original is patched in over the hand and getty retouched to make the hand appear on top of the guitar.

Attachments:

[snakehips]

Hi again !

I see a wee head/face in the original picture, near the top left of the picture, with his head cocked to the side.

Is that the Devil himself sneaking into the shot ?

[slide496]

@ snakehips,
I see that now that you've pointed it out - there are also a of bunch of weird artifacts on that side - can't tell if they are digital, on the original or just from the low res file. definitely not right!