Originally posted by sherpa

I don't know about airbrushing photos, I never saw it being done

Are you saying you have never physically seen it being done or that you havn't seen any evidence of it being done.

Sorry, I should have been more precise in my statement.

I have never seen it being done and I never heard about anyone using an airbrush to do that type of job, an airbrush is a clumsy tool for such a precision work.

I have had no involvement with scraping negatives, but back in the early seventies I worked in a commercial art studio and was frequently involved in cleaning up, (spotting), and sometimes enhancing negatives with a special paint, which I can't remember the name of but do remember was coloured brown.
The resulting work was used in final production artwork and was very difficult to tell that this work had been done if it was evident the artwork would be scrapped and redone.

My sister, who is a photographer and was the one I asked about this, said that she knows a studio photographer that showed her a photo of a man who had his glasses on. Because of it, the photographer had to use the lights in a different way to avoid reflections, and after that he changed all the photo to make it look as if the light was from the normal source, using a very large lens and an extremely sharp pencil to draw directly on the negative, creating a final result that would have been impossible to do with just a photo and common lights.

Agreed, one further complication is the native format of the scanners used, with the Lab I used it was jpeg, I did not realise this until after I insisted on being supplied with Tiff scans and being dissapointed with the results, it was only at this point that I asked what the native format was of the scanner they were using and was told jpeg.
So with this in mind I thought it better to accept the jpeg images in case there was any conversion loss from jpeg to tiff, to be honest I am not sure if there is in my particular case but you can see why jpeg is so common.

The ignorance of the people that are supposed to know what they are doing or what they are asking for is impressive, most people that do know about TIFFs do not even know that they can use lossless compression and ask for uncompressed TIFFs when they want to scan their documents, even when those people are from universities.

Having given time to further study of AS8-12-2209 in both the JSC version and bookscan I have come to believe they are not the same image.

The reason for this is camera angle and I can demonstrate this with the examples below.

If a rectangle is superimposed over a linear ground feature in this case what seems to be 2 intersecting lines, than the angle between the ground feature and rectangle are clearly different.

Similiarly there is a small crater off to the right of the object which has a lighter area to one side of it again the direction of this lighter material is facing a different angle.

Also there are 3 lighter areas above the object which when you take a line through the approximate centres again presents a different angle to the viewer.







So where is the missing image and will the real AS8-12-2209 stand up please.