Quote:
Originally Posted by Directly
Another collectors advise---Quote: Don't let the insults bother you!- You have a perfect right to be objective about your photo. Stick with the Facts!
If there is going to be a study of any antique portrait photo and one wants to compare the ear and stop because one ear may not appear to be a perfect fit when matching against another photo, is this a logical concept. Wouldn't it be fair to mention the antique photo's ear comparison may appear a little different, so there for not positively definitive.
Shouldn't any photo comparison theory greatly depend on each of a photo's factors--lighting, head positions, clarity, line of sight, age, condition of photo, the photographers process & touch-up, all the above, etc.
The Ear discussion is fine, but what about a overall point system.
Nose-----Mouth----hair-line---Eyes,---. Comparing two photos made around the same time, etc and other related facts.
A Ear comparison of my Lapham would be interesting.
So look, which ear might you pick for comparison?--to be fair my Comiskey is the fifth from the left--
|
Tom,
You finally asked a reasonable question. Let's be clear about this though. You are not objective about your photo. You have a financial interest in proving this photo to contain the people you claim it does. No one here has any financial interest either way. The people on the board who have been trying to help you are the ones who have been objective. As a matter of fact, most here would be celebrating the historical significance of your photo, if it were true. Most here would love your photo to be what you wish it were and would love to be able to help you prove it were the real deal. Unfortunately for everyone interested in baseball history, it has been shown clearly in the previous thread not to be any of the people you claim them to be.
Now onto your thoughts. The reason a point system is not worthwhile is that you can have 20 features match, but if one, and it needs to be only one, doesn't match, all the rest don't matter, as it's not the same person. I think people focus on the ear for multiple reasons.
1) The ear is easy to see in many photos and therefore comparison images are often available.
2) The shapes are very distinctive and differences are often easy to see in comparison to jaw width, eye distance, and other things that require some more skill to create reference points to be able to match up photos.
3) The scale doesn't matter. You can compare a larger image to a smaller one because the shape won't change regardless how big or small the photos are.
4) The ear shape doesn't change from the teens to late 70s. This allows the photo of a younger person to be compared with an older image with a high degree of reliability.
5) The ear shape doesn't change with weight gain.
All the things you brought up, lighting, etc, are taken into consideration when attempting to match facial features. We all know, and Mark(bmarlowe1) will tell you clearly, that not all photos can be used for comparison. Reasonable comparison images were found to use with your photo and it showed it to not be him.
My final thought of my last reply to this thread is this. I really wish you would stop calling the kid in your photo Charles Comiskey. It isn't him.
Sorry everyone, I couldn't help myself.
Mark