# The Past, Framed by the Present



## 480sparky (Sep 22, 2013)

In my scanning in all the old family photos, I came across one I thought would make a unique project.  It's of my grandfather, in his younger years, 'striking a pose' on the lawn of the courthouse where he grew up.  

So this morning, I took that old photo with me to the same courthouse, and figured out where the camera was positioned to take that old photo.  I then took a shot, brought it back to the computer, and superimposed that old photo into the new background.

The result:


----------



## tirediron (Sep 22, 2013)

Neat!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2013)

480sparky said:


> In my scanning in all the old family photos, I came across one I thought would make a unique project.  It's of my grandfather, in his younger years, 'striking a pose' on the lawn of the courthouse where he grew up.
> 
> So this morning, I took that old photo with me to the same courthouse, and figured out where the camera was positioned to take that old photo.  I then took a shot, brought it back to the computer, and superimposed that old photo into the new background.
> 
> The result:



Oh my gosh...as I clicked on your post to open it, I thought this _might be_ the technique you would use! And it was! VERY well-done sparky! I love this treatment, and it's such a cool family photo too. Nice work!


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2013)

I'd re shoot it to match the time of day the picture was taken as well.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 22, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I'd re shoot it to match the time of day the picture was taken as well.



And......... what time would that be? Them old photos have had their EXIF data stripped.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2013)

well, not with shadow cast on the front side of the courthouse.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 22, 2013)

I'm still trying to figure out how you know what time of day the old photo was taken at.


----------



## Ron Evers (Sep 22, 2013)

Well done.

Breaneack makes a good point.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 22, 2013)

OK, so what's the secret of finding out what time the old photo was taken? :er:


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2013)

480sparky said:


> OK, so what's the secret of finding out what time the old photo was taken? :er:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 22, 2013)

Braineack said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so what's the secret of finding out what time the old photo was taken? :er:



Sorry... there's no sundial in the old photo.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2013)

but there are things casting shadows and distracting from the picture that has none in it...


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 22, 2013)

Braineack said:


> but there are things casting shadows and distracting from the picture that has none in it...



Let's cut to the quick:

*What time was the old photo taken?*


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > but there are things casting shadows and distracting from the picture that has none in it...
> ...



I cannot see the old photo very clearly, but it looks to me like I see shadows on him, and on the outside of the building, that indicate the sun was high in the sky. See the shadow on the third floor balcony and railing? That shadow seems to indicate a high sun position. Looks like maybe a bright, hazy day, weather-wise.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 22, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I cannot see the old photo very clearly, but it looks to me like I see shadows on him, and on the outside of the building, that indicate the sun was high in the sky. See the shadow on the third floor balcony and railing? That shadow seems to indicate a high sun position. Looks like maybe a bright, hazy day, weather-wise.



That's not a shadow you're seeing.... it's dirt.

OK, I'll come clean.  If you really look at the old photo, you'll notice there aren't _ANY_ distinct shadows. Heavy over-cast day.  So a sundial would be useless.  Unless I hold a seance, there's no way to tell what time of day the photo was taken.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2013)

What about the shadows on his pant leg? Are there any clues as to a sun position in the original shot? It's a very small photo, but it seems like the right hand side in the photo is lighter, indicating the sun is back and high-up and just ever-so-slightly behind him. I agree...it looks like a hazy day, overcast, whatever, but then again, I cannot literally "see" much in the old photo at the resolution it's shown at. Is it possible this was made during a lunch hour? I don;t know anything about the man...maybe he worked near there? Maybe a frame made right before or right after that one on that roll holds some kind of a clue?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 22, 2013)

Here's the full-rez scan.

As for adjacent images, that's impossible when scanning prints.  No negatives are available.

If there's any shadows that can indicate the time of day, it would be from him on the ground.   Shadows in clothing aren't long enough to be accurate, and shadows from trees won't help because there weren't any trees back then.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Here's the full-rez scan.
> 
> As for adjacent images, that's impossible when scanning prints.  No negatives are available.
> 
> If there's any shadows that can indicate the time of day, it would be from him on the ground.   Shadows in clothing aren't long enough to be accurate, and shadows from trees won't help because there weren't any trees back then.



