William Kelly Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Are there different versions (copies?) of the Mary Moorman photo showing different things? Thanks, BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Are there different versions (copies?) of the Mary Moorman photo showing different things? Thanks, BK Hi Bill. There are MANY versions of the Moorman photo, to my eyes they all seem to show the same thing. The only difference to me is that some have the "fingerprin"t and some don't My Moorman Gallery http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...ls.php?album=11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Mary Moorman was hot. (And you can tell her I said so.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 My question is whether there are different copies of the photo, first generation, second generation? How did the fingerprint get on there? Also, Poloroid is famous for deteriating quickly. Are there earlier copies before the fingerprint? Thanks to anyone who knows and responds. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 My question is whether there are different copies of the photo, first generation, second generation? How did the fingerprint get on there? Also, Poloroid is famous for deteriating quickly. Are there earlier copies before the fingerprint? Thanks to anyone who knows and responds. BK The Zippo copy is the only one without the thumbprint. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 My question is whether there are different copies of the photo, first generation, second generation? How did the fingerprint get on there? Also, Poloroid is famous for deteriating quickly. Are there earlier copies before the fingerprint? Thanks to anyone who knows and responds. BK The Zippo copy is the only one without the thumbprint. Jack Surely the Zippo copy as it is commonly known, can't technically be classed as a copy. It is only a photograph which shows the Moorman photograph beside a Zippo lighter. Duncan Nothing technical Duncan. The dictionary says: v. cop·ied, cop·y·ing, cop·ies v.tr. 1. To make a reproduction or copy of. The Zippo print is a reproduction or copy of the Moorman original. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Hi Jack. Do you know the story behind the thumbprint. ? Something to do with having to apply a "fixing agent" to the photo's as they came out of the camera in 1963. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Hi Jack.Do you know the story behind the thumbprint. ? Something to do with having to apply a "fixing agent" to the photo's as they came out of the camera in 1963. ? Yes, Robin. I had one of the very first Polaroids. Prints were brownish and quickly faded in sunlight. Dr. Land quickly came out with a remedy...a little BOTTLE OF FIX with each roll of film. It had inside a plastic handle and felt "coater"; the print was to be placed on a flat surface and wiped with the "coater" which was a combination photo fix and sealant, which made the print "permanent". Moorman 5 was never coated, but put into the pocket of Mary or Jean. I have always assumed the thumbprint belonged to Jim Featherston, who was first to look at the still unfixed print; being unfamiliar with Polaroid prints, he grasped it between his thumb and forefinger, and the skin acid eventually eroded the emulsion. I have had the same thing happen by people who did not know to hold the print by the edges. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 Hi Jack.Do you know the story behind the thumbprint. ? Something to do with having to apply a "fixing agent" to the photo's as they came out of the camera in 1963. ? Yes, Robin. I had one of the very first Polaroids. Prints were brownish and quickly faded in sunlight. Dr. Land quickly came out with a remedy...a little BOTTLE OF FIX with each roll of film. It had inside a plastic handle and felt "coater"; the print was to be placed on a flat surface and wiped with the "coater" which was a combination photo fix and sealant, which made the print "permanent". Moorman 5 was never coated, but put into the pocket of Mary or Jean. I have always assumed the thumbprint belonged to Jim Featherston, who was first to look at the still unfixed print; being unfamiliar with Polaroid prints, he grasped it between his thumb and forefinger, and the skin acid eventually eroded the emulsion. I have had the same thing happen by people who did not know to hold the print by the edges. Jack So the photo of the picture next to the lighter was taken before it was touched? And since the fingerprint is so pronounced, why can't it be positively identified? And are there early, first generation copies of the photo without the print that show more than those copies made later? Thanks, BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Hi Jack.Do you know the story behind the thumbprint. ? Something to do with having to apply a "fixing agent" to the photo's as they came out of the camera in 1963. ? Yes, Robin. I had one of the very first Polaroids. Prints were brownish and quickly faded in sunlight. Dr. Land quickly came out with a remedy...a little BOTTLE OF FIX with each roll of film. It had inside a plastic handle and felt "coater"; the print was to be placed on a flat surface and wiped with the "coater" which was a combination photo fix and sealant, which made the print "permanent". Moorman 5 was never coated, but put into the pocket of Mary or Jean. I have always assumed the thumbprint belonged to Jim Featherston, who was first to look at the still unfixed print; being unfamiliar with Polaroid prints, he grasped it between his thumb and forefinger, and the skin acid eventually eroded the emulsion. I have had the same thing happen by people who did not know to hold the print by the edges. Jack So the photo of the picture next to the lighter was taken before it was touched? And since the fingerprint is so pronounced, why can't it be positively identified? And are there early, first generation copies of the photo without the print that show more than those copies made later? Thanks, BK No, Bill...It would take a week or more for the thumbprint to show up. It was made when the emulsion was still damp. