# Question for the experts



## coloradcowboy (Sep 7, 2017)

Can a picture be slightly distorted simply by distance? The reason I ask is I have been researching a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid photo. One of the men in the photo had his picture taken obviously from a distance and another photo taken as a portrait much closer up. The photographer is the same and it was taken probably the same day. You can tell they are the same person, but his facial features seem slightly off from the portrait photo. Any help would be most appreciated and Ill share more on Butch in a few. On the left is the distant shot....on the right portrait. Again, same photographer, same time period. Could it be a different camera? Both photos are glass slides.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 7, 2017)

coloradcowboy said:


> Can a picture be slightly distorted simply by distance? The reason I ask is I have been researching a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid photo. One of the men in the photo had his picture taken obviously from a distance and another photo taken as a portrait much closer up. The photographer is the same and it was taken probably the same day. You can tell they are the same person, but his facial features seem slightly off from the portrait photo. Any help would be most appreciated and Ill share more on Butch in a few. On the left is the distant shot....on the right portrait. Again, same photographer, same time period. Could it be a different camera? Both photos are glass slides.View attachment 146435



Simple answer to your question: yes.

Distortion isn't the ideal word to use in this case because distortion has another more technical meaning that's different than what you're describing. What you're seeing is a phenomena that involves perspective. In a photograph perspective when the photo is taken is a function of camera/subject distance. When the photo is viewed the viewer to print distance plays a reverse role. Lenses get involved because at a given lens focal length the scene photographed is both cropped and to varying degrees magnified up or down.

It's possible to do all the math to determine what distance from the subject with what lens will render a matched perspective when a print of X size is viewed from Y distance, but photographers rarely do that and when pushed toward extremes of mismatch from that point of equilibrium the subject can appear unnatural. We have different levels of tolerance for these effects depending on the subject. With human faces we are most sensitive.

Joe

P.S. I'm home today canning tomatoes and there's these fairly long breaks: wait till it cools or wait till it's hot. So while I was waiting I shot you an example. I grabbed my camera and my Elvis pez dispenser from my desk and took them to the kitchen. I put Elvis down in front of the tomatoes that just came out of the canner and I took his photo. In the photo on the left I have the camera very close to Elvis -- in his face (about 3 inches) with a short (wide) lens on the camera. Had to move a little to the right to clear the refrigerator as I backed up to the far wall. Second photo I'm a couple yards away and I took Elvis's photo again this time with a long (tele) lens on the camera. I did not move Elvis from his position in front of the tomatoes. The differences you see in the shape of Elvis's face and his spacial relationship to the tomatoes is due to the movement of the camera. The lens change permitted me to crop the two photos about the same size.


----------



## compur (Sep 7, 2017)

Faces are complex things and facial expressions can vary from moment to moment.

Face on left is squinting a bit with head tilted back slightly plus partially open mouth and slightly mussed hair.

Face on right appears to have been retouched  -- cleft chin smoothed over and hairline looks painted and facial lines possibly smoothed.

Lighting is also very different on the two photos accentuating cheek and other features on left face while flattening them on the right photo.


----------



## coloradcowboy (Sep 7, 2017)

Thanks guys. Good information. Here are two other pictures. The center photos are taken at at the same distance as the first picture shown and are believed to be Butch Cassidy and Harry Longabaugh AKA Sundance kid. The outside left/right photos are portraits of the only two known photos of the outlaws. The lines were used to scale up the photos and can be removed if you would like. Bottom photo is the photograph the image came from


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Sep 7, 2017)

so your theory is that butch and sundance worked on the transcontinental railroad when they were 2 or 3 years old?


----------



## Designer (Sep 7, 2017)

coloradcowboy said:


> Can a picture be slightly distorted simply by distance? The reason I ask is I have been researching a Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid photo. One of the men in the photo had his picture taken obviously from a distance and another photo taken as a portrait much closer up. The photographer is the same and it was taken probably the same day. You can tell they are the same person, but his facial features seem slightly off from the portrait photo. Any help would be most appreciated and Ill share more on Butch in a few. On the left is the distant shot....on the right portrait. Again, same photographer, same time period. Could it be a different camera? Both photos are glass slides.


