Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/09/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]which is why I posted this latest communication: "One 'professor' looked at the photos and I was told "professor had a chance to look at the photos and reports that he thought it certainly could be an authentic antiquity, that the patina coloring indicates a piece of significant age. He did not go further. He will leave further conclusion to the experts in Ann Arbor." Note: "could be? " and "did not go further." The piece will find its way to the 'hands' of experts in Ann Arbor. The photos were meant for nothing more than determining 'plausibility and interest' as well as to discover who best to evaluate the actual object. No one is attempting determine true authenticity by photos on the internet. Moreover, I have, in the past, done evidence photography which included sworn affidavits as to veracity of photographs, including height from ground of camera, focal length of lens, distance from subject and guarantee of lack of manipulation. I can provide the same including lack of manipulation guarantee in regards to these images. Obviously, if anyone would challenge their (the photos) authenticity and find against my sworn testimony; my reputation and professionalism would suffer greatly. This type of work requires absolute adherence to craft, not even removing sensor dust from image file, nada, and professionalism in every regard. Fond regards, George george@imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Sep 11, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Jerry Lehrer wrote: > Look, George and Alastair, NO antiquarian worth his salt would dare > to make any evaluation of a relic > based on a photograph. You two know that with Photoshop et al, a > picture can be manipulated so a > $5 Tijuana plaster casting can be made to look like a 1000 year old > relic. > > They all tell me that "Ya gotta have the thing in your hands".