Author Topic: AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?  (Read 170865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mgmstl

  • Guest


Is the sepia toned version the ACTUAL original photograph before any retouching or morphing has been done to it?   IF it is , then how can the image be said to resemble Franziska.  It is grainy and faded, while with today's technology it could probably be restored, the mouth and the lips and the shape of the face look a bit different to me.

 I have a photo of two of my 4th great grandfathers, and they have amazingly been preserved well.   MANY times in those days photos were taken by travelling photographers, who rinsed their photos in buckets of water, instead of using fresh water for each photo, they used the same water, thereby causing the acids from the previous photo to coat upon the photographic image and thereby increasing the chances of fading.
I would imagine the same can be said of photos in the early 1900's - 1920's...   I am not saying the image is not FS, I am saying it is unclear to me that she looks like AA.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 11:02:56 AM by Alixz »

Offline Denise

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Anneliese: Historian in training
    • View Profile
I will throw my 2 pennies worth in here too.  What the hey, right?  Everyone else has... ::)

I believe that AA and FS had very similar lips.  They seem fleshy and not well defined (ie-no perfect cupid's bow--the top lip has a very ill defined "dip" (can't remember the word for that).  The lips of these women were MORE similar to each other than either were to AN's lips. (yes Bear, I know AN has nothing to do with this thread.)

I believe that it would be easier to note the lip similarities of these women if we could find a head on photo of AA WITHOUT that little smirk.  It is beginning to annoy me, that smirk.  Just a relaxed full face shot might show the same shadoes of the face.

There!  My 2 cents for the day is done.   ;D


Offline Denise

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Anneliese: Historian in training
    • View Profile
One other thing.  I know that the points match for the eyes in the analyses of these pictures, but it always seems to me that AA had bigger eyes than FS.  Perhaps that is due to FS distance from the photographer, but FS seems to have small almond eyes that are straight across her face, while AA has almond eyes that are larger and angle up at the ends.  

OK, so I gave y'all 4 cents today....

Denise

Offline Lanie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
    • View Profile
If we had a picture of FS looking somewhat tilted down at the camera--like the one photo of AA--the resemblance would be even more obvious.

Offline Denise

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Anneliese: Historian in training
    • View Profile
Quote
If we had a picture of FS looking somewhat tilted down at the camera--like the one photo of AA--the resemblance would be even more obvious.


Probably so.  I think the other thing that confuses people who see these pictures is that they were taken at 2 different times in life.  FS' photo was of a younger woman (I'd say-16-17), healthier, and with altogether a more conservative style of dress and atmosphere.  The AA pictures show someone who is more mature, has been sick, and appears a bit more knowing about the world.  The women in these two pictures appear to carry themselves differently and show different body language.  

This doesn't make them different people.  The same woman could change dramatically in 6-7 years through traumatic life experience, which we know FS had.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Denise »

Offline etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Am I the only person about who doesn't feel that AA,AM,and FS looked like AN?...Yes,they were both European females...but that's about it....

Offline Denise

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Anneliese: Historian in training
    • View Profile
Quote
Am I the only person about who doesn't feel that AA,AM,and FS looked like AN?...Yes,they were both European females...but that's about it....


She didn't to my mind either, but that is irrelevent to this thread.  This is comparing AA to FS in photos.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Quote



I agree about the body language, and the different ways they carry themselves,


...and exactly when did you see either of the subjects in question 'carry themselves?' There's nothing but that one pic of FS standing up, and several posed pics of AA, and a few videos of her later in life, seated. How do you, or any of us, really know how this dead woman 'carried herself?'
(I'm not going to fall into the trap of saying "these 2 women", since they are one in the same)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Annie »

Mgmstl

  • Guest
Quote
Am I the only person about who doesn't feel that AA,AM,and FS looked like AN?...Yes,they were both European females...but that's about it....



I don't see where she looked at all like AN either

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Has anyone seen the Wingender photographs?

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Denise

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Anneliese: Historian in training
    • View Profile
Quote

Oh for Pete's sake! That's the problem, you always look at being questioned as an attack! This is an honest question important to the point here. I will ask you, Denise, or anyone else, how do we determine how FS 'carried herself' from one fuzzy, washed out pic of only the top half of her body? Then how does one presume to compare that to pics of AA and how she 'carried herself' when we never saw her carry herself anywhere! I think it's a valid inquiry. Can you explain?


I was thinking about this.  I was basing my comment earlier on the expression on the face.  FS expression seemed more reserved.  AA always seems to have a more "knowing, sly" kind of look on her face, at least in some of those where she is looking straight at the camera.  As I don't know what photographic technique was used to take FS photo, it is possible that her stance is due to stillness required to get the picture on the plate.  If it were a Brownie type camera, then it may just be that she was a bit reserved.