We get this topic quite often on here.  Usually somebody asks "what camera" when what they should have asked is "what lens" on my camera.  Usually the conversation will touch upon lens focal length, camera sensor size, angle of view, and distance from lens to subject.  Sometimes one of the more experienced professionals will dig up a website that illustrates the differences resulting from using different lenses.  

The example photos you posted have some obvious differences besides what you've already mentioned.  Different lighting, different angle of the subject's face, different distances, and most likely different lenses as well.  So the facial proportions are not the same for several reasons.


----------



## compur (Sep 7, 2017)

Bill The Lurker said:


> so your theory is that butch and sundance worked on the transcontinental railroad when they were 2 or 3 years old?



There were a number of US railroads built in the latter part of the 19th century well into the 1890s and beyond.


----------



## compur (Sep 7, 2017)

coloradcowboy said:


> Thanks guys. Good information. Here are two other pictures. The center photos are taken at at the same distance as the first picture shown and are believed to be Butch Cassidy and Harry Longabaugh AKA Sundance kid. The outside left/right photos are portraits of the only two known photos of the outlaws. The lines were used to scale up the photos and can be removed if you would like. Bottom photo is the photograph the image came from



To my eye they could be the same guys as the railroad workers.

BTW, it's my opinion that much of the old west lore about outlaws and such is BS.


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Sep 7, 2017)

yes but in general that photo is associated with building the transcontinental. according to the brigham young library, which apparently has the negative, they place it around 1900, so it's probably not the transcontinental, i guess. dry plate gelatin so 1900 us credible.

there's some theory running around that it depicts longabaugh and parker. sure it could but in  all liklihood it does  not. 

either it does and they were for some reason working on a railroad gang in utah mugging for pictures bang in the middle of their robbery career, or it does  not.


----------



## coloradcowboy (Sep 7, 2017)

Designer said:


> coloradcowboy said:
> 
> 
> > The example photos you posted have some obvious differences besides what you've already mentioned.  Different lighting, different angle of the subject's face, different distances, and most likely different lenses as well.  So the facial proportions are not the same for several reasons.
> ...


Can you explain what you mean on inverse square jaw?


----------



## coloradcowboy (Sep 7, 2017)

Bill The Lurker said:


> yes but in general that photo is associated with building the transcontinental. according to the brigham young library, which apparently has the negative, they place it around 1900, so it's probably not the transcontinental, i guess. dry plate gelatin so 1900 us credible.
> 
> there's some theory running around that it depicts longabaugh and parker. sure it could but in  all liklihood it does  not.
> 
> either it does and they were for some reason working on a railroad gang in utah mugging for pictures bang in the middle of their robbery career, or it does  not.


Ive gone through all the BYU photos. Im 99.9% sure the date is between Oct. 24-Nov.4 1901


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Sep 7, 2017)

the ears should be sticking out further in the longer-away shots, just as a single point of interest


----------



## compur (Sep 7, 2017)

Bill The Lurker said:


> yes but in general that photo is associated with building the transcontinental. according to the brigham young library, which apparently has the negative, they place it around 1900, so it's probably not the transcontinental, i guess. dry plate gelatin so 1900 us credible.



What you don't seem to understand is that there was more than one transcontinental railroad built at different times.


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Sep 7, 2017)

and i don't care because it's not relevant to the current issues

my remark was related to what turns up when you google search for the thing, which is generally wrong material anyways, the BYU material is actually connected to reality

it's still probably not butch and sundance. the OP is doing the usual thing with 'this photo could overturn history' without understanding of how history is written. a single picture with no supporting evidence is meaningless. when it contradicts existing evidence it is regregtfully filed away with 'probably not relevant, but keep it around in case something elseturns up'

all the photographic analysis in the world won't change that


----------



## Designer (Sep 7, 2017)

coloradcowboy said:


> Can you explain what you mean on inverse square jaw?


