High quality enlargement of Blackdogman

[Bill Miller]

Groden never had a print from a negative, LIFE did.

The half-tone process they used had very little effect on the scanned results because the print they published was so big.

LIFE had the sharper image & there was no loss of resolution when scanned.

With me so far?

The abcense of any "ears" in the scan from LIFE is not because of any errosion, it is because the image is superior to Grodens.

It seperates this figure from the darker parts of the background, Grodens was blurred so it did not.' post='90961']You have to start seperating the two sources, they did not come both come from the high quality print LIFE used.

Groden never got anywhere near a negative & neither did the print he worked with.

Alan, as always you do not have the facts straight. Groden had a friend named Richard E Sprague who was contracted to do some work for Life Magazine. (Richard E. Sprague should not be confused with Richard A. Sprague who worked with the HSCA) Sprague got Groden a print made directly from the original negative Life Magazine had. The difference between Robert's sharp print and the one in Life Magazine is that the Life Magazine image went through a lithographic process which makes the dots that erroded the points (the dog ears) from the Betzner photo when it was placed into a Magazine. Robert also said that he is sure that he obtained prints when with the HSCA that were made from the negative, but regardless ... he says the same thing as I - as Mack - and anyone else with a lick of sense and that is you CANNOT get more information out of a photo than what is already there. In other words - if your magaizine print has the dog ears eaten away ... there is no way to get them back. What you need to do is acquire a print made from the negative that had not been degraded by way of a lithographic process. Of course, if you do that, then your fedora nonsense is shot in the ass.

Bill Miller

Edited January 25, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Also, something else you used to say.

Anytime someone agreed with Bill on Lancer, you would suggest they must be in cahoots with him.

Sometimes I did, sometimes I didn't, that's normal. I think Bill is well aware that many of his followers at Lancer are cowardly weasels with nothing stimulating to contribute.

I thought the remark about people being followers of mine was asinine then and I feel the same way about it now. People there followed the evidence presented in the post - not the person making the post. And now just because Duncan has agreed with me on the BDM issue ... should Alan say that Duncan is in cahoots with me?

I am glad to see that Duncan has reevaluated the evidence of the case regardless of what his prior conclusions were ... it shows character. What doesn't show much character IMO is Alan pointing out old flawed presumptions and using those practices to try and work them into Duncan's stance on the BDM figure. It only shows the weakness of Alan's position.

I too, spend a fair part of the year living in Harrison Hot Springs, BC and I agree with Duncan on the people I have met in Canada. The border guards are not as friendly as the rest of the population, but that may be the stress of their jobs catchiung up with them at time. So because I agree with Duncan about the friendliness of the people of Canada - I guess we must be in cahoots.

Bill

Edited January 25, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Sprague got Groden a print made directly from the original negative Life Magazine had.

What!?!

Groden told you this?

When ....... & why didn't either of you mention it before, to anyone?

Do have a record of this statement & can we see it?

Robert also said that he is sure that he obtained prints when with the HSCA that were made from the negative, but regardless

Regardless?

This is important.

You have Robert saying that he knows for a fact that both LIFE & the HSCA had the negative of Betzner3 right?

Am I reading that correct?

Can Robert give more details in a statement that you can post here, I am sure(as you keep mentioning him) Gary Mack would be interested as well since the last time we talked about this, he was unsure how Groden could of gotten a print from a negative.

Groden never had a print from a negative, LIFE did.

The half-tone process they used had very little effect on the scanned results because the print they published was so big.

LIFE had the sharper image & there was no loss of resolution when scanned.

With me so far?

The abcense of any "ears" in the scan from LIFE is not because of any errosion, it is because the image is superior to Grodens.

It seperates this figure from the darker parts of the background, Grodens was blurred so it did not.' post='90961']You have to start seperating the two sources, they did not come both come from the high quality print LIFE used.

Groden never got anywhere near a negative & neither did the print he worked with.

Alan, as always you do not have the facts straight. Groden had a friend named Richard E Sprague who was contracted to do some work for Life Magazine. (Richard E. Sprague should not be confused with Richard A. Sprague who worked with the HSCA) Sprague got Groden a print made directly from the original negative Life Magazine had. The difference between Robert's sharp print and the one in Life Magazine is that the Life Magazine image went through a lithographic process which makes the dots that erroded the points (the dog ears) from the Betzner photo when it was placed into a Magazine. Robert also said that he is sure that he obtained prints when with the HSCA that were made from the negative, but regardless ... he says the same thing as I - as Mack - and anyone else with a lick of sense and that is you CANNOT get more information out of a photo than what is already there. In other words - if your magaizine print has the dog ears eaten away ... there is no way to get them back. What you need to do is acquire a print made from the negative that had not been degraded by way of a lithographic process. Of course, if you do that, then your fedora nonsense is shot in the ass.

Bill Miller

he says the same thing as I - as Mack - and anyone else with a lick of sense and that is you CANNOT get more information out of a photo than what is already there. In other words - if your magaizine print has the dog ears eaten away ... there is no way to get them back. What you need to do is acquire a print made from the negative that had not been degraded by way of a lithographic process. Of course, if you do that, then your fedora nonsense is shot in the ass.

In your dreams Miller.

Your words mean nothing until we prove where Groden's source of B3 came from.

You keep saying his image is sharper but that's not what the side by side comparison shows us.

Forgetting those blurred ears of yours for a moment, look at the rest of the figure & its surroundings.

