Associate
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 1,437
What car is this?
- Thread starter Diddums x
- Start date
It's Asim...just...Asim.
Erm.. Compositing happened with film photography as well, you know? Kids these days 
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/this-composite-photograph-from-wwi-is-better-than-most-1458519043
Forget about 1967, I present above a composited image from c.1915.
If you are not aware of analogue film composites, Dis86, then I guess you are absolutely right in assuming it's "just me" who does know about film compositing.
Furthermore, there is a difference between Photoshop and photoshop. The word "photoshop" is a verb (I cant believe I've just had to explain that on a computer enthusiast forum). You must be trollin if you're actually assuming I'm saying Adobe Photoshop existed back then.
In a way it's unfortunate, any amateur these days can use Adobe Photoshop, instagram whatever and apply filters to their hearts content. Back then only the truly skilled masters of the darkroom could put together images with realism quite like that.
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/this-composite-photograph-from-wwi-is-better-than-most-1458519043
Forget about 1967, I present above a composited image from c.1915.
If you are not aware of analogue film composites, Dis86, then I guess you are absolutely right in assuming it's "just me" who does know about film compositing.
Furthermore, there is a difference between Photoshop and photoshop. The word "photoshop" is a verb (I cant believe I've just had to explain that on a computer enthusiast forum). You must be trollin if you're actually assuming I'm saying Adobe Photoshop existed back then.
In a way it's unfortunate, any amateur these days can use Adobe Photoshop, instagram whatever and apply filters to their hearts content. Back then only the truly skilled masters of the darkroom could put together images with realism quite like that.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 8,534
- Location
- Glocestershire
It will go out on a limb and say that if you look at the rear quarter panel it does look a bit odd. But I would have though it's more likely to be that the car was partially in a shadow and there's been some darkroom tinkering to brighten it up. So yes some 50's photoshop has probably taken place. But the forgery Asim is suggesting is fairly far fetched.
Despite the fact that this car has never been identified? As well as the fact that the car literally looks like a mash up from many different cars with people clearly identifying that the doors are from one car, but then the front lights are apparently from another car, and then the rear lights are clearly from another car, and then the wheels are from totally different car, etc. etc. ????
I really believe that this is a composite image, it is impossible to get a single frame exposure like that using any film stock from the 1960s. Not to mention the extreme amount of clear dodging and burning the photographer has applied in the darkroom as you said.
I have never stated that the car is a forgery, I said it was a composite car mashed/blended together from various cars. A forgery is when you try to make something look like something it actually isn't, a fraudulent copy. The vehicle isn't trying to be anything so it isn't a forgery. The buses are the focal point of the image, the car has simply been put in for decoration, it was not supposed to be a specific car.
The reality of the situation is that the car is a fabrication. Whether it was fabricated out of metal from various cars and was an actual physical object, or whether it was fabricated out of photographs is down to people's personal beliefs based on their own experience. Personally, based on the evidence and looking tiny details as well as the behaviour of light in the overall image, I have to say I believe the car is a photographic composite.
Last edited:
Definitely despite that. There was a massive proliferation of special builders in that era with extremely low production numbers (often just a one-off).
Ask yourself why someone felt they had to put the considerable effort of compositing some random car into a book on buses in 1967?
I can't believe this has turned in to a 'conspiracy' thread. It's almost as if asim has never heard of coachworks or kit cars and has gone straight from 0 to crazy in four seconds flat!
I have already agreed that there is a potential that the car could be an actual fabrication in metal.
I'm not saying the car was composited specifically for some random photo in a random book on buses, you're assuming that is a consequence of what I'm saying.
Back in the day photographers/editors/compositors, used to have a collections of props in film/negative format which they used to layer into their photographs/illustrations. The same way graphics designers of today have stock collections.
Just like we layer things in Photoshop, they used to layer these stock slides into their final photographs to create better scenes/compositions, sometimes to add in something for scale, etc whatever.
It was probably a slide/layer in that particular photographer's album of composition props and he simply layered it in.
Gosh not you again lol.
A day ago it was as if Dis86 never thought it possible to manipulate images using film, and now he's going to try his hardest to find something I haven't heard about even though I've already explicitly stated that the car could actually have been fabricated out of actual metal 2 posts above his
. "It's almost as if asim has never heard of....." hahaha I don't even have to read what you assume I haven't heard about to know what you're self-conscious about.
Back under your bridge little troll pls. If you want to discuss something you're welcome to, but your little one liner troll posts are worthless to me.
Last edited:
What would the motivation be to - in 1967 - make a composite of a special car that is like nothing else? What would they stand to gain by doing it? Let's say the photographer wanted a car in his shot but didn't have the time to re-shoot. I can see how they might want to create a composite -adding a car to the shot - but would they really actually try and create a car or just use some other footage they have?
Occam's razor guys: Either it's a complex composite created in 1967 to create a car that looks period but it not exactly like any other car of the time, or it's a one-off special built in the 1960s when there was a massive proliferation of special builders.
Occam's razor guys: Either it's a complex composite created in 1967 to create a car that looks period but it not exactly like any other car of the time, or it's a one-off special built in the 1960s when there was a massive proliferation of special builders.
Its basically the same thing we see today. You know those adverts where they try to feature a generic car and they've removed the badges and modified it a little but everyone knows it's still a VW Passat?
Same idea back in the day.
We need to understand the probability of every potential outcome. There's an much higher chance that the original photograph would have captured a very popular car of the time which you would have been able to recognise instantly. What are the chances that a guy taking a picture of buses happens to accidentally photograph an extremely rare one off car such as that?
There is potential that the publishers of the book decided they didn't want to feature an Aston Martin or whatever, and they replaced it themselves.
Or there is chance that there never was a car there and someone has simply layered it in there as a prop (like they had been doing for half a century if you look at that WW1 photograph). This is likely because if you analyse the exposure of the entire frame it is not likely for a 1960s film photograph to be exposed like that using one flat exposure. There has been dodging and burning applied which shows motivation to make the photo look flashy, which in turn increases the probability that the car is a prop.
More can be worked out by analysing the rest of the book, do other photographs in the book feature popular cars in the background if any?
Same idea back in the day.
We need to understand the probability of every potential outcome. There's an much higher chance that the original photograph would have captured a very popular car of the time which you would have been able to recognise instantly. What are the chances that a guy taking a picture of buses happens to accidentally photograph an extremely rare one off car such as that?
There is potential that the publishers of the book decided they didn't want to feature an Aston Martin or whatever, and they replaced it themselves.
Or there is chance that there never was a car there and someone has simply layered it in there as a prop (like they had been doing for half a century if you look at that WW1 photograph). This is likely because if you analyse the exposure of the entire frame it is not likely for a 1960s film photograph to be exposed like that using one flat exposure. There has been dodging and burning applied which shows motivation to make the photo look flashy, which in turn increases the probability that the car is a prop.
More can be worked out by analysing the rest of the book, do other photographs in the book feature popular cars in the background if any?
Last edited: