Romulus- you seem to be omitting the above
> image from your comparison, which is a bit
> disingenuous don't you think?
> Not at all. The photo with the lady was made in
> 1910, the one with the man in the white suit about
> 10 years later. But the stains are exactly the
> same. The first pic is taken from a further
> distance so the smaller stains at the sides are
> less visible.
If I'm correct in this assumption, any
> widening of the "stain" you see would be from
> the Victorian era forward, possibly a remnant of
> the cleaning job
> Typical total denial of evidence. I'm an artist
> and a sculptor. I worked a lot with wax. If the
> stains were wax and they were cleaned, you would
> also expect a widening at the top and a very
> irregular pattern of stains. I think it's
> ridiculous to think that someone has cleaned the
> KC from wax leaving behind such a beautiful
> natural pattern.
It's hard to say for sure but this image
> also seems to indicate the texture we'd expect
> from dripping wax
> Not at all, the stains are too irregular. Too much
> movement in the stains. Like I had shown before
> with this picture, dripping wax goes straight down
> and looks totally different.
It's also worth noting that "stain" does
> not reach the floor in this image.
> This supports the idea that the KC floor was
> filled with water.
The flow divergence and irregularity is present in both photographs.
Although better rendered by the later more modern film emulsion. Top photo.
Also the digital scanning resolution in the top, more modern photo is of a higher quality. Less digital artefacts.
I suspect that the older photo is an orthochromatic glass negative of low ISO sensitivity.
The newer photo being panchromatic 120 polyester/nitrate roll film of higher ISO sensitivity.
What are the exact dates of these two photographs?
Is there any evidence of equipment used in each case?
Man in white suit newer photo
Lady in white dress older photo
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 18-Aug-17 10:21 by Jon Ellison.