Everything is sharper in the LIFE scan, everything!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&id=9641

Look at the foilage behind him, more detail seen in LIFE.

Look at area under the hat(his face) more detail.

Look at the emblem on the hat, more detail.

Look at the wall! Shaper & more detailed.

Look at the smoke, sharper.

Am I missing something?

Would you care to explain how the hell you cannot see how Groden's blow-up is blurred compared to the results we have been given from a HiRes scan from LIFE?

You keep saying Groden's is sharper but you ain't showing us diddly.

[Alan Healy]

Duncan please refrain from chopping posts up like that, not only does it look messy but you could take a sentence out of context if you aren't careful. I see evidence of that in your last reply.

What I said was;

But just remember your own words.

Just because you say I haven't posted anything that looks like a fedora, doesn't mean I haven't.

you chopped that to;

But just remember your own words.

Then you said this thread is a record of your words.

You obviously missed the point.

You told me earlier that "just because I say it's a hat, doesn't make it a hat" remember?

Those are the words of yours I was refering too.

Anyway I know you know how to use the quote box function but just incase you forgot.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8372/image2ib1.jpg

Highlight the text you want to quote & klik that button.

Using bold type not only looks ugly, it's far easier for the reader to know what is a quote if you put in a box, that's why option is there.

Lancer has a different system but it works just as well imo.

[Bill Miller]

In your dreams Miller.

Your words mean nothing until we prove where Groden's source of B3 came from.

You keep saying his image is sharper but that's not what the side by side comparison shows us.

Forgetting those blurred ears of yours for a moment, look at the rest of the figure & its surroundings.

Everything is sharper in the LIFE scan, everything!

No Alan, your definition of detail increasing is simply a process of turning up the contrast of an image. As far as you not knowing where Groden got his prints, then you should have asked him for you have been invited to contact him countless times in order to address what ever questions you may have had.

As far as what I wrote ... I typed as Groden was answering my questions over the phone.

Your ignorance of this whole affair has been due to your lack of understanding of how the lithographic process worked in making that enlarged version of he Betzner image. The fact is that you still do not see that an image with less infromation cannot be closer to the original. In other words, if I take a picture of someone and I run a process that maybe makes their outline look sharper, but removed the tips of their ears or maybe the top of their head is removed in the process, then the end result however more pleasing to the eye is not the closest thing to the original. To date - you have been the only person who seems to not get it. It's not been because you were not made aware of it - its just that you do not wish to get it and I find that to be your problem alone.

Bill Miller

Edited January 26, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

Alan, your definition of detail increasing is simply a process of turning up the contrast of an image.

That's incorrect Bill, it's not that simple, you cannot remove blur by contrast alone.

You do agree that Groden's BDM is blurred do you not?

How can it represent Arnold in your mind if it isn't?

We have to be talking about two seperate sources here, that is the only reasonable explaination why the LIFE scan provides a sharper unblurred image.

It should provide an inferior image but it does not, it's extreemly puzzling & your constant refering to the printing proccess does not explain it at all.

The process that was used to print the half-tone Betzner3 in LIFE does not explain how we could get a better looking image, the only fault you can find is that the Groden ears are missing.

The "ears" are irrelevant when you compare every detail of the rest of the image & this contrast explaination is pretty out there.

If we can see detail in LIFE that is not seen in the TKOAP figure then they must be from a seperate source.

Do you seriously believe if Groden used more contrast on his print he would have gotten more detail out of it?

You have repeatedly said that "Groden's image is sharper", will you ever give us an example of what you mean(& I'm not talking about the missing "ears")?

If Groden photographically enlarged BDM from an original print, that should be sharp & unblurred (since there is no sign of any blur anywhere else in the photo).

This, somehow, was not the case.

As for Groden's B3 connection.

I wanted to be clear, this is actually part of history, no matter how insignificant to some people.

In your dreams Miller.

Your words mean nothing until we prove where Groden's source of B3 came from.

You keep saying his image is sharper but that's not what the side by side comparison shows us.

Forgetting those blurred ears of yours for a moment, look at the rest of the figure & its surroundings.

Everything is sharper in the LIFE scan, everything!

No Alan, your definition of detail increasing is simply a process of turning up the contrast of an image. As far as you not knowing where Groden got his prints, then you should have asked him for you have been invited to contact him countless times in order to address what ever questions you may have had.

As far as what I wrote ... I typed as Groden was answering my questions over the phone.

Your ignorance of this whole affair has been due to your lack of understanding of how the lithographic process worked in making that enlarged version of he Betzner image. The fact is that you still do not see that an image with less infromation cannot be closer to the original. In other words, if I take a picture of someone and I run a process that maybe makes their outline look sharper, but removed the tips of their ears or maybe the top of their head is removed in the process, then the end result however more pleasing to the eye is not the closest thing to the original. To date - you have been the only person who seems to not get it. It's not been because you were not made aware of it - its just that you do not wish to get it and I find that to be your problem alone.

Bill Miller

if I take a picture of someone and I run a process that maybe makes their outline look sharper, but removed the tips of their ears or maybe the top of their head is removed in the process, then the end result however more pleasing to the eye is not the closest thing to the original.

I understand what your saying here but you keep referring to the original image like you have seen it & the blurred BDM from Groden is just that, a blurred figure.

He could be facing away from the camera for all we know, it is that indistinct.

Again I understand your point but its relevance to BDM is questionable.

[Alan Healy]

Understood Duncan