Well yes, a bigger skull would take up more space so I don't see the grounds for the argument. The early picture is supposed to be the same person in his very early twenties. The older picture, judging by another photo from 1894 would place him at about age 55. So about a 34 year difference, not 10-15 years. Clothing in a small town doesn't keep up with current trends so is difficult to judge and businessmen tended to keep their suits for years. I recall suits on older men when I was a kid that were clearly 25-30 years old and the locals would comment on the fact. The comment on fingerprints I won't comment on, that should be passed along to the FBI so they can scrap their collection. Thanx for the input [email protected] wrote: > One skull looks bigger because it takes up more space in the photo. The > cleft chin is an optical illusion due to the shadow under the chin. > Different lighting conditiions. The ears can't be compared completely due > to the different angle of the face. Clearly no change in features I can > see. Quite rematkable that the nose hasn't changed. I do not know the span > of years. Quite an achievement for this guy, he even keeps his sideburns > the same size and shape over the span of years. I would have to guess a > 10-15 year gap in the photos. I see no problem in these photos. Clearly > the same person at two different periods. Using the clothing you might be > able to get a good estimate of the dates, there are numerous sites on the > web that will give you a leg up on comparing the clothes to date the > pictures. > There is too much information to post in a reply on this subject (google > will find it for you). > > In a nutshell, your comparison problems arise from the facts that the two > photos were taken: at different times, at different angles, with different > lighting, with different amount of hair on top, different cameras, > different lenses, etc. > > Also, I'm not sure how unique ears are, and it's been shown that > fingerprints aren't as unique as we are led to believe. Not something that > gets much newsplay. I can't quote you a source, so believe it or not as > you like. > > I was expecting a much harder challenge. Unlikely a son would look that > much like him. Possible, but improbable. The clothing will probably > illuminate further. You haven't included any dates, nor physical > descriptions/dimensions of the photographs; without which I can't assist > you further. I could scour the web and probably roughly date them for you, > given details of the photographs. I'm no expert. > > Brian > > On Sat, May 30, 2009 3:09 pm, JK wrote: >> Have never seen anyone do a photo comparison on the list before so this >> may be a first. >> >> It should pertain to anyone who is trying to verify old photographs to a >> newer version of the same person >> >> I've posted 2 photos at http://newhamburg.org/ads/1krug.html >> >> They appear to be the same person. There are many similarities and I'm >> not interested in a vote of whether members think they are the same >> person. >> >> My problem arises in the fact that I believe the younger version has a >> much larger skull. It appears to expand while the older version appears >> to narrow. And I don't think skulls shrink with age. >> The second problem I have is I don't believe the photographer whose >> stamp is on the early picture was around anywhere near that time. But, >> it could be explained by the picture being a reprint a number of years >> later though. >> >> I'm looking for anyone who may have some expertise in doing comparisons. >> I know that ears are as distinct as fingerprints and one ear seems very >> close but I'm not convinced on the other. The eyes, square jaw, and nose >> could be genetic. The older picture appears to have a cleft where the >> younger one doesn't. This could be lighting or even an accident later in >> life. >> Also, the guy had 4 sons. At least one should look like him. >> >> As I said, no voting. Just constructive comments. >> Maybe others will get some help from the intercourse >> >> JK >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

On Sun, May 31, 2009 2:49 pm, JK wrote: > Well yes, a bigger skull would take up more space so I don't see the > grounds for the argument. No, you do not understand my comment. The skull appears larger because the photo is at a different zoom factor, not because it has gotten bigger. Maybe the camera was closer, maybe the photographer zoomed in more, maybe the photograph was developed from a projection of the negative and the photograph is enlarged and zoomed in, etc. The fact is that one picture is a more closeup shot and that is the reason for the larger head. > > The early picture is supposed to be the same person in his very early > twenties. The older picture, judging by another photo from 1894 would > place him at about age 55. So about a 34 year difference, not 10-15 years. > Clothing in a small town doesn't keep up with current trends so is > difficult to judge and businessmen tended to keep their suits for years. > I recall suits on older men when I was a kid that were clearly 25-30 > years old and the locals would comment on the fact. Given the fact that he is not wearing the same suit, it can be argued he isn't wearing a 30 year old suit. They are distinctly different styles from different time periods. Don't be so sure that small towns 100 years ago didn't keep up with the current styles, within reason. There are only three