Old photo on ebay

[Steve Huffman]

Maybe old news but check out ebay item number 380405437153 sure dont look like a rifle to me.

[Dean Romig]

Looks like a 12 ga. GH to me.

The critter 'props' look like they have been freeze dried :eek:

[edgarspencer]

Beard, Pipe, Parker, yup, that's me.

[Bill Murphy]

Heck of a picture, heck of a price.

[Christopher Lien]

Murphy is right, heck of a price... It's a shame someone ruined the old photo by trying to ink in some pupils and enhance the man's eyes... Now he looks like a hungry nocturnal tree Bat about to swoop in on a pond Frog!...

That's like a guy finding a nice original Parker with very little use, and for whatever reason he decides to steel wool the strange blue colors off the sides and bottom so it will look older... Soon afterwards when he learns more about old double guns and the appeal of original condition, he is suddenly paralyzed in a brief moment of shock realizing he destroyed his own case colors and significantly diminished the value of his gun... OUCH!!! ... Sometimes it's best to leave "original" alone...

Best, Chris ~ CSL
__________________________

[Jeff Mayhew]

A pipe-smoking zombie with a shotgun! Worth every penny.

[Destry L. Hoffard]

I don't think anybody has done anything to the eyes, I think he's just got an odd look on his face. The price is sporty I'll agree, but it's a fun old photo none the less.

DLH

[Robert Rambler]

I see an eyelid on the left eye, not so obvious on the right. Thought maybe its a glass eye ??:D

[Christopher Lien]

The eyes have definitely been messed with...
It was not uncommon back in the early 1900's for studio photographers to enhance someone's eyes if they appeared too light or washed out due to bad lighting or poor photography skills... I've seen them done like this many times, the dead giveaway being the strong degree of black they used to darken the pupils. When comparing the overall color tones in the photo, the pupils look unnatural and out of place with the rest of the image... Hard to say for sure who altered the photo, but Not very appealing at that price with those strange eyes...:eek:...

Best, CSL
_________________________________

http://www.webpak.net/~cslien/1ParkerStrangeEyes.jpg
_________________________________
.

[Jeff Mayhew]

Yes, paint and a brush are no match for modern digital methods.

http://i1218.photobucket.com/albums/dd417/spikeismyname/zombiejpg.jpg

[Bob Roberts]

Prior to the turn of the 20th Century almost all black and white photographic negative plates had an orthochromatic emulsion which was only sensitive to blue and green colors. Additionally as much light as possible was used to shorten exposures, but caused the pupils of the subjects eyes to be closed down and small. A particular result was that portraits of people with especially bright or strong blue or green eyes would end up with strange unnatural looking all white eyes when prints were made from these negatives. The usual correction for this was “spotting” of the negative or print using primarily soft graphite pencils or special spotting paints applied with ultra fine brushes - obviously some photographers or their assistants were more skillful at this than others. This problem gradually went away after the turn of the century with the introduction of panchromatic films which were sensitive to all colors and faster as well.

[Steve Huffman]

From what I see on the sellers info you can make a offer.

[William Maynard]

Great photo. The damage to this photo can be corrected with modern day tec. The real problem with the photo is the price?

[Jeff Mayhew]

Great photo. The damage to this photo can be corrected with modern day tec.

Precisely; nobody noticed my 20 minute lunchtime retouch in an earlier post. Zombie effect cured:

http://i1218.photobucket.com/albums/dd417/spikeismyname/zombiejpg.jpg

[William Maynard]

Looks Great Jeff.......

[Dean Romig]

Much better Jeff.

[Ray Pond]

well done Jeff and all in 20 minutes.

[Christopher Lien]

Prior to the turn of the 20th Century almost all black and white photographic negative plates had an orthochromatic emulsion which was only sensitive to blue and green colors. Additionally as much light as possible was used to shorten exposures, but caused the pupils of the subjects eyes to be closed down and small. A particular result was that portraits of people with especially bright or strong blue or green eyes would end up with strange unnatural looking all white eyes when prints were made from these negatives. The usual correction for this was “spotting” of the negative or print using primarily soft graphite pencils or special spotting paints applied with ultra fine brushes - obviously some photographers or their assistants were more skillful at this than others. This problem gradually went away after the turn of the century with the introduction of panchromatic films which were sensitive to all colors and faster as well.
--------------------------------------

Bob,
Great information... Thanks for explaining the cause of the brightness, and the process of “spotting” they used when enhancing the eyes... You are right, some photographers were much better skilled at this alteration than others...

Best, CSL
____________________
.

[ken larson]

Looks like he is blocking the end of a corn field in South Dakota

[David Hamilton]

Old photos tend to fade but the retouching ink does not. The eye problem is also that with slow shutter speeds the subject tended to blink and blur the eye area. David