William. a question

[Frank Agbat]

[

Frank; I was told by Tom Wilson before he died that the shadow of what is said to be "the fork of the tree", is not in fact the forked shadow from the tree. He said that the shadow of the fork would have been much further toward the street due to the height of the tree. (perhaps covered from view by the car) ..., the shadows were longer as the sun was lower in the southwest in November around noon. If this was Aug., the shadow would be about where it is now but not in November, he said. Also, he pointed out it was the slooping hill which make the shadow of legs appear larger than normal due to the slope of the hill. I do not know about all that. None the less, he did say there were two people he had found there and he was going to do more work on that area. he died soon after I talked with him.

William,

I'm reasonably certain that the predominant "fork of the tree" is not what cast the shadow. It is in the wrong place *and* in the wrong orientation.

Additionally, I'm beginning to have some questions about the density (darkness) of the shadows underneath the "tree with the fork" as compared with other objects in the photograph. Now, that said, it may be legitimately explained as a side-effect of halftoning the image (as we are looking at a scan of a printed copy). Likewise, it could have something to do with the nature of the film involved.

However, to be completely honest, this area of the photo strikes me simply as "too dark" and "damned irregular." The swath of "shadow" seems too dark, and isn't going the right direction. I'll need to study this more...

[Robin Unger]

Closer view of the " fork "

[Robin Unger]

Edited:

Double Post.

Edited October 30, 2006 by Robin Unger