A few weeks ago a SOTW Facebook discussion degenerated into middle school-level conversation, after someone posted the following vintage photo.
Now let me state upfront that I know nothing about this photo’s backstory. This of course leaves me with a boat-load of unanswered questions. Questions such as:
- When was this photo taken?
- Who are these 2 young guys?
- Who are they in relation to each other?
- Who took the photo?
- Where was it taken? What country? City? Town?
- What was the photo taken for?
- Where did the photo come from?
- Where has it been for the last however many decades?
- How did it end up online?
- How is this image any different than if it were 2 women?
- Why can people not look at an artistic photo of 2 men and just shut the hell up?
- When confronted with artistic displays of nudity, why must adults lose their ability to have grown-up conversation, and regress to a developmental level of a teenager?
Is there a takeaway from this artsy, saxy, sexy C mel pic?
It strikes me we can all learn a lesson from this.
If this indeed is a vintage photo, and not a just recent photo shot in a way to look vintage, then someone made some effort to get it posted online. An actual physical copy of the photo had to have been discovered by someone—who found it titillating enough to scan it—and then upload the image to social media.
These days our photos are for the most part only digitally saved. Very few people print all their photos—like we did in the good old days of film cameras when that was our only option.
In the future should JPEG or RAW file formats still be recognized by servers, then anything we shoot will easily be uploadable for anyone to see. And let’s face it, without the need to print everything we shoot, we shoot a great deal more than any previous generation did.
Do we want our private photos falling into someone else’s hands after we die? Or when we ditch our old computers or hard drives? Want to be the brunt of jokes as online bullies act out their f’ed up aggression against those who aren’t around to defend themselves?
Think it can’t happen to you? Perhaps it already has.
Last week as I was updating my Hohner President page, I uploaded a photo of a horn that a seller on eBay had posted. Upon final editing of the page I realized that the photographer’s junk was hanging out of his shorts and reflected in the bell of the horn. Needless to say I didn’t use the pic, since I’m not in the habit of posting dick pics on my site. 😉
Take care while photographing shiny objects. Objects appearing in saxophone bells, keys, or body tubes are not always what they appear. 🙂
FWIW, here are my thoughts on the image:
1. It is indeed a vintage photograph. Although a great deal of effort could have been made to make it look authentically circa 1930s, to what end? Even the hassock they are using as a footrest is authentic to the era. The entire thing screams: I AM A PHOTO TAKEN IN THE FIRST FEW DECADES OF THE 20TH CENTURY.
2. There are indeed 2 male models in this shot—most likely twins. Although they do look very much alike, they do also have some differences such as the style & texture of their hair. IMO, the model on the right has more developed upper arms than the model on the right.
3. And lastly, if I had to guess, I suspect that the model on the left is actually the sax player of the 2, since he knows how to hold a horn.
=========================================
The conversation you guys are having about photographing is fascinating. Thank you. I am learning so much that I didn’t know before… Please excuse my interruption….
Carry on talking amongst yourselves… Paul, your knowledge on the subject never ceases to amaze me. Mal, you too know so much about photography as well. I am always in awe…
If they are one person, then he had a haircut and styling between takes — not to mention other physiological alterations.
Even so, long before Photoshop, there were darkrooms, enlargers, gelatin filters, scissors, paste, and crayons that accomplished with physical interventions what Photoshop does numerically. This has been going on almost as long as chemical photography was developed [sic] in the 19th century (the colorizations produced and sold by Felix Beato are particularly noteworthy.)
Indeed, until computerized scanning became practical during the 1990s, all images published in newspapers needed to be “prepared” for scanning. This could be as innocuous as blocking out the background with a grease pencil to make the subject identifiable, or more creative manipulations, such as painting in or smoothing “details” with a paint sprayer, aka “airbrush”, onto intermediate prints or even the negative itself. Other effects include selectively tilting and curving the photographic paper under the enlarger.
In short, because of its ubiquity, Photoshop has only called attention to the wide-spread manipulation of media that has been going on all along. Manipulation per se cannot be used to date an image with any certainty without direct examination of the original.
My guess is that it is a competent use of lighting and selection of male models consistent with the technology well-known in the mid 1930s.
Beato colored pictures and combined the borders of two or more glass negatives.
He is not known for combining two persons in an overlapping situation.
My family started with glass photography around 1930 and I am aware of the possibilities of retouch techniques.
I have never seen a photo made with these techniques with such a quality. So I am inclined to think that there are two man in the picture or the picture is photo shopped, until I see an example with the same retouch quality that is not photo shopped.
Also 1930 style pictures can still be made, all techniques are known.
There’s also the possibility it is a double exposure, but I still think there are two models based on the eye sets and sizes of thoraxes (thoraces?)
When there is only one man in this picture it must have been photo shopped.
So my guess is that it is not a very old picture.
It is a good illustration that the ergonomics of the Conn C-mel are better.
It is difficult not to innuendo here, but the straight Conn C-mel is missing in the picture.
Only one made and not by Conn .
I have to agree with Paul Henegan. Photomanipulation long predates Photoshop. You need only consider Stalin’s repeated erasure of enemies.
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/stalin-erased-his-enemies-history-literally
Like home studio recording, the technology itself is not new. It’s just much more accessible.
I think it’s the same guy.
I believe it’s the same guy.
So, are these C melody saxes? 😉
Yep, King/HN White C on the left (giveaway is the extra octave mech guide on the front of the neck, just above the tenon), and easily Conn C on the right…
See, yet ANOTHER use for C-Mels, naturist pictures 😉
All I can say is if I was to be in that photo, I would need to be photographed with my Bass 🙂