Quote:
Originally Posted by r2678
Just a minor point, but I don't believe the photo of Jackie sliding is the same one used for the card. Most obvious difference is the photo shows the white of Jackie's sanitary sock and the position of the ball cap. The two appear to be in sequence with the photo a fraction earlier than the photo used for the card.
|
I agree, and would also add that rather than Jackie's head being copy/pasted, it looks like his facial features were "enhanced" by an editor's pen for improved contrast in the final printed product. I have seen this many times with news photos used for publication where the lighting was such that facial features were either obscured in shadow or blanched out in the photograph, so the editor "pencils them in" (or pens, or paints, as the case may be) so that they show up better when printed. It usually results in the subject having a rather cartoonish looking face (as seen here), but I suppose they felt that was preferable to a face with indistinguishable features. It looks like Jackie's face was badly obscured in shadow in the original above, so it is reasonable to assume that the subsequent shot, taken from about the same angle (just with Jackie's right arm sagging slightly) would have the same problematic shadowing of his face. It seems to me that this is a case where even taking multiple shots, to assure you got at least one good negative to work with, was not enough.
Very impressive research though, and both of you should be commended for taking the already-tough task of tracking down original photos for a card issue to the next level of actually using it for further research. Well done, and good luck with tracking down the remaining photos!