Law.  

The inverse square law is the relationship between the energy of light and distance. The "power" of light falls off in proportion to the square of the distance.

I think we should demand that this law be overturned because it messes with my photography.


----------



## coloradcowboy (Sep 7, 2017)

The RR they are working is the Sanpete Valley RR. It ran from Thistle, Utah to Marysvale, Utah. It comes down to the photo is either Butch and SK or it isn't. I had a forensic expert do analysis on it. Here is one of the  stories if your interested. 
Were 'Butch and Sundance' among Sanpete railroad roustabouts?
Butch was seen by various witnesses robbing the Great Northern Railway July 3, 1901. The photo is roughly four months after this. Without revealing facts that will be coming out soon in a publication, Butch had a Wild Bunch connection to the area where this photo was taken. I do not believe he was just out making a few bucks fixing RR ties. I think the photo happened by shear chance. BTW when the photo was taken, they were all looking into the sun, thus making them squint. Butch's mouth is smirking because he has a cigarette in the corner of his mouth.
As I stated at the beginning of this thread, I wanted to get thoughts on distortion because the RR photo is from a distance, the other known photos are close ups. It also appears to be overexposed. I appreciate your comments on this.


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Sep 7, 2017)

you got your forensic expert giving you a positive id what you need us for?

it's not like you were gonna listen to any answers that conflict with the one you want.

still if your serious look at the ears


----------



## coloradcowboy (Sep 7, 2017)

What do I need your opinion for? Because Im trying to get to the truth. If its not them, Im a big boy and can live with it. To me, one forensic expert is a good start, but nothing wrong with getting an idea of how a camera works at different distances. SK right ear appears to be a distorted in the RR photo. It looks like either he is missing the top part of his ear(which I doubt) or the camera didnt pick it up for whatever reason ( one of the reasons Im asking for help) or the shadow is hiding it. Ive got no issues with Butch's ears. However, the biggest comments I get on Butch is that the corner of his bottom right jaw is not quite as square as these other two pics. The reason Ive contacted the forum to see if  its because of the distance of the shot


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Sep 7, 2017)

ears appear to protrude more from the sides of the head the further away you get. what happens to the appearance of ears in these photos?


----------



## coloradcowboy (Sep 7, 2017)

SK impossible to say because the RR photo he is looking straight on and the other two photos are at an angle. Butches ear to the left doesn't stick out quite as far in the RR photo, ear to right is more/less equal


----------



## compur (Sep 7, 2017)

It's possible that a lens could make something appear more or less rounded (if that is what you're asking) but it would have that effect on everything in the photo, not just one person's chin, and the distance to the subject wouldn't affect that.


----------



## coloradcowboy (Sep 7, 2017)

Interesting. Thank you.  So with that being said, do you see any roundness features in the first picture I posted ( guy on left)


----------



## Bill The Lurker (Sep 7, 2017)

it's pretty obvious the guy in the railroad photo has ears flatter to his head than the two photos of cassidy, the jaw is rounder, and the shoulders are all wrong as well, but it could still be cassidy. people change shape, light plays odd tricks on us. the dude looks substantively dfferent though.

absent corroborating evidence the picture is meaningless. folk stories about butch being in the area are not very useful because every area, as the article you poited to says, has those stories. show me a letter, show me a hotel ledger, show me a physical artifact. give us even a credible bit of testimony. a picture that looks kinda like maybe it's.. means nothing. i could dig up fifty pictures that look kinda like. i'm related to a guy who looks as much like cassidy as that guy on the tracks.

the lines on the pictures prove nothing except that the three faces are of normal proportion. i found butch myself, look.

your forensics person is a sketch artist, by the way. doesn't mean she doesn't know how to do this stuff, of course. though we can tell that she can't do this stuff by the fact that she's id'd a guy who doesn't look like butch cassidy as butch cassidy.

