It's definitely hard to say. If the photo was taken in the 1970s, say, it's still considered "vintage." (I'd be okay with a site like this calling a photo from the 1980s "vintage" too, though I think technically that's called "retro.") The sepia tone on it, however, does make it look like it should be from the 1950s or earlier. Frustratingly enough, it does look like it could be anywhere from about 1940 to modern day.
Neither of the men are wearing wristwatches or glasses to "date" the picture. The clothing has no labels and is common looking enough to be almost any era. Even the hair doesn't especially date it. And there's no visual in the background to help either. It's very frustrating.
The term "photoshopped" though can be a bit misleading. I do believe it's a picture more than ten years old of two men standing together holding hands. So, in that vein, I don't think it's photoshopped. (I.e. not a manip, or editing of a picture to show something that's not there, like changing a woman into a man, etc.) Whether or not the photo was digitally tampered with is another thing entirely, and I certainly think that's possible.
Does this sepia toning look similar to the other sepia toned pictures? I've scanned many actual photos from the 1950s-1960s and I've never seen sepia toning that scanned this way. To be honest, if I had to guess, I'd say that was a screencap from a film.
My feeling is that if the photo has been manipulated in any way to make it look older, that's an intentional deception. Especially if the original image is post-Stonewall; to me, the cultural shift is sufficient that a "vintage" image of gay life from 1960 is really different from one dating from 1970 or 1980.
But I never meant to imply that it was completely faked, just digitally aged up.
Does this sepia toning look similar to the other sepia toned pictures?
Yeah, many of them are about that color. And in some cases--where the site showed the before and after "restoration" images--it's clear that a color filter was used.
I know I'm being persnickety about it, but I intensely dislike things being faked and then presented as real history--especially when it's the history of marginalized groups, because such history is disproportionately subject to distortion, disappearance of evidence, etc.
You're absolutely right, of course. I don't think it's persnickety at all. I tihnk it's a very valid concern and quite unfair not only to people like us, but to those two men and to all the queers who WERE out or posed together with other men pre-Stonewall. I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're absolutely right. Maybe you can contact them and ask for more information or even just express your dislike for the restorations? Or even just ask that "restored" pictures be clearly labeled as such.
By the by, did you ever get to see that episode of The Likely Lads that was missing off YouTube? (No Hiding Place) I finally got a copy of it and around to watching it and it's definitely worth a look.
Neither of the men are wearing wristwatches or glasses to "date" the picture. The clothing has no labels and is common looking enough to be almost any era. Even the hair doesn't especially date it. And there's no visual in the background to help either. It's very frustrating.
The term "photoshopped" though can be a bit misleading. I do believe it's a picture more than ten years old of two men standing together holding hands. So, in that vein, I don't think it's photoshopped. (I.e. not a manip, or editing of a picture to show something that's not there, like changing a woman into a man, etc.) Whether or not the photo was digitally tampered with is another thing entirely, and I certainly think that's possible.
Does this sepia toning look similar to the other sepia toned pictures? I've scanned many actual photos from the 1950s-1960s and I've never seen sepia toning that scanned this way. To be honest, if I had to guess, I'd say that was a screencap from a film.
Reply
But I never meant to imply that it was completely faked, just digitally aged up.
Does this sepia toning look similar to the other sepia toned pictures?
Yeah, many of them are about that color. And in some cases--where the site showed the before and after "restoration" images--it's clear that a color filter was used.
I know I'm being persnickety about it, but I intensely dislike things being faked and then presented as real history--especially when it's the history of marginalized groups, because such history is disproportionately subject to distortion, disappearance of evidence, etc.
Reply
By the by, did you ever get to see that episode of The Likely Lads that was missing off YouTube? (No Hiding Place) I finally got a copy of it and around to watching it and it's definitely worth a look.
Reply
Leave a comment