inexpensive ways to date a photograph that I know of. The actual types of photographic materials used in different periods, clues in the picture itself, and photographs of known age. Your anecdotal evidence that people in small towns wore 25-30 old suits in your childhood doesn't prove that the clothes worn by the general population or any subset thereof 100 years ago are also such. You asked for help, and I gave you tips on how genealogists and historians accomplish this. I didn't say using clothing to date photographs will prove absolutely a date with any precision. It was merely a tool I suggested to be used with other tools. Generally, getting a photograph taken was an expensive thing and a special event. People would, in general, wear their best and newest clothes for the sitting, and not the usual 25-30 year old suit worn daily to work. Furthermore, a twenty five year old is unlikely to be wearing a 25 year old suit, and is far far more likely to be wearing whatever was in style for his/her time period, at least if he was rich enough to have money to spend on photographs. Naturally, it's easier to date photos with women in them, as styles changed much more rapidly, even in small towns. Without knowing what the older photograph is in thickness/size/type/construction/composition, I can't offer you anymore help than I have. There are sites on the web that show you how to date photographs. Since you have suspicions as to the originality of the one you have. It may not be possible to come up with a useful date on either photograph, but then again maybe it is. Then again, maybe he was older than it is stated he was. If he is wearing a suit that was popular in the 1870s and not in the 1860s, that might be a clue. Unless, of course, he comes from one of those really progressive small towns that are always years ahead of the current styles. Bottom line, it's the same person at two different time periods and his head hasn't enlarged, and he hasn't developed a cleft chin. They are just illusions due to all the variables that are possible with photographs. Brian

Brian, Thank you for explaining and sharing your knowledge to all of us on the message board. What you pointed out compares to the little bit of information I have gleaned out of books / conferences in the past. I'm sure that many of us appreciate it when people like you take the time to "get your learning on" and help us not as knowledgeable in specific things as photography as you state. You were very professional and friendly in your reply. Meg in Michigan On May 31, 2009, at 9:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2009 2:49 pm, JK wrote: >> Well yes, a bigger skull would take up more space so I don't see the >> grounds for the argument. > > No, you do not understand my comment. The skull appears larger > because the > photo is at a different zoom factor, not because it has gotten bigger. > Maybe the camera was closer, maybe the photographer zoomed in more, > maybe > the photograph was developed from a projection of the negative and the > photograph is enlarged and zoomed in, etc. The fact is that one > picture is > a more closeup shot and that is the reason for the larger head. > >> >> The early picture is supposed to be the same person in his very early >> twenties. The older picture, judging by another photo from 1894 would >> place him at about age 55. So about a 34 year difference, not 10-15 >> years. >> Clothing in a small town doesn't keep up with current trends so is >> difficult to judge and businessmen tended to keep their suits for >> years. >> I recall suits on older men when I was a kid that were clearly 25-30 >> years old and the locals would comment on the fact. > > Given the fact that he is not wearing the same suit, it can be > argued he > isn't wearing a 30 year old suit. They are distinctly different styles > from different time periods. Don't be so sure that small towns 100 > years > ago didn't keep up with the current styles, within reason. > > There are only three inexpensive ways to date a photograph that I > know of. > The actual types of photographic materials used in different periods, > clues in the picture itself, and photographs of known age. Your > anecdotal > evidence that people in small towns wore 25-30 old suits in your > childhood > doesn't prove that the clothes worn by the general population or any > subset thereof 100 years ago are also such. You asked for help, and > I gave > you tips on how genealogists and historians accomplish this. I > didn't say > using clothing to date photographs will prove absolutely a date with > any > precision. It was merely a tool I suggested to be used with other > tools. > Generally, getting a photograph taken was an expensive thing and a > special > event. People would, in general, wear their best and newest clothes > for > the sitting, and not the usual 25-30 year old suit worn daily to work. > Furthermore, a twenty five year old is unlikely to be wearing a 25 > year > old suit, and is far far more likely to be wearing whatever was in > style > for his/her time period, at least if he was rich enough to have > money to > spend on photographs. Naturally, it's easier to date photos with > women in > them, as styles changed much more rapidly, even in small towns. > > Without knowing what the older photograph is in > thickness/size/type/construction/composition, I can't offer you > anymore > help than I have. There are sites on the web that show you how to date > photographs. Since you have suspicions as to the originality of the > one > you have. It may not be possible to come up with a useful date on > either > photograph, but then again maybe it is. > > Then again, maybe he was older than it is stated he was. If he is > wearing > a suit that was popular in the 1870s and not in the 1860s, that > might be a > clue. Unless, of course, he comes from one of those really progressive > small towns that are always years ahead of the current styles. > > > Bottom line, it's the same person at two different time periods and > his > head hasn't enlarged, and he hasn't developed a cleft chin. They are > just > illusions due to all the variables that are possible with photographs. > > Brian > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message

