Author Topic: Bf 109G-14 Wrk. Nmbr. 465548 (Read 1026 times)

Krusty · « **Reply #15 on:** December 02, 2005, 10:57:14 AM »

The quality of the first photo is dark and bleeding colors, as many war time photos did. There are many photos where dark colors "glow" larger than the actual element. This can easily explain the eyes. The look different but only because people are examining the seeping pigment on the photo, not the general picture the pigment represents.

The second photo is much worse quality than the first. The colors are far far too faded to make any color judgements. What looks like one shade of bled-out grey in the first photo looks like washed out white in the second. Does that mean there are two different colors? No. It means both photos are s*** quality

The mickeys are identical

Bruno · « **Reply #16 on:** December 02, 2005, 12:35:25 PM »

Quote

The quality of the first photo is dark and bleeding colors, as many war time photos did. There are many photos where dark colors "glow" larger than the actual element. This can easily explain the eyes. The look different but only because people are examining the seeping pigment on the photo, not the general picture the pigment represents.

The light scarf is not 'washed out' glowing... The dark scarf is not light with color bleeding.

If you look at the images carefully, you will see more obvious differences. One has a 'thumbs up' the other an open hand. I told you already the about the eyes, one has light pupils the other has none. Look at the buttons on the waist, one has a solid dark button, the over just an outlined circle. Look at the feet, th enose etc...

I think its fair to say that Kjetil is far more the 'expert' then you in these matters.

Nr_RaVeN · « **Reply #17 on:** December 02, 2005, 12:53:44 PM »

Bye the way Bruno.....

NICE 109 SKIN

Krusty · « **Reply #18 on:** December 02, 2005, 02:15:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno
The light scarf is not 'washed out' glowing... The dark scarf is not light with color bleeding.

It's a fact that the film of the time was far far inferior to anything we have today. Looking at most old wartime photos you will see the blacks get "fuzzy" and the lights/whites bleed like hell. This also happens in the other shades but when you have 200 shades of grey is not as noticable. It is happening there, however.

If you look at the images carefully, you will see more obvious differences. One has a 'thumbs up' the other an open hand.

Look in the image I posted. Look back and forth at the two hands. They are 100% identical. The figers are curld back so you see the fingertips under the thumb. Only in the washed out one you can't see the demarcation from the fingertips because the pic is blown out color wise.

I told you already the about the eyes, one has light pupils the other has none.

When black colors bleed they radiate outwards. That means that they obscure details closely around them. The "pupils" are essentially wedges cut out of the eyes' black. The wedges are obscured because the black has "smeared" (just a description) into the area that should have been white.

Look at the buttons on the waist, one has a solid dark button, the over just an outlined circle.

Look again. The buttons are identical, only the one in the smaller picture happens to be the one with the black bleeding out into surrounding pigment. The fuzzy nature of the black in that photo suggests that it has "filled in" the button, but it shold be a circle as you suggest. You're over-analyzing a flawed photo, as was the fellow that posted on that forum I suspect.

Look at the feet, th enose etc...

Yes.. Look at them. There is no difference whatsoever. If you put them over each other they would be perfect duplicates.

I think its fair to say that Kjetil is far more the 'expert' then you in these matters.

Well at least I know something about photography, which this Kjetil doesn't seem to know. And I can point out the glaring LACK of difference between the two images - which, by the way, he is using as absolute proof when BOTH are substandard quality. Does he have other sources from different angles showing differeng Mickey Mouses? No. He uses 2 bad photos, which when analyzed prove to be identical. He's making superficial observations on a flawed medium. It's like person A saying person B is watching a different TV show while in fact the only difference is that person A's tint is full blue and person Bs tint is full red. It doesn't stand up and it doesn't support itself.

EDIT: Hey, ya never said which 109 it was for! Was it F4 or G2??