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Hi Jack.Do you know the story behind the thumbprint. ? Something to do with having to apply a "fixing agent" to the photo's as they came out of the camera in 1963. ? Yes, Robin. I had one of the very first Polaroids. Prints were brownish and quickly faded in sunlight. Dr. Land quickly came out with a remedy...a little BOTTLE OF FIX with each roll of film. It had inside a plastic handle and felt "coater"; the print was to be placed on a flat surface and wiped with the "coater" which was a combination photo fix and sealant, which made the print "permanent". Moorman 5 was never coated, but put into the pocket of Mary or Jean. I have always assumed the thumbprint belonged to Jim Featherston, who was first to look at the still unfixed print; being unfamiliar with Polaroid prints, he grasped it between his thumb and forefinger, and the skin acid eventually eroded the emulsion. I have had the same thing happen by people who did not know to hold the print by the edges. Jack Thanks Jack. I agree that it was probably Jim Featherston. I was looking at this photo last night and was thinking exactly the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Hi Jack.Do you know the story behind the thumbprint. ? Something to do with having to apply a "fixing agent" to the photo's as they came out of the camera in 1963. ? Yes, Robin. I had one of the very first Polaroids. Prints were brownish and quickly faded in sunlight. Dr. Land quickly came out with a remedy...a little BOTTLE OF FIX with each roll of film. It had inside a plastic handle and felt "coater"; the print was to be placed on a flat surface and wiped with the "coater" which was a combination photo fix and sealant, which made the print "permanent". Moorman 5 was never coated, but put into the pocket of Mary or Jean. I have always assumed the thumbprint belonged to Jim Featherston, who was first to look at the still unfixed print; being unfamiliar with Polaroid prints, he grasped it between his thumb and forefinger, and the skin acid eventually eroded the emulsion. I have had the same thing happen by people who did not know to hold the print by the edges. Jack So the photo of the picture next to the lighter was taken before it was touched? And since the fingerprint is so pronounced, why can't it be positively identified? And are there early, first generation copies of the photo without the print that show more than those copies made later? Thanks, BK No, Bill...It would take a week or more for the thumbprint to show up. It was made when the emulsion was still damp. Jack Wrong Jack, the thumbprint is visable in all copies of the Moorman, including the zippo. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research...t=1&dir=asc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 My question is whether there are different copies of the photo, first generation, second generation? How did the fingerprint get on there? Also, Poloroid is famous for deteriating quickly. Are there earlier copies before the fingerprint? Thanks to anyone who knows and responds. BK The Zippo copy is the only one without the thumbprint having etched away most of the emulsion, although parts of the print are beginning to appear. But the Zippo shows the parts not seen in later copies. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 My question is whether there are different copies of the photo, first generation, second generation? How did the fingerprint get on there? Also, Poloroid is famous for deteriating quickly. Are there earlier copies before the fingerprint? Thanks to anyone who knows and responds. BK The Zippo copy is the only one without the thumbprint having etched away most of the emulsion, although parts of the print are beginning to appear. But the Zippo shows the parts not seen in later copies. Jack Wrong once again. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research...=20&dir=asc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Nothing technical Duncan. The dictionary says:v. cop·ied, cop·y·ing, cop·ies v.tr. 1. To make a reproduction or copy of. The Zippo print is a reproduction or copy of the Moorman original. Jack Be careful Jack ... Duncan seemingly doesn't like dictionary definitions because when reviewed they add clarity to the meanings of the text written. On another note: You once said that only the Drum Scan shows the gap between the pedestal and the colonnade window in the background and yet every copy I have seen shows the same gap. Is there any chance that you could tell me what Moorman print shows a closed gap like your re-creation photo did in the 'Moorman in the Street' debate? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now