| Author |
Message |
    
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 203
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 7:42 pm: | 
|
Hi Everyone,
I've had a really awful day and lost 5 hours work. My computer had a fit and just threw away a picture and wouldn't even tell me what it had done with it. I still can't find it!
So I decided to start a new thread and here is the only one I could do, because all of the reference photos I have are lousy, about an inch square and terrible quality.
He's JK Stephen just to get the ball rolling. I got a bit sick of straight lines for a day or two.
love Jane
 |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 505
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
Jane, you have outdone yourself. I don't understand how you do such great work so fast. You must have been incredibly gifted. |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 291
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Wow, Jane - he's turned out something between Rudolph Valentino and Rupert Everett, hasn't he! Good work! PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3026
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 7:15 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
Good stuff as usual.
He has a certain charisma, hasn't he?
Yes, people, she works fast!
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
P.S. Terrible to hear about how you lost a lot of work on the computer... I tell you, I certainly know how that feels.
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 204
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
Hi All,
My husband's walked down to the village just to buy me some chocolate, how's that for pampered? He offered I didn't force him!
I thought I'd have a go at some of the suspects and police etc., but unfortunately the photos I have are all really miniscule, so I'm literally having to repaint them from scratch mostly, using the photos as templates.
The only good photo I've got is of Maybrick and I didn't dare post him first or you'd lynch me!
I have lots of illustrations of suspects which I might be able to paint from, but if anyone wants anyone done particularly I'll see what I can do. I did promise a Joe Barnett way back, which I'll do next. Even if you don't like him as a suspect, he's still important in the case, so that's fair. I'm going to do McCarthy and Diemshutz, so why not poor old Joe?
If anyone has some better size pictures of anyone I would be grateful if you could post them, even if they are only below 600 pixels, they will be much better than I've got!
I'm starting on the reconstruction of the Swartz drama in a bit, I'll have to do them one at a time like a cartoon strip, but I'll refrain from putting in speech bubbles! (That would be interesting!)
Hi Glenn,
I'll e-mail you later, getting there at last!
love Jane
xxxxxx |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 206
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Here's one of Eddy,
I couldn't do much today, My husband was on the computer all day, but I'm going to get stuck in to the Swartz scenes tomorrow.
Hutch kindly mailed me some good shots so this one is on him!
love
Jane
 |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 296
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Ol' Fish Face, yeah, that's him all right.
Mags
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 292
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 8:01 pm: |
|
Nice work, Jane! I wasn't too sure if the clarity of the image would be good enough but you did another decent job with it!
I had a closer look at the Sir John Cass Foundation School tonight as I passed it and the previous comment (I can't remember if it was Nats or Diana) was probably right; it does look too modern a building to be of use. Though the school is 18th Century, this current red building (which you won't have on any of your shots) looks to be definitely 20th Century - though possibly early. It is too neat and tidy to be much older.
In relation to the doors subject again - I was surprised when walking up Wilkes Street tonight that all the doors from Puma Court to Hanbury Street are different heights - everything from 6 to 7 feet and some are narrow and some wide as well even though the houses all look the same - so that's no help!
PHILIP
x
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3030
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Really nice one, Jane.
I think he has come live really well.
I kind of like those mild Duplex-style colours, like in old hand-tinted b&w photos.
(How on Earth did you have time to do this one, considering your limited access to the computer
and the other stuff -- you know what?)
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 209
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 8:44 pm: |
|
HI everyone,
Just before I go to bed, here's one to give you nightmares. He may not be JtR, but would you want to meet him up a dark alley? Definitely something going on in there!
How do I get them out so quickly?
Faster than a speeding bullet,
More powerful than a wet lettuce
and able to jump over the cat in a single bound - (providing it stays still!)
Time for bed
Jane
xxxxx |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3033
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 9:37 pm: |
|
And another one!???
Wow, Jane!
Splendid!
Look how the textures on the clothes come to life thanks to the colours, not to mention his face and personality.
And I love that blue background against his dark brown clothes -- a nice contrast that plays together.
Yes, I have always felt he almost looks criminal (although I naturally feel his JtR connection to be ridiculous).
He may have been one of the most prominent doctors in east End (didn't he live in Mayfair?), but somehow I've always thought he looks like a crook. I don't like his eyes.
But who knows, maybe he was the nicest guy in the world (appearance can trick you)?
Really great picture, Jane.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 9:41 am: |
|
"The only good photo I've got is of Maybrick and I didn't dare post him first or you'd lynch me!"
On behalf of denizens of Diary World, may I humbly beseech you to do up Sir Jim? With the proper red stuff, of course....
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3034
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Correction:
"He may have been one of the most prominent doctors in east End"
WEST End, naturally...
All the est
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Andrew Gable
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
It's Hugh Grant! Never could trust that fellow... |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Hi Jane
I have not researched the question, but do you know for a fact that J. K. Stephen had ice cold blue eyes such as those you show in the colorized photograph? Or is this a case of colorization that belies the facts, such as when Ole Blue Eyes, Frank Sinatra, complained that he had been given eyes other than blue during the brouhaha over colorization of old black and white movies by the Turner Broadcasting some years ago. 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 813
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
In the picture that Jane used to colorize, it is fairly obvious that James had really light eyes. Since green eyes are more rare than blue, especially that color green, it is fair to assume that his eye color would have been a very light blue.
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 210
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Thanks Ally,
you answered the question for me and I thought exactly the same. They were either very, very light grey or blue. I went for blue, although I suppose it is possible they were grey. If anyone has the answer let me know and I'll give him new contact lenses!
Here's Joe Barnett, please don't jump on me. All I had to work with was the silly little line drawing that we all know and love, so I just made him up from that and painted him from scratch. I didn't have a clue what colour his eyes were either so if anyone knows, let me in on it will you!
I know some of you are going to hate this, because it's not what you imagined him to look like, but as no-one really knows, here's how I see him.
Love Jane
xxxxxx
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3038
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
Hate it? Why?
A wonderful picture and I love the colours. I would say that is a great portrait of him, and very realistic. Very realistic hair and moustache and I love the clothes.
But wasn't Barnett fair-haired? With fair hair and moustache? At least I've always pictured him such -- or maybe it's the old sketch that is haunting me.
I would probably have made him blond.
Besides that, wonderful.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 212
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
HI Glenn,
I knew I could rely on you! I made him a dark blond because I thought I'd hedge my bets. Do you think I should go a bit lighter? Trouble is blond covers a lot of shades, so I just played it safe. Maybe that is light brown. Of course our British blond is probably darker than your Nordic blond! And I dare say he never washed it much. I'll sleep on it!
I'll get back to Swartz's testimony scenes tomorrow. Are there any descriptions of him? I'm doing okay with the scenes, but there will be a few of them so I'll plod through them and post them all together so that they make sense.
Time for bed
Love Jane
xxxxx |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 213
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 6:41 pm: |
|
Okay Glenn you're right,
I've thought about it and it would look better with some lighter blond highlights in.
I'll put them in tomorrow, but I won't repost it, just take it from me, he is now a true blond!
I'm going to post a couple of shots of Maybrick tomorrow.
Night all
Love Jane |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3043
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
"I'll put them in tomorrow, but I won't repost it, just take it from me, he is now a true blond!"
OK, I'll take your word for it. 
I would go for true blond myself regarding Barnett, rather than just "a bit lighter".
Regarding Schwartz, I have no idea.
But he apparently were of rather strong Jewish appearance according to some sources (both by the police and the press -- and considering the "lipski" thing), so -- if I am allowed to put forward such categorized racial generalisations -- I'd say a dark beard, dark hat and clothing and a sharp "Jewish" nose (yes, I know how it sounds) would at least be suitable.
Since we have no other information, that is probably how he should be depicted (unless someone knows anything else).
As long as it isn't exaggerated and turns into a caricature!!!
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 31, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
"I'm going to post a couple of shots of Maybrick tomorrow."
Oh, that'd be great. His wife, BTW, was supposed to be quite pretty but I don't see it from the B&W photos...
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 294
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Jane - they are both smashing.
I want to see how you are going to make that dodgy old Tumblety shot come alive.
To be honest, if there is no known image of Schwartz I wouldn't bother trying one outside of placing him in a scene shot. It would, I think, detract from the work you've done on the rest which is based for the most part on pictorial evidence.
PHILIP
x
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3045
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:41 pm: |
|
True, Philip,
But there is no known picture as far as I know of Mr broad Shoulders either, at least that we can rely on.
So that makes the whole scene rather difficult, if one is not allowed to use some artistic freedom in scenes where we have very little information.
Doing portraits and exteriors to be as accurate as possible is one thing. To depict an event is something different, and there we can't have the same expectations of accuracy but must also use our imagination a bit.
Illustrations are after all just illustrations, but that is just my view.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 295
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 6:44 am: |
|
Hi Glenn - you misunderstand me completely (for once)!
I didn't mean Jane should not put Schwartz in a reconstruction - of COURSE she should. What I was saying she shouldn't bother doing was trying to make a portrait of him like she was able to do for Barnett as at least with Barnett we have some kind of template. For Schwartz I don't believe we have anything.
If you re-read my posting you will see I said "I wouldn't bother trying one outside of placing him in a scene shot" - so I wasn't saying leave him out; I was saying don't bother doing a head & shoulders detailed portrait of a man of whom we have virtually no idea.
I wouldn't be such a Revisionist as to imply he shouldn't be in the picture of the scene!
