The question wasn't about why the high res image was needed.

It was more about why it was sourced from a third party when you own the original.

I don't think the sourcing makes any material difference , I was just curious as to why it was done that way.

Both experts have made good points, and I'm left wondering if there would be as much diference in opinion if both had had the high res scans available.


Steve B

For another hobby I've had to reverse engineer some mechanical parts from photos. Not quite the same thing, but I'm somewhat familiar with reflections causing measurment problems on modern photos.

In the end Mr. Mancusi had the super-hi-res scan, and his opinion remained,
"So it is highly unlikely almost to the point of exclusionary that Subject A and Subject C are the same individual."

When Ken Burns photographed the half plate some years earlier for his Baseball documentary, he gave me a copy of the transparency he generated. I loaned it out some years later and the person I loaned it to lost it. When Jerry Richards told me the image Mark generated (the one Mr. Mancusi used) from another transparency I had (from another photo shoot for another project) was of insufficient resolution, I had the idea to contact Kens Burns to see if he had a high resolution copy that I could use. I no longer had Ken's contact info so I turned to John Thorn, who knew Ken well. Ken did in fact have a very high resolution digital image of it, which he was gracious enough to provide me. I in turn sent it on to Jerry Richards. That was the practical solution to give Mr. Richards what he required. Photographing daguerreotypes is extremely difficult. It takes a skilled photographer to produce a high quality reproduction of a dag. Ken's photographer did a superb job, and using that image was easier and more cost effective than having it reshot.

Thanks Corey, it all makes sense now.

Steve B

I personally wuold be cautios
 

With any 19th century item from Ken Burns excellent series.

A long-time ago, I was chatting with Marty Appel, who wrote an award-winning work on Mike "King" Kelly. Somehow we were discussing Kelly and the subject of a photo purported to be Kelly on that documentary came up. Marty told me he asked Ken Burns office about that since he thought he had seen every possible photo of the King. Marty told he was told that the photo of the boozing young man was not Kelly but someone who looked enough like him for TV purposes.

This was not the only factual exaggeration Burns made, there was a great SABR-L thread back in the day about all the problems with anything from that documentary. That thread is worth reading and IIRC, Keith Olbermann also wrote a long article about all the factual problems with Burns.

So, if Burns says that is Alexander Cartwright, I'd really take that with a grain of salt.

I'm not a photo expert, but I do know about the Burns issue.

Rich

Subject F in Corey's dag is wearing an earring (see below). I have no thoughts on whether that has any useful significance, but if anyone else does, please post.

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/s...arringearc.jpg http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/s...earringccc.jpg

I know that earrings have traditionally been worn through history by sailors. This is neither here nor there but thought I'd bring it up.

I have to say that the burden of proof question is one that shouldn't come into play. It seems like it is a defensive position to speak about the burden of proof. What does it matter who has to prove what? The argument is what it is and speaks for itself.

The question has been brought up as to the ID and I think the question is in the air. It matters. It is important and the questionable ID brings facts to it like a magnet. It is good to bring it to a public debate because as a collective we have much more knowledge than as an individual. Someone might have an ID or other CDV or DAG of one of the other folks in the Dag and that could bring the whole matter into a different light.

As a side note, I don't see them as wearing uniforms. Hats are all of different sizes, brim width, ties are different, vests different colors, etc. only thing the same is that they are all wearing dark jackets.

Is 'Subject F' the one 'identified' as Henry T. Anthony?

H.T. Anthony and Edward (early 1860s)

http://i.imgur.com/lu7no.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QgBkD.jpg

F was IMO incorrectly identified as William Tucker in Baseball in the Garden of Eden.

Un-stick this thread
 

I am going to un-stick this thread sometime today. At this point, with everything taken into account, I don't feel a poll will prove anything more than has been debated here. Both parties have been advised of what is happening with the thread and both are fine with it. I want to thank Corey and Mark for their professionalism and civility in a very important and impassioned debate. Of course the thread will remain open for comments but it will be like any other thread and start moving down the page as other threads are responded to. I have to admit I didn't invest the amount of time needed to read the whole article, though I did skim over it and hit the high points. That, along with this thread, has helped me gain knowledge concerning photos and this photo in particular. I personally thank both parties for that too. Thanks also to our board members for their responses. I hope everyone has enjoyed the thread as much as I have. best regards