|
More of my take on the projection 'colour' TV...
As I see it:
(1) It is a professional photograph. Note the classic shading from dark on the left to light on the right. [We read from left to right. Our eyes seek light areas. Such things combine to produce a 'pleasing' picture.]
(2) It is certainly a real home. Unlikely a photographer would generate a set with a real fire, a mantle with eight knickknacks (that carriage clock is blimey British isn't it), or three hanging pictures. It's too expensive; you can find a real home with less trouble.
(3) Soft diffused lighting. There are no shadows. Compare this image to the other that is full of shadows.
(4) Here's the biggie: there is strong evidence of retouching. If that is so, it's a short leap of faith to believing that the TV image was also 'manipulated'.
My Analysis:
The subject of the picture is a TV set displaying a color picture. The photo editor wants your eyes to find the TV set. To do that, HE (remember this is the early '50s) makes sure the TV is bright and has sharp edges. Look at the upper edge of the TV cabinet; the wall behind the set is light. How? It certainly did not come from that dim floor lamp. It most likely came from an artist's airbrush, because now the TV cabinet stands out from the dark wall since there is now sharp contrast between the cabinet and wall.
But here's the smoking gun: look at the blowup of the TV cabinet in Wayne's other post. What your eyes didn't 'see' as anything but a natural highlight shows up as a bright artificial-looking line under the 'CRT' area. If that's natural, explain how it happened. You want to ask yourself, what's the source of illumination that is needed to cause that fine, bright beam? Or, for that matter, what on the TV cabinet is reflecting so much of the 'soft' lighting in that room? It looked natural in the overall picture because it created a sharp frame for the 'colour' TV picture , but it looks artificial close-up, because IT IS. It's virtual proof of retouching.
Sooooo, what we MAY have here is a photograph of an experimental, operational colour TV system operating in a home and projecting an image bright enough to overcome room lighting and (as we used to say brainstorming magazine covers) so it will 'bang out' of the page.
I don't think so. What we have here is a picture that was professionally generated to do a job.
Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Pete
|