I have no idea what you're talking about. I pulled the large scan into Lightroom and adjusted the exposure and the curves. It's VERY obvious where the sun is in the photo. The shadows are blatantly obvious. Look at the shadows on the folds of his shirt. Look at the shadows under his arm and lower lip. Look at the raccoon eyes. Look at the shadows on his pants. Adjust the image to emphasize where the light was coming from, and the position of the actual "sun" reveals itself very clearly. It's clear that the lighting is "soft", due to the sun being obscured by clouds, but there are plenty of directional clues (shadows) that still exist.

http://lowel.com/edu/foundations_softlight.html


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 22, 2013)

Derrel said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the full-rez scan.
> ...



I give up.

All this talk about what is possible.  Yet no answer.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2013)

you're too caught up in my use of the word: time.   I'll make it simple for you: Maybe you should re-shoot it to match the lighting of the original?

All I was suggesting is that maybe it was look better without the courthouse in shadow and the tree's shadow cutting across the image.  But we can keep talking about time if you really want to.  My guess is 2-3pm on an overcast day; not 10:30am when you shot.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Sep 23, 2013)

Season would make a difference as well.

Anyway cool image.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 23, 2013)

I sent a copy of this to the CIA for analysis.  They determined the photograph was taken October 19th, 1918 at 2:36:17.56 PM. The temperature was 52.8°F with a 5.17MPH northwest wind at the time.  He had eaten a ham & cheese sandwich (on wheat) for lunch and bacon & eggs for breakfast (with orange juice).  The photo was taken by Raymond Whitcomb. The pH of the soil at the time was 6.7.  His right shoelace broke 3 days after the photo was taken. The birds in the tree in the background are common house sparrows, and the cashier in the restaurant in the background ended up 27¢ short at the end of her shift.  It had also been 48 days since any of the windows had been washed.  The concrete sidewalk was installed by Gorman Construction.  He had purchased his bowtie at Fergusons' Fine Clothing, 9th & Main. His haircut (from Bloom's Barbershop) is 9 days old. He has a small cavity on his lateral incisor, and there's a screw working loose on the left side of his glasses.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 23, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > but there are things casting shadows and distracting from the picture that has none in it...
> ...



no, I'm not. Tree be damned; the courthouse in the original photo is not in full shadow. The tree's shadow cuts through the original photo and it degrades the overall effect.  I think this would look more pleasant overall if the photo was retaken at a different time of day since the original would NOT have had this shadow IF the tree WERE there.



> do you know that there WAS anything to cast a shadow in the old picture?



We don't.  But there's a freaking human being standing in the middle of a lawn NOT casting a long shadow across the entire scene towards the lower left foreground.




> I sent a copy of this to the CIA for analysis. They determined the photograph was taken October 19th, 1918 at 2:36:17.56 PM. The temperature was 52.8°F with a 5.17MPH northwest wind at the time. He had eaten a ham & cheese sandwich (on wheat) for lunch and bacon & eggs for breakfast (with orange juice). The photo was taken by Raymond Whitcomb. The pH of the soil at the time was 6.7. His right shoelace broke 3 days after the photo was taken. The birds in the tree in the background are common house sparrows, and the cashier in the restaurant in the background ended up 27¢ short at the end of her shift. It had also been 48 days since any of the windows had been washed. The concrete sidewalk was installed by Gorman Construction. He had purchased his bowtie at Fergusons' Fine Clothing, 9th & Main. His haircut (from Bloom's Barbershop) is 9 days old. He has a small cavity on his lateral incisor, and there's a screw working loose on the left side of his glasses.



Instead of getting so caught up in one simple critique that you obviously couldn't handle, why don't you take the information you learned from the CIA and go back out and take the same picture but with the sun in a position that doesn't put the face of the courthouse in shadow and the tree's shadow cutting across the lawn to better match the original photo once superimposed on top of it?

Like holy crap dude...If you put half as much effort as you did into improving your picture than trying to be clever online you might have something really cool to show for it.


Btw, your horizons don't match up.  Maybe you can reach out to some geologists to figure out that one?  :roll:


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 23, 2013)

I think sparky has gleaned about as much useful information as he wants/needs on the "time of day" aspect of this photo. 
if there is nothing else to comment on besides that, its time to move along to something else.


----------

