Another Question for the experts

[coloradcowboy]

Hi Guys,
Ive got another question about the Butch Cassidy mystery that Im working on. What I have is a photograph that is supposed to include, Butch, the Sundance Kid, and Etta Place (Sundance's girlfriend) in Argentina. My question is the photo is so distorted in their faces, what could cause this? What camera/technique would have been used if you can tell. The time period is supposed to be around 1902-1905. To get to the point, I don't think it is them, but need to prove it. Any help would be most appreciated.

 

[coloradcowboy]

 

[480sparky]

They aren't 'distorted'. It's the result of the size of silver grains on the film used to record the image.

No photograph, digital or analog, is capable of recording every minute detail in the scene.

As for the camera & technique....... unless someone wrote it down at the time, there's no way to know.

 

[dxqcanada]

Looks like a digital image of a poor photocopy of an image printed in a book.

 

[coloradcowboy]

They aren't 'distorted'. It's the result of the size of silver grains on the film used to record the image.

No photograph, digital or analog, is capable of recording every minute detail in the scene.

As for the camera & technique....... unless someone wrote it down at the time, there's no way to know.

Thank you. To me there faces look stretched to the left and noses and other things aren't right. Different people than the outlaws being photographed?

 

[480sparky]

Not all lenses depict the same scene the exact same way.

Lighting is different as well.

 

[coloradcowboy]

Looks like a digital image of a poor photocopy of an image printed in a book.

Agree. This is what the "historian" is presenting as it being them

 

[480sparky]

Somewhere, there's the original image. That's what to look for.

 

[webestang64]

I agree with sparky. Unless you have the original negative or plate or print you will never know who those people were. As a photo retouch artist I need one of those items to do the job of restoring. Anything else will give less than desired results.

 

[weepete]

looks posterised, contrast boosted possibly damaged (look at the line of the roof, that's not a lens distortion) overexposed and generally nuked beyond the point where any regognisable features could be picked out. The close ups look to me like they've been manipulated further. The wide shot looks almost like it's been spliced with three different shots with windows not lining up and the wood cladding at totally different angles. Sun looks like top left from the blown highlights but the shadow of the people and the chimney is wrong, as is the light on the gable end of the house.

Ultimatley the only conclusion you can reasonably draw from this image is that it's simply not good enough to identify those in the picture without any other supporting evidence.

 

[Designer]

I don't think it is them, but need to prove it.

You need to prove what, that it is them, or is not them?

I think you need to enlist the help of some super-agency, such as the CIA or the FIB to get a more easily recognized photograph. Some agencies in the government have software that can enhance blurry photographs to the point that they look much better and the subjects are easily recognized.

I don't remember you ever having told us your interest in this.

 

[compur]

The wide shot looks almost like it's been spliced with three different shots with windows not lining up and the wood cladding at totally different angles. Sun looks like top left from the blown highlights but the shadow of the people and the chimney is wrong, as is the light on the gable end of the house.

Yes, it looks like a fake. A composite paste-up.