Hmmmm. Well I looked at the pics and thought, "Same eyes, same guy." (Also, same ears, jaw, hairline, nose shape... not to mention the side whiskers.) "Non-professional" guesswork, I realize. If that isn't the same fellow, this merely fooled another amateur. :-) Cheers. Dawson Deuermeyer ----- Original Message ----- From: Megan Heyl <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 04:02:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [HESSE] Photo Comparisons Brian, Thank you for explaining and sharing your knowledge to all of us on the message board. What you pointed out compares to the little bit of information I have gleaned out of books / conferences in the past. I'm sure that many of us appreciate it when people like you take the time to "get your learning on" and help us not as knowledgeable in specific things as photography as you state. You were very professional and friendly in your reply. Meg in Michigan On May 31, 2009, at 9:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2009 2:49 pm, JK wrote: >> Well yes, a bigger skull would take up more space so I don't see the >> grounds for the argument. > > No, you do not understand my comment. The skull appears larger > because the > photo is at a different zoom factor, not because it has gotten bigger. > Maybe the camera was closer, maybe the photographer zoomed in more, > maybe > the photograph was developed from a projection of the negative and the > photograph is enlarged and zoomed in, etc. The fact is that one > picture is > a more closeup shot and that is the reason for the larger head. > >> >> The early picture is supposed to be the same person in his very early >> twenties. The older picture, judging by another photo from 1894 would >> place him at about age 55. So about a 34 year difference, not 10-15 >> years. >> Clothing in a small town doesn't keep up with current trends so is >> difficult to judge and businessmen tended to keep their suits for >> years. >> I recall suits on older men when I was a kid that were clearly 25-30 >> years old and the locals would comment on the fact. > > Given the fact that he is not wearing the same suit, it can be > argued he > isn't wearing a 30 year old suit. They are distinctly different styles > from different time periods. Don't be so sure that small towns 100 > years > ago didn't keep up with the current styles, within reason. > > There are only three inexpensive ways to date a photograph that I > know of. > The actual types of photographic materials used in different periods, > clues in the picture itself, and photographs of known age. Your > anecdotal > evidence that people in small towns wore 25-30 old suits in your > childhood > doesn't prove that the clothes worn by the general population or any > subset thereof 100 years ago are also such. You asked for help, and > I gave > you tips on how genealogists and historians accomplish this. I > didn't say > using clothing to date photographs will prove absolutely a date with > any > precision. It was merely a tool I suggested to be used with other > tools. > Generally, getting a photograph taken was an expensive thing and a > special > event. People would, in general, wear their best and newest clothes > for > the sitting, and not the usual 25-30 year old suit worn daily to work. > Furthermore, a twenty five year old is unlikely to be wearing a 25 > year > old suit, and is far far more likely to be wearing whatever was in > style > for his/her time period, at least if he was rich enough to have > money to > spend on photographs. Naturally, it's easier to date photos with > women in > them, as styles changed much more rapidly, even in small towns. > > Without knowing what the older photograph is in > thickness/size/type/construction/composition, I can't offer you > anymore > help than I have. There are sites on the web that show you how to date > photographs. Since you have suspicions as to the originality of the > one > you have. It may not be possible to come up with a useful date on > either > photograph, but then again maybe it is. > > Then again, maybe he was older than it is stated he was. If he is > wearing > a suit that was popular in the 1870s and not in the 1860s, that > might be a > clue. Unless, of course, he comes from one of those really progressive > small towns that are always years ahead of the current styles. > > > Bottom line, it's the same person at two different time periods and > his > head hasn't enlarged, and he hasn't developed a cleft chin. They are > just > illusions due to all the variables that are possible with photographs. > > Brian > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message