|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 7, 2012 13:34:48 GMT -5
Here's a photo of the Alamo in 1929 posted on Facebook via Frank Thompson. It shows statues still inside 2 of the niches. Does anyone know if those are the originals or, if not, how/why they were put there? [a href=" "][/a][/url]
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Mar 7, 2012 15:18:30 GMT -5
In case anyone does not know, click on the pic then click on it again when it opens in a new window, you can then select 'Full Screen'
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 7, 2012 16:17:22 GMT -5
Thanks - it is easier to see these features if you blow it up to full frame.
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Mar 7, 2012 18:24:39 GMT -5
Difficult to say, Allen, but they do look exceptionally worn down.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Mar 8, 2012 15:06:48 GMT -5
OK, let's fight about this.
I don't think you're seeing statues in the niches. I think you're seeing weathering in the backs of the two niches. Look at Nelson, 3rd ed., pp. 105 in 1912, 111 top in 1918 (111 bottom is interesting because it shows people standing in the lower niches, clearly without being obstructed by statues in the niches), 114 top in 1936.
This is a Rorschach kind of thing -- some of us see statues, some of us see just blotches.
The really low contrast, lack of shadows and sort of hazy look makes me figure we just can't see the detail we need to be able to decide what we're seeing.
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Mar 8, 2012 15:12:31 GMT -5
I worked with a guy back in the 1970s who was sorting photographs of the missions, and came up with one of Concepcion that appeared to show no decorative carving around the main front door in the 1890s or 1910s or so, and he insisted that this proved that the carved panels had been removed and then replaced with blank stone panels sometime around 1900, just like the doors of San Jose were "bought" and hauled away about that same time -- and that the panels were recarved later at the same time that the other replacement stonework was being replaced at the missions. But to my "prejudiced" (to use his implication in the discussion) eyes, it looked like a combination of slight overexposure and the angle of the light simply making the fairly flat carved panels appear featureless in that one picture.
Photographs don't always tell you the truth, no matter how often you hear that photos don't lie.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 8, 2012 16:33:12 GMT -5
Too bad the photo is copy-protected so one can't snag it, enlarge it, and run it through some image enhancements. My initial impression was that there's no depth to the "statues," so if there was something inside the niches, it was probably some two-dimensional representation. I think Jake hit it: we're probably looking at discoloration in the masonry of the niches.
No fight from me.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 8, 2012 17:30:00 GMT -5
I wonder if the image is a kind of shadow trace, caused by years the back of the niche being shaded by the statues. It's not clear enough to say they are statues, and I'll defer to Jake on this. Before & after 1929 photos showing no statues indicate they just aren't there, although the effect is really weird. I'm on the road just now and don't have access to my books, but I'll check out the appropriate pictures in Nelson when I get back home.
Tom - do the restrictions on enhancing a photo apply to one's personal use? Publishing it is another matter, I realize.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 8, 2012 17:45:27 GMT -5
@allen, the photo as posted here is too low-res to blow-up much at all, and you have to be a logged-in member of Webshots to be able to save the full-screen, higher-res image in order to enlarge and enhance it...I think.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 8, 2012 18:38:51 GMT -5
Tom- I use Webshots, but not the higher-end paid subscription. I can't find a tab or anything to convert to hi res. Also, someone else posted this on Facebook and Frank then shared it, so I have no idea what the state of the original is like or if that could be captured.
|
|
|
Post by martyb on Mar 8, 2012 19:45:37 GMT -5
After looking at it real close...I think it is just weathering. It was a neat optical illusion though... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Bill Manuel on Mar 9, 2012 10:08:27 GMT -5
Looks like matrixing to me. Nice old picture though! Bill
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 9, 2012 10:30:16 GMT -5
It's one I've never seen before and I don't think it's from a commercial postcard or anything like that; just someone's snapshot.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Mar 13, 2012 15:53:16 GMT -5
I agree completely with Jake. Best early photo, which sinches it where I'm concerned, is on page 103 in Nelson's 3rd. edition. For those of you with other editions, it is the ca. 1920 photo with the wooden derrick out front to replace the roof. The niches are very clear, as is the Rorschach weathering on the inside surfaces. I do however see the possibility that it is a result of the statues being in the niches -- with a hundred years of rain and sand hitting the area around the statues but not behind them. Then, the first real cleaning (possibly sand-blasting back then) might have removed the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 13, 2012 16:15:59 GMT -5
Rich, that is what I meant by centuries of shadow in those niches leaving an outline creating this optical illusion. Really had me going there for a minute.
|
|