Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott
I'm going to ignore the baloney part of the above, and just respond to the part related to the card discussion. I'm also not going to dumb it down, as the others responding to my posts had no problem comprehending it.
For anyone else still reading - Ben is stuck on the lighting and the cap, not getting that if there is an 'exact match' photo, it would have had the same shadow and cap issue, and the artist STILL would have changed those items. These guys were not Graig Kindlers - you can tell as much by the crappy representation of Gehrig's face on that card. These artists didn't take a well-composed photo and try to improve on it by changing the player's physical orientation - at least we have no indication that they did, and it makes no sense, as composition was the photographer's job. This particular photo (Ben's) is very well-composed - no need to change anything from the forehead down, other than what made sense based on the move from b&w to color. The more I think through this, the more I am certain that Ben's photo was NOT used to create the Gehrig card.
I was actually hoping it WAS the card, but after the last few posts, I could care less. There you go, Ben - a little emotion for you  |
No need to dumb it down smarty pants. I am not caught up on anything and you sure make a lot of assumptions about painters back then. You actually must know more about painting than.. well Graig.
Really?? You were hoping that it was the image?? Just for me??? That is so nice of you and makes perfect sense to everyone reading I am sure.
The reason why you didn't comment on the paragragh above, is because you have nothing to say to defend it. Baloney?? Are you you saying you didn't do/say these things?? Youare a trouble maker and all over the place. Correct me if I am wrong but you have been kicked off here before correct?
All over the place as you may be, you could be right as it relates to this photo. I just do not believe that you are.. that's all Scott. You ok?