In search of the Hampshire years

[SisterNightroad]

Originally Posted by FuzzyPlum

Saw a couple of pictures when I was randomly looking. Its interesting to see Benifolds now and then. It's looking slightly different;







clearly this image was shot at one of the top floor windows;



I'm certainly not a believer in ghosts but I bet it would have been a creepy house to live in nevertheless!

Danielle on her blog has a high quality version of the bottom photo (albeit in black and white):

[lazy poker]

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad

Danielle on her blog has a high quality version of the bottom photo (albeit in black and white):

. . . not exactly the very same shot - the papers on the floor are missing!

[SisterNightroad]

Originally Posted by lazy poker

. . . not exactly the very same shot - the papers on the floor are missing!

Oh true, and Mick's eyes are slightly on the left. I guess you'll have to settle for a picture without papers (Which now that I take a better look probably are music scores).

[FuzzyPlum]

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad

Danielle on her blog has a high quality version of the bottom photo (albeit in black and white):

Is this some sort of photoshopped filter of the original photograph (or even a very high quality sketch)? I notice there's a line on the wall behind the band that's missing from the b&w. Also, Chris' left arm is in a different position on each pose.

[SisterNightroad]

Originally Posted by FuzzyPlum

Is this some sort of photoshopped filter of the original photograph (or even a very high quality sketch)? I notice there's a line on the wall behind the band that's missing from the b&w. Also, Chris' left arm is in a different position on each pose.

I think the line is just a "stain" of the colored picture.

[FuzzyPlum]

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad

I think the line is just a "stain" of the colored picture.

Hmmm, you might be right but I'm not 100% convinced. Curious that the line stops exactly at the roof line at the top and Johns back at the bottom.
The window in particular looks like a drawing or painting to me.

[nicepace]

Originally Posted by FuzzyPlum

The window in particular looks like a drawing or painting to me.

I see the effect you're talking about, but I think it's just "grain" on the photo. It was probably taken with high ASA film (the equivalent of today's ISO), which would have made the photo more grainy, and also enabled the photographer to shoot in lower light. They probably had film of around 1600 ASA available at that time. Who was the photographer?

[FuzzyPlum]

Originally Posted by nicepace

I see the effect you're talking about, but I think it's just "grain" on the photo. It was probably taken with high ASA film (the equivalent of today's ISO), which would have made the photo more grainy, and also enabled the photographer to shoot in lower light. They probably had film of around 1600 ASA available at that time. Who was the photographer?

The Official Bob Weston website;

'This shot will be of interest to those familiar with the inside cover of "Mystery To Me". This was photographer Clive Arrowsmith's proof just prior to taking the final shots on a large-format camera. It shows that the session was staged in a loft room at Benifolds; the "Mystery To Me" cover print is very closely cropped and provides no such contextual clues'

[lazy poker]

it's definitely 2 different shots as the position of christine's head proves (check the window). chris' hair on her forehead shows changes, too. and - as already mentioned - mick's eyes are looking in slightly different directions.

[lazy poker]

Originally Posted by FuzzyPlum

Hmmm, you might be right but I'm not 100% convinced. Curious that the line stops exactly at the roof line at the top and Johns back at the bottom.
The window in particular looks like a drawing or painting to me.

agreed - no stain! and the window is real - check the crosses' shadows depicted by the sunlight.

[SisterNightroad]

But why removing the line and not the flaking areas on the walls? It doesn't make sense.

[lazy poker]

. . . hmmm . . . i zoomed the colour shot quite a bit - and, well, yes, it may be some sort of "stain" yet.
but apart from that i'll stick to everything else i said on this matter.