AA/FS Photo Comparison - Similarities: What is Wrong With AA Being FS?

[Annie]

My point is that the original no longer exists, and to have an original one would have to have the negative.

Pictures can be made from other prints, I've had it done myself.

I also think to make fun of or use Anne Frank in this manner is a bit in bad taste.

Ah, I was waiting for this! I was actually expecting such a comment to make my point. Now I can use this analogy. Anne was a  teenage girl died tragically, so why detract from her memory by making up fake escape stories? Same thing with Anastasia! She was also a teenage girl who died tragically, yet she cannot rest in peace, and her memory is always in turmoil because of ridiculous claimant stories like AA.

Isn't it 'in bad taste' to keep rehashing this story, and all the details, and pics of AN being compared to AA? Anastasia N. Romanov was horribly murdered, just as Anne was, and her memory deserves more respect than to still, even AFTER the DNA proved it wrong, keep dragging up silly stories about her escape.

[Grand_Duke_Paul]

Pictures can be made from other prints, I've had it done myself.  

No one said they could not.  My point was that when you make one from a negative you are making a print. When you make one from a photo itself it is considered a copy.

Ah, I was waiting for this! I was actually expecting such a comment to make my point. Now I can use this analogy. Anne was a  teenage girl died tragically, so why detract from her memory by making up fake escape stories? Same thing with Anastasia! She was also a teenage girl who died tragically, yet she cannot rest in peace, and her memory is always in turmoil because of ridiculous claimant stories like AA.

Isn't it 'in bad taste' to keep rehashing this story, and all the details, and pics of AN being compared to AA? Anastasia N. Romanov was horribly murdered, just as Anne was, and her memory deserves more respect than to still, even AFTER the DNA proved it wrong, keep dragging up silly stories about her escape.

No it is in bad taste to use a story as valiant and heart rendering and as tragic as that of Anne Frank's in your constant analogy ridden assumptions and tales of Anna Anderson.   First, I don't believe that Anastasia escaped. While I agree the actual story of Anastasia, or the murder of the Romanovs is every bit as tragic, there is one huge difference.  The tragedy of Anne Frank is that her story is just one of the tens of millions of lost souls that were murdered unjustifiably by a totalitarian and out of control regime, in a planned genocide. That her story has survived to remind us of the loss to humanity should humble us all and not give us lisense to use it in comparisons to other tragedies.   Anastasia's tragedy and that of her siblings is that they unnecessarily suffered the same fate of their parents.

[Annie]

No one said they could not.  My point was that when you make one from a negative you are making a print. When you make one from a photo itself it is considered a copy.

My point is, a copy is different from 'retouched.'

 Anastasia's tragedy and that of her siblings is that they unnecessarily suffered the same fate of their parents.

But were AN and her family the only ones to suffer? No. Millions died in the terror, revolution, civil war, and the purges of the late 20's- early 30's.

Both girls were innocent teenagers who died needlessly and tragically because of out of control politics that had nothing to do with them. They are both dead, and both deserve to rest in peace with no silly claimant stories!

[Grand_Duke_Paul]

My point is, a copy is different from 'retouched.'

Yes a copy is different from retouched, but a copy can be retouched.

But were AN and her family the only ones to suffer? No. Millions died in the terror, revolution, civil war, and the purges of the late 20's- early 30's.

Both girls were innocent teenagers who died needlessly and tragically because of out of control politics that had nothing to do with them. They are both dead, and both deserve to rest in peace with no silly claimant stories!

You can't be serious can you?  To compare the tragedy of Anne Frank to the execution of the Romanovs.  That is just a bit much, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Now back to topic...

The photos of AA do not look like or resemble the known photo of Franziska other than a similar hair line
in my opinion, nor do they resemble Anastasia.  So in my view it's a toss up.

[Annie]

Yes a copy is different from retouched, but a copy can be retouched.

But the copy WASN'T retouched. This can be plainly seen with our own eyes.

You can't be serious can you?  

Two young girls died tragically and deserve to rest in peace with no silly claimant stories. Their memories should be honored and respected.

