-
I'm sure that many of you are familiar with the image below, it's a pretty famous shot of Bird and appears on the contents page of the Omnibook:
But I came across the image below the other day on the Getty Images site, and, I'm quite certain that THIS is actually what Bird looked like that day:
It seems like there was some photo editing done on these pro shots! Certainly explains the old story that, at Bird's autopsy the coroner mistakenly estimated his age to be between 50 and 60 years of age! (He was 34!).
Check out the other photos of Bird and decide for yourself: Charlie Parker Stock Photos and Pictures | Getty Images
-
03-29-2018 02:37 AM
-
His liver was that of a 60 year old who drank hard, not the way he looked.
It would have been well-nigh impossible to airbrush out the negative of the latter image to give him a make-over, if it was true that was what Charlie Parker really photographed like. It is really simple with Photoshop to produce the latter image today.
It looks very likely the latter unflattering image is the one that is faked to hell and back.
-
I agree with Jabberwocky, especially since they forgot to photoshop his hand....
-
I dunno guys, even though that's what might seem the most likely answer... Check out these other photos of Bird - the issue with the teeth and skin (even though slightly less obvious with the different lighting) is there:
Also, here's a quote from a PBS article: "On March 9, 1955, while visiting his friend, the “jazz baroness” Nica de Koenigswarter, Charlie Parker died. The coroner cited pneumonia as the cause, and estimated Parker’s age at fifty-five or sixty. He was only thirty-four." (Charlie Parker | About Charlie Parker | American Masters | PBS)
-
Where are you getting these pictures? Because looking at the majority of google images, he looks more like the picture you claim is altered...
Also the first one of your second post shows a Bird much older than the one in your first post. Even still, his skin looks better there....
And trust me, a human can get real old and decrepit looking in a short amount of time, doens't mean that years before his death he was supposed to look like a corpse too.Last edited by Garnoth; 03-29-2018 at 07:35 AM.
-
I'm just picking and choosing from google image search results I came across. One of the above came from the Getty Images site link in my first post and the other was the only other shot I could find that showed the side of his teeth with the issue.
For the record, it's not my intention to put out any false info, I just was surprised when I saw the initial image that differed from the one in the Omnibook.
As far as I know Bird didn't come from a particularly rich family, so having slightly askew teeth vs perfect ones might actually be a bit more likely.
Mostly I'm just kinda curious what's going on here...I didn't know they could edit images this well back in the day, but it's only images from this photo session that appear to have 2 versions on the web. The other pic of Bird above with the bow tie is the only version of that shot I could find.
I honestly don't think it's photoshop but am happy to be proven wrong!
-
Most publicity photos are 'tidied up', goes with the territory. No point in your star looking ghastly :-)
-
Long before Photoshop, film portraits could be touched up and altered significantly in the darkroom. I have done it many times. "Burning" and "Dodging" and selective burring by moving an object or screen between the enlarger projection lens and the paper were all ways to alter a picture. Sometimes also a portrait would be painted very carefully over in certain spots, then re-photographed. Many commercial portrait photographs from the film era were touched up, sometimes quite heavily.
Another truly astounding way to touch up a photo is to use a color negative, then make a black-and-white print, using color filters between the lens and the paper. On caucasians, for example, a red filter screens out facial blemishes producing a BW image with creamy smooth skin. You can see for yourself by using a digital photo editor and taking a color image, and dig into the options in the software for producing a BW version. You'll see red, green, blue filter processes and they produce dramatically different BW results.
-
In this age of fast-flying falsities, I wanted to do a little research about this rather than piling on. Here's what I found.
The May 28, 2006, New York Times had an article about celebrity photography, with the following quote:
It doesn't mention which photo, and that's the only mention of Parker in the article."This is Charlie Parker's first publicity photo. I found the original negative. You can see where they airbrushed a missing tooth."
Getty Images has a description for the toothless Parker photo:
Considering these two sources, I think it's safe to say that the "unretouched" photo is indeed authentic.Jazz musician Charlie Parker poses for a portrait in the studio in 1945 in New York, New York. This is the raw un-retouched image. The photographer James Kriegsmann fixed up the image and it is image #'s 73998693, 73998692.
Adrian
-
I stand corrected, nice find! Although looking at all the photographs of Parker this one is especially unflattering
-
Yep, I was going to point out the tooth and before PhotoShop artist airbrushed.
His music is what made him look so good.
-
ok maybe he’s no Dexter Gordon, but Dexter Gordon was no Charlie Parker
-
interesting, I always thought the first photo was way too clean looking compared to other shots I saw of him.
-
Looking at quite a number of pictures it's fair to say that the first pic was highly touched up. Unfortunately not too many jazz musicians had access to a good dentist or dermatologist back in the day. Even the ones who took care of themselves.
On the other hand, here's an unretouched photo of Keith Richards, showing him to be even older than previously thought...
-
And that’s from 1904. Imagine now.
Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
Looking at quite a number of pictures it's fair to say that the first pic was highly touched up. Unfortunately not too many jazz musicians had access to a good dentist or dermatologist back in the day. Even the ones who took care of themselves.
On the other hand, here's an unretouched photo of Keith Richards, showing him to be even older than previously thought...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
Before this thread, I didn't give a damn what Parker loooked like.
I imagine it'll be the same once I close the tab.
-
Well there is a video of him from 1950 that is a bit more difficult to doctor. Looks in pretty good shape.
-
His image in the original post is a little shocking, but there have been times when I've been ill, run down or been on the pop the day before where I probably look similarly rough. We're human. Maybe Charlie Parker was more human than most, with his brillaince, industry, and self destruction all in excess, a sort of concentrated existence. He lived more than most of us will in half the time!
-
He was an addict, and that imparts a toll -- and bad teeth come often in that territory. I'd rather cotton to the goodness he gave us than focus on the superficial flaws his issues gave him, y'know? Originally Posted by plasticpigeon
I sure hope folks judge me on matters a bit deeper than my own teeth, for fear of being found wanting ... not that I'm in that league, musically, but because there's more important things about me than my teeth.
-
The photographer of that first shot did a particularly bad job with lighting. But photo retouching was common place as early as the 1930’s.
Beauty Retouching from the