11 replies to this topic

[rg]

the date stamped on the back of the portrait photo of American Ballet Theatre director Lucia Chase is January, 1961.
the newspaper archive stamp identifies the Detroit News.
not much more information is given.

Attached Files

•  LC61fotoWM.jpg   235K   70 downloads

[richard53dog]

rg, on 06 August 2010 - 09:32 AM, said:

the date stamped on the back of the portrait photo of American Ballet Theatre director Lucia Chase is January, 1961.
the newspaper archive stamp identifies the Detroit News.
not much more information is given.

Wow, my first thought ( ) was if this was retouched, what did the original look like? According to wikipedia, Chase had a birth date of 1907, which would make her 53-54 at the time this photo was taken and she looks like that age or maybe even a bit older here. Nothing at all like the "magic" done today where a 50 year old person can be "processed" until they appear no more than a very frozen looking 25.

But then I looked a bit closer at the photo and noticed the rectangular fuzzy area around Chase's face, so I agree this photo
was worked on. Poring over it, it's possible that the right side of her face had the line redone, perhaps to straighten it out .

I don't recall if Chase smoked, perhaps if she did, that would have added some years to her looks.

[Helene]

Wow, you are a tough audience

[Mel Johnson]

I agree that it's Lucia, and the photo was worked on.  I had thought initially that the fuzzy area around her head was a result of "dodging" to make her face stand out, but then I saw that the "nimbus" extended into the border of the print area of the picture, meaning that it was brushwork on the surface either with white watercolor or photo bleach, removing background.  There are also markings for cropping the image down just to the face.  I don't know if her nasolabial fold has been retouched, but if you look at her eyebrows, you'll see that they are extraordinarily black and not lined up well with her actual browline. She would never have permitted herself to appear like that in real life, so I have to conclude that that area has been retouched as well.

[richard53dog]

Helene, on 06 August 2010 - 02:34 PM, said:

Wow, you are a tough audience

I agree I wasn't being particularly gallant. But when I first looked at the photo earlier today, my thought was that Lucia looked to be about 60 in the photo. I checked on her birth date and was surprised to find that she was only 53 in January of 1961. So it didn't seem that the retouching worked any miracles, certainly nothing like the often unbelievable results we see today of images photoshopped into looking almost like some kind of undead being.

[Helene]

In my next life, I want to be the Photo-shopped version.  At least for a week or two.

[rg]

to clarify: my ref. to the retouching was to explain the gray-painted background and the crop-marks, not to belabor "how" Chase looks facially, etc.
this was 1961 and the 'period' strikes me as matter-of-factly evident in the photo.

[richard53dog]

rg, on 06 August 2010 - 06:22 PM, said:

to clarify: my ref. to the retouching was to explain the gray-painted background and the crop-marks, not to belabor "how" Chase looks facially, etc.
this was 1961 and the 'period' strikes me as matter-of-factly evident in the photo.

Thanks, that makes it a bit clearer in my own mind. I guess I'm sort of "fixed" on the concept of retouching a photo = making the subject thinner, younger, smoother rather than being used for other more technical purposes such as redefining the proportions and clearing up problems. And so I was expecting a more glamorized effect when I clicked on the photo for the first time.

And let me add thanks again for all the so, so interesting photos you post. I ALWAYS look forward to looking at them whenever
I see a post from you with a photo attached. You really provide something that sets this board apart!

[rg]

likewise, R. i am grateful for a place like ballettalk where there are some individuals who also have an interest in the miscellaneous moments and individuals in the mostly old photos i collect.

to get back for a moment to the 'retouching' question, what i should have stressed was that this photo was retouched for 1960s newspaper reproduction, not for the benefit of the photo itself or the sitter. for all i know the intended placement of this cropped portrait of Chase was a little rectangle at the top of a column of copy.

[Mel Johnson]

Add to that, that the paper was probably using a halftone printing process using a screen which would be considered unacceptably coarse, even in places which still use that technology today.  We forget that the offset image we see in most newspapers now is considerably smoother and of higher definition than the halftone prints of the 20th century.

[Helene]

Just a reminder:  Links to rg's photos are gathered in this forum, by year:

http://ballettalk.in...-to-rgs-photos/

Each year has a series of links to prior years at the top of the page.

They are a treasure trove and Ballet Talk is privileged to have them.

[Amy Reusch]

Frankly, I suspect keeping ABT running might well add a few years to one's age....