[ChatNoir]

Maybe Annie is correct, the first picture has not been retouched or tampered with. But why was it necessary to retouch it up to three times before it was used in Gilliard's book "La Fausse Anastasie"? Did he feel that Franzisca did not look enough like Anastsia?
Just wondering.
Kind regards
Chat Noir

[Annie]

Maybe Annie is correct, the first picture has not been retouched or tampered with. But why was it necessary to retouch it up to three times before it was used in Gilliard's book "La Fausse Anastasie"? Did he feel that Franzisca did not look enough like Anastsia?
Just wondering.
Kind regards
Chat Noir

It was probably done to clarify the faded features. This was done a lot in the old days, I have pics of my ancestors that have been 'retouched' for that reason. But in retrospect, it was a bad idea, because now it makes it look like there was a sinister reason for it. Gilliard made a mistake by doing this,  I think.

Bear, I know copies are not originals, and they may be faded or bad copies but it is still not the same thing as retouched.

Here's some pics of old relatives that were RETOUCHED using the charcoal technique. Both are US Civil War era (1860's)



Someone even attempted to 'colorize' this one



So while the man in the second pic was a deserter who changed his name, there ws no reason to touch up these pics other than that somebody thought they'd look clearer and better. I don't think so, IMO it ruins them. I guess in the old days people liked this look.

[AGRBear]

Annie, according what you've just told us,  you've given us two examples of photographs which were retouched.  So, why are you telling me that copies of the original photo of FS couldn't have been retouched?  

I can assume your photographs were copied and remained close to the original image.   We do not know if that is true of FS's photograph copies of copies.


AGRBear

[Annie]

Compare my pics, the retouched FS pic with the one I say is not retouched, and you can see the difference. A copy of the ones I posted comes out looking like a drawing. The one of FS still looks like a pic, dots and all. It is a bad copy but it's not retouched, the look of the person's face has not been changed.

[AGRBear]

Maybe Annie is correct, the first picture has not been retouched or tampered with. But why was it necessary to retouch it up to three times before it was used in Gilliard's book "La Fausse Anastasie"? Did he feel that Franzisca did not look enough like Anastsia?
Just wondering.
Kind regards
Chat Noir

Maybe Annie is correct and the copies of the original has not been retouched enough to make any real changes.   We just do not know.

Can someone copy the photo in Gilliard's book.  I'd really like to see it.

Thanks

AGRBear  

[AGRBear]

Compare my pics, the retouched FS pic with the one I say is not retouched, and you can see the difference. A copy of the ones I posted comes out looking like a drawing. The one of FS still looks like a pic, dots and all. It is a bad copy but it's not retouched, the look of the person's face has not been changed.

Your very old photographs  are marvelous.  Thank you for sharing.

Photography had taken some giant steps by the time FS's photo was taken.  And, so had the people who created forged photos for illegal papers.  

AGRBear

[Grand_Duke_Paul]

Compare my pics, the retouched FS pic with the one I say is not retouched, and you can see the difference. A copy of the ones I posted comes out looking like a drawing. The one of FS still looks like a pic, dots and all. It is a bad copy but it's not retouched, the look of the person's face has not been changed.

The look of the persons face is terribly faded, we could enhance that photo with todays technologies and come out with a clearer sharper view of the face, but really she looks like neither Anderson nor Anastasia to me.

By the way thanks for the tin types, I may have some comparable photos on actual photo to a charcoal drawing of my ancestor whom I was named for and his wife.

[Annie]

Can someone copy the photo in Gilliard's book.  I'd really like to see it.

Thanks

AGRBear  

The retouched pic from Gilliard's book is the same one I posted doubled with the faded one that is not retouched.

[Eddie_uk]

I know some years seperate these two photos but I just can't believe that AA was, the beautiful, HIH Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna .  





 

EDIT: P.S. And I think it was jolly rotten of her to pretend she was!!

[ChatNoir]

Don't forget, Eddieboy, that all official photos of members of the Imperial Family were retouched to make them look their very, very best. Check out other pictures of Anastasia, and you will see that she was not particularly beautiful after all.
Kind regards
Chat Noir