I could equate it to saying "Don't do a head & shoulders of the sailor chappy at Church Passage" or "Mr Shabby-Genteel" simply because we don't have enough info. Of course, when their features are vaguely non-descript as in Jane's location art then it is not an issue.
Hope that all makes sense now!
Bestest,
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 214
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 8:06 am: |
|
Now now boys,
I know what you both mean. I have enough Jewish blood in me to know what a Jewish male looks like - oh dear that didn't come out right at all - see how easy it is to get things to come out wrong!
I was brought up in Jewish households and I can make him look just right. I'll just paint one of my friend's Dads! He's looking a bit like someone out of Westlife at the moment, so serious measures needed there.!
It is really hard though, I suffering horrors reconstructing those scenes because there is little to go on. I'll get there though eventually.
Big hugs to both of you,
Jane
I will repost a blond Barnett just to show I listen!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3046
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 8:13 am: |
|
Hutch,
"I I was saying don't bother doing a head & shoulders detailed portrait of a man of whom we have virtually no idea."
Aaaaah, now I get it.
Ooops. Sorry. 
Yes, of course that I agree on.
I must admit I have tried to read that sentence "I wouldn't bother trying one outside of placing him in a scene shot" several times and I still can't figure it out or get it to make sense in the way you explained it, but there's language problems for you. Thank God you're not a Revisionist, though.
How's your computer doing?
Have you finished installing the lot?
Mt webmail server has problems today and is down until 6 or 5 PM -- a complete disaster for an e-mail junkie like myself. Talk about cold turkey.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3047
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Jane,
"I have enough Jewish blood in me to know what a Jewish male looks like - oh dear that didn't come out right at all - see how easy it is to get things to come out wrong!"
"It is really hard though, I suffering horrors reconstructing those scenes because there is little to go on. I'll get there though eventually."
Tell me about it. I really don't envy you, while at the same time it can be an exiting challenge.
"I will repost a blond Barnett just to show I listen!"
Yummy! Looking forward to that
(see, that came out completely wrong as well..!).
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
P.S. Westlife, eh?
(Message edited by Glenna on February 01, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 215
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
Here's a blonder Barnett, so people can take their pick.
I am going to do Florrie Maybrick I think, because she does have her part in the case and I'm fed up doing men!
I also aim to colour up the Annie in life as well and possibly her two daughters as I have some good photos to work from now.
Catch you all later.
Jane |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
Hi Jane
These really are incredible works of art that really make the figures from 1888 come alive. What about George Lusk and Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw next, or else poor Monty Druitt. In any case, bravo on this excellent work, Jane.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3048
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Great, Jane!
Just excellent. Barnett has come to life here.
(yes, that hair colour seems better.)
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 217
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I'm going to work my way through all of them eventually, including Mr Lusk and the doctors. I fancy tackling Abberline as well. Shame he didn't really look like Johnny Depp!
The only photo's I've got of Monty Druitt are really lousy. If anyone can post or mail me a better one I'll do him shortly.
Glad you think he looks better now Glenn, you are right, he does, it does give him a bit more life.
Jane
xxxxx
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1562
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Hi Jane,
a really impressive array here!
I very much enjoy the Gull one!Interesting contrast between his face all glowering
and pompous[in a way]and his almost dandyish suit in a soft velour!
One reservation might be that the first book on the ripper I bought was by John Eddleston and he states quite convinvingly that Joseph Barnett had jet black hair and was 5ft 10ins tall!I have always found him to be a good-no bulls**T writer
so cant think why he has said this particularly as he is taking someone else to task in the book
over a matter of description.I know that somewhere
there is a record of Barnet"s height /colouring etc on his fish porter license.
Anyway,very lifelike portraits.
Natalie |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Jane - you've got amazing talent. Books on the case have been written that bring far less to bear than what you've got here.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 220
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Oh Natalie,
Now what? Thanks for the comments.
I know there is another picture of Barnett where he looks like a weasel, very thin and not very pleasant. He has dark hair in that, maybe that's the picture he was using as a guide.
I'd be very interested if anyone has got a copy of the fish porter license, just lying around on their coffee table(as you do) if they could have
a look for me and let me know.
I might do the other version anyway for comparison.
While I'm on, can anyone verify Maybricks hair and eyecolour. I've nearly finished the pic and just want to check before I post. I've got grey eyes and sandy coloured hair just from memory but as I only have one book - Philip- I can't be sure.
love to all
Jane |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Hi Jane.
Thanks for Barnetts portrait, it is excellent, in the words of Dan Farson in a seventies commercial on Tv, 'If you met this man in 1888, he could possibly have killed you' He was of course refering to Druitt, I am not I am refering To Barnett.
I am as confident as one can be that he was responsible for at least the death of Mary jane.
Regards Richard. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 818
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Dang a lot gets posted here. Jane I really think they were light blue. I don't think grey eyes would have popped so much in a black and white photo. And grey is also less common than blue so I think blue is statistically the best bet also.