We can't know for certain on most of this, but we are basing these speculations on what we can see (and the entire full body shot of FS is on the forum here).  This is as valid as any of the other speculations about FS, including a few of yours, Annie.   ;)

Denise


Offline jaa

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Quote
As I don't know what photographic technique was used to take FS photo, it is possible that her stance is due to stillness required to get the picture on the plate.  If it were a Brownie type camera, then it may just be that she was a bit reserved.
It's unlikely that a plate was used. Kodak introduced the first roll film camera in the 1890's. From "The Photographic Collector's Notebook" at http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/tphs-filmnumbers.html :
Quote
A Brief History of Kodak Roll Film Numbers

The earliest Kodak roll films were made for specific cameras and were listed by the camera name. For example: The year 1900 Kodak Condensed Price List stated under:

Eastman's Transparent Film, Light Proof Kodak Cartridges: Roll Film, 6 Exposures, 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 inches, for the No.1 Folding Pocket Kodak Roll Film for the No, 1 Panorama Kodak, 3 exposures,

As more cameras were introduced using the same film size, the listings of camera names became cumbersome, particularly with the limited space on film cartons.

In 1912 or 1913, it was decided to  bring more system to the film size problem and assign numbers to each film. First listing was in the Condensed Price List of 1914, which gave the cameras by name with their corresponding film number. In 1919 the camera listing was deleted and the film was listed only by number.

Starting with No. 101, the numbers, seemed to have been assigned in the order in which the film was introduced to the market. For example:

             101 (3 1/2" x 3 1/2") was originally produced for the No. 2 Bullet camera, announced in 1895

             102 (1 1/2" x 2") for the Pocket Kodak was also announced in 1895

             115 (7" x 5) for the No 5 Cartridge Kodak Camera announced in 1898

             120 (2 1/4 x 3 1/4) for No. 2 Brownie announced in 1901
I think a Brownie-type camera is a good guess. The Brownie was first introduced in 1900 (source: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/aa13/aa13.shtml ). A cheap camera, it was marketed towards children and sold for $1. Millions of the box Brownies and folding Brownies were sold in the US and Europe (Kodak manufactured the Brownies in the US, the UK, and France). Among the important German camera companies were Zeiss, Voightlander, and AFGA, although I don't know if they made similar cameras.


The Brownie used medium-size films. The No. 2 Brownie produced a 2.25" x 3.25" negative, large enough for a contact print, a photograph made without enlargement and the negative in direct contact with the paper. Note the lower photo in the album shown above; that's quite likely a contact print.

If the original FS photo is a contact print, the actual image could be much clearer, since it would avoid focusing and other problems associated with enlargements. This photo is apparently still in existence; I asked if it was used for the NOVA documentary and Penny phoned the owner who said it had not been loaned for that documentary.

It may be possible to enhance this photograph, depending on the quality of the original. However, as you note, it is a full body shot and the face is a small area, hence the graininess when it is cropped and enlarged.

I'd be very hesitant to say that I knew what FS looked like based on the reproductions I have seen. One easy way to tell if you are seeing a good reproduction is to look for the dots from half-tone screening (used in reproducing photographs for offset printing). If you can easily be see the dots with the naked eye, a coarse screen has been used; the coarser the screen, the greater the loss of detail. I'd argue that we don't even know what the photo looks like, let alone what FS looked like.

I also think the point that the photograph was taken at two different ages is a very good one. People can change a lot; I think everyone has seen nearly unrecognizable photos of actors in their teenage years.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2009, 11:07:25 AM by Alixz »

Offline Denise

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Anneliese: Historian in training
    • View Profile
Thanks jaa!!  That was really helpful.  The only reason I mentioned plates is that it was mentioned on a thread that the reason that certain royals had grim expressions was because of the length of time it took to get the photos.  I know the expressions in pictures of settlers of the American West always look quite grim for the same reason....

Offline Inquiring_Mind

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
    • View Profile
Quote
Has anyone seen the Wingender photographs?

AGRBear


AGR Bear,

What photos are you speaking of? Are they the ones in the AA trials where they were retouched to prove a point the first time and then retouched further the second time?
I chose the road less traveled and now...where the heck am I????

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Thanks for your response, Denise :)

If AA looked more 'sly', maybe it's because she was ;) at that time, she was sly, playing Anastasia!

As for the cameras, of course old cameras are always still used, even today, but by the time that pic was taken there were cameras that you did not have to stand still for  like the ones used for those old west pics (yes those are some sour faces!) I know that by the 1910's such 'higher tech' cameras did exist, because my Grandmother had one. She won it on a punch card as a teenager, and she still had it, and it still worked, when I was a kid in the 1960's. You did not have to stay still like the old fashioned ones, it worked just like modern cameras, click and go!

Ironically, it's all come full circle, since some of the new digitals make you have to freeze your pose again and if you move they blur, just like old timey ones :-/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Annie »