(don't worry that pix isn't copyrighted, i dint steal it)


----------



## coloradcowboy (Sep 8, 2017)

thanks for your opinion. Now that you've found the picture of a guy that looks nothing like Butch, break down each one of the squares you've created with the horizontal and vertical lines and compare to Butch. BTW the lines were done by me not the forensic person.


----------



## limr (Sep 8, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> I grabbed my camera and my Elvis pez dispenser from my desk and took them to the kitchen.



I interrupt this technical discussion to note the sheer awesomeness of your having an Elvis pez dispenser.

That is all.

Carry on.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 8, 2017)

I'm surprised no one has told OP to search on the term "perspective distortion"
for examples of what Ysarex was elaborating about

these may give you more insight into what some are talking about especially with the ears, nose, face, etc.

for example ==> http://gizmodo.com/5857279/this-is-how-lenses-beautify-or-uglify-your-pretty-face
or
==> Does Focal Length Distort Subjects?


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 8, 2017)

limr said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > I grabbed my camera and my Elvis pez dispenser from my desk and took them to the kitchen.
> ...


Yeah, I was going to mention that too.  LOL  
how cool


----------



## Designer (Sep 8, 2017)

coloradcowboy said:


> Can a picture be slightly distorted simply by distance?


If the same lens was used, I would say no.  I pointed out several other factors that would influence the facial proportions, but if the exact same lens was used for both photos, then distance alone would not be a factor.  

Now I wonder how much you know about the camera and lens(es?) used in the two photographs?  You would have to know exact details, such as the name of the manufacturer, the model (if it had a model name) and maybe even the serial number, because given that lenses of that era were probably all hand made, (my guess) then there might be minute differences between lenses of even the same make and model.


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 8, 2017)

limr said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > I grabbed my camera and my Elvis pez dispenser from my desk and took them to the kitchen.
> ...



Elvis and Jesus watch over me while I work. My wife likes to come along and turn them so they're talking to each other. Jesus is saying to Elvis, "Love ya Baby."

Joe


----------



## limr (Sep 8, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Star Wars and a hula dude for me.


----------



## coloradcowboy (Sep 8, 2017)

Nice Pez dispensers and example of distance. Perceptive distortion is a new one for me. It was interesting to see the many comparisons on google


----------



## compur (Sep 8, 2017)

... but perspective distortion doesn't make square jaws round.

In any case, I don't think the round jaw line poses that much of a problem. Jaw lines can change shape due to weight gain or loss, illness, injury or other factors.


----------



## coloradcowboy (Sep 9, 2017)

Thanks. He does look a little heavier. Ive also wondered about the two known photos of him (left and right photos) He looks husky on the left and looks much thinner on the right.


----------



## snowbear (Sep 9, 2017)

limr said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Here's a surprise - polar bear.


----------



## compur (Sep 9, 2017)

In those days photos were not all that commonplace. Without a photo, a crook could just change his name and no one would be the wiser unless they happened to run into an actual eyewitness to their crimes.







It sure was accommodating of The Hole In The Wall Gang to get shaved and bathed and all dressed up and have this clear and sharp professional portrait taken of them so that lawmen would have a much easier time locating and identifying them and courts would have a much easier time convicting and sentencing them to prison and/or execution.


----------



## benhasajeep (Sep 9, 2017)

compur said:


> ... but perspective distortion doesn't make square jaws round.
> 
> In any case, I don't think the round jaw line poses that much of a problem. Jaw lines can change shape due to weight gain or loss, illness, injury or other factors.



Height of camera center line and tilt of the head (fore / aft, side to side) will change features like jaw line, cheek bones, brow, etc.

If you notice if it's the same person.  The one on the left brows are higher than the top of the ears.  While on the right they are about same height.  One could have head back a little, other other head forward.  That will change the jaw line.


----------



## coloradcowboy (Sep 10, 2017)

benhasajeep said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> > ... but perspective distortion doesn't make square jaws round.
> ...


Thanks for the input. I appreciate it.


----------