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 221
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Hi Ally,
I'll go with blue and blame it on you!
Thanks for taking the trouble to post, now all I need is confirmation of hair colour and I'm away. Glenn of course will say that he was blond. (Only kidding Glenn, you know I love yer!)
Jane
xxxxx
I bet he was blond now, won't I have egg on my face! |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 298
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Ally - what? James Maybrick had blue hair? Was he part of the Blue Rinse Brigade? 
I am currently trying to find out Maybrick's hair colour for you - it even made me open my unread 1st edition of The Diary and go back to my 1912 Trial Of Mrs Maybrick! I've found not a sausage to say his hair colour (no point consulting any of my old Ripper books as he won't be in them).
I've even been looking on Google to try to find out but had no luck.
I did find this hysterical link, though :
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/History_and_Myths/Question48681.html
The reply by 'shoegal' on August 30th almost made me laugh out loud. Methinks 'shoegal' needs a whack with said shoe around the old noggin.
There is that famous hatless shot of Maybrick, Jane. I would suggest from that he was indeed sandy-haired. Possibly reddish if no one else has any better idea - there is a shading on one of them that looks like red hair does when in B&W. It's not light enough to be light ginger if he was. Difficult. See what you think. I got this off an appaling site that says Maybrick is the Ripper 'beyond reasonable doubt'...
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 299
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Jane -
You won't have to do a colourisation of James Maybrick now. I've done it for you. Including the blue hair.
PHILIP
x
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 222
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Okay, mad person alert!
Thanks for trying so hard for me, I have seen somewhere I'm sure that it was sandy, so I'll go with a dark sandy colour and people can throw bricks at me if I'm wrong.
You've definitely missed your vocation Phil, Andy Warhol was second rate next to you.
I'll post a couple of James tomorrow and maybe I can get Florrie done too.
Thanks for the help everyone especially out latest artistic contributor,
Jane
xxxxx |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3052
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Hutchie,
That was an interesting cross-over between the style of Andy Warhol and the German colour expressionists.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 227
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Here are 3 Maybricks, I'm afraid I had really rotton photos to use for the most part, all about 2 inch square and 72 resolution, so I struggled a bit. If I can get some better ones I'll have another go.
here's the first
 |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 228
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Here's James 2
I'm doing them one at a time, because I might have to correct them once I see the preview. I'm not mad..... well I am mad but.......
 |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 229
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Nope, I'm not happy with the third one, so I'll leave it and have a twiddle. I'll stick it up later tonight. I'm going to have to find a better pic of Florrie, the one's I've got are no good.
Catch you later
Jane
xxxxxxx |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 230
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Here's James 3
Had a silly little picture an inch square to work from. If I get something better I'll do him again in full regalia.
 |
David Hunt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 2:38 pm: |
|
I do know that Panchromatic film did not come into being till the early 1900's, so the rendering of the full light spectrum was not possible before then.Thus all objects photographed before then took on an unnatural appearance,ie hair colour changed as indeed did eye colours.Autochrome colour plates came in about 1903 fron Lyon in Paris using Pancromatic emulsions to capture the full light spectrum,if only they were around 15 years earlier.Cheers.This information kindly comes to you from the other side of the planet, Australia. |
Jane
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 233
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
Hi David in Australia,
That explains an awful lot! I've obviously coloured up a thousands of photo's in my time and I did notice a marked diffference in tonal quality between them, and just thought it was down to good/bad photography.
A similar thing is true even today on computers.
(This isn't for your benefit David because I'm sure you know this already, but if anyone else is mad enough to be interested.)
The different colour modes on a computer either limit or expand the range of colours available. RGB (Red Green Blue) has a very broad spectrum and you can get colours on screen that simply won't print out in ink. I always work in 'ink' colours (cmyk) so that when they print out the colours are true.
If anyone out there was wondering why when they print photos out from their computer that looks nothing like it does on screen that could be why!!
Thanks for the info though David, (Maybe that explains the blue hair in Philips pic!!!!!)
It will come in useful for me in future though!.
All the best
Jane |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 9:46 am: |
|
This info about film and colour quality is actually very interesting. Does anyone know how late hand tinting of photos continued? I ask because I have recently been going through some family photos which have come to light. My mother was born in the early 1920s and we have what is obviously a studio photo of her taken well into her teens (say about mid 1930s) which has obviously been hand coloured. I'm surprised this went on so late. When did good quality colour film become generally available?
Many thanks for the help
Chris
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3064
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
Chris,
I have no idea when good quality colour film was introduced, but I have several hand-tinted postcards from my home town and some of them dates back to as late as the 1940s.
Wouldn't surprise me if that approach was used even later than that for some special purposes, although I believe it might have become too expensive later on.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
