Brooklyn CDV

[dell webb]

Nice work....I'm out!

[bmarlowe1]

Nice work Chris. One possible explanation is that there were 2 negatives from a stereo pair. That could account for the small differences in alignment of the panels with respect to the heads.

[teetwoohsix]

Whoa !!

Awesome work Chris !!!

Sincerely, Clayton

[smokelessjoe]

Mark,

You & I looked at some cabinet photo a year or two ago.... It was a similar situation... Almost everything was exact except for one guys arm had moved??? Cannot recall - Maybe a Yale or Havard team shot...

[oldjudge]

Shawn--are you thinking of the Chicago Photographic Studio image of the Chicago team? That was definitely two different negatives.

[oldjudge]

Mark-could this also mean that this is a photograph of the LOC photograph and the camera was not aligned perfectly?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Mark-could this also mean that this is a photograph of the LOC photograph and the camera was not aligned perfectly?

I don't think so - I don't see how that could cause what we are seeing. Being that not one of these guys appears to have budged, a stereo pair seems like a good explanation. That would mean that the Saco photo is from a different negative than the LoC photo.

Shawn - I remember that also - but in that one someone had clearly moved.

I do have some glasses for viewing stereo images that works with images on a computer screen. I won't be able to try that until tonight. The LoC photo goes on the left. There is probably a bit of spatial distortion in the scans we have, so even if these are a stereo pair, the 3-D effect may not be too good.

[smokelessjoe]

Ahhhh.... I remember the Chicago photo now... I think I am thinking of another one though... Yale or Harvard?

I am curious about the mans foot - the foot to the farthest right of the photo... Is it moving or is that just an angle deal?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by smokelessjoe

Ahhhh.... I remember the Chicago photo now... I think I am thinking of another one though... Yale or Harvard?

I am curious about the mans foot - the foot to the farthest right of the photo... Is it moving or is that just an angle deal?

I think it is angle. If we could see the carpet pattern in the Saco photo better, it would probably appear to be moving a bit.

[smokelessjoe]

Gotcha, thank you Mark

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

Nice work Chris. One possible explanation is that there were 2 negatives from a stereo pair. That could account for the small differences in alignment of the panels with respect to the heads.

Three questions:

1. Would the extremely slight variation in the negatives create the desired 3-D effect?

2. Is it reasonably plausible that the photographic process would generate negatives that vary so much in resolution?

3. Why would the studio select the clearly inferior negative to print the CdV?

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Three questions:

1. Would the extremely slight variation in the negatives create the desired 3-D effect?

2. Is it reasonably plausible that the photographic process would generate negatives that vary so much in resolution?

3. Why would the studio select the clearly inferior negative to print the CdV?

1) If you look back at post 298, just to the right of Dickie Pearce's head (he is 3rd from left), you can see that in one photo the background panel line clearly misses his head, but in the other it touches his head. I am not a photographic expert, but I don't know what what kind of negative variation could cause that. That difference is completely consistent with what one would see with a stereo pair.

2) Really I don't know. I am not sure if the apparent lo-res of the scan of the Saco River item is due to the fading (loss of contrast). I would not try to argue it either way.

3) No reason I can think of.

[bmarlowe1]

Absolutely 100% 3-D. Very cool.

I will post a side-by-side. Those with viewers can perhaps try to work with it directly off the screen.

[jhs5120]

Wow.

Well, I'm glad that this argument has finally been settled. Kudos to Troy for keeping his composure during this ridiculous witch hunt and shame on the few (you know who you are) for nit-picking his efforts. I understand skepticism, I'm a CPA and professional skepticism pays the bills, but this thread quickly turned into an embarrassment to the hobby.

Troy, good luck with the auction. I hope it hits six figures (I'm not holding my breath though).

[bmarlowe1]

Some people have trouble seeing 3-D, others don't. I am somewhere in the middle. I have to have the image size on the screen just right, the viewing glasses the right distance from the screen, and my face just the right distance from the glasses in order for the 2 images to superimpose into one.

[oldjudge]

Jason-the real embarrassment of the hobby is that people don't do their own research and become easy marks for crooks. This thread has thus far brought out many interesting points but, I believe, has not yet answered the basic question as to whether the CdV is period. With Chris's good work we have established that there were probably two negatives from this shoot. The SRA image thus is from a different negative than the LOC image. However, that still doesn't say whether it is period or a second generation photograph of this image, or an image from another source, later attached to the Williamson mount(the glue to the right of the photo still makes this a viable Henry). I hope you are not embarrassed by asking questions when doing audits, if you do those.

[mikemcgrail]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Wow.

Well, I'm glad that this argument has finally been settled. Kudos to Troy for keeping his composure during this ridiculous witch hunt and shame on the few (you know who you are) for nit-picking his efforts. I understand skepticism, I'm a CPA and professional skepticism pays the bills, but this thread quickly turned into an embarrassment to the hobby.

Troy, good luck with the auction. I hope it hits six figures (I'm not holding my breath though).

I have just worked my way thru this entire thread. Great stuff and lots of information from many of you!!

I must have missed the "embarrassment to the hobby" stuff Jason. All I encountered were things that I feel make the hobby better and more transparent.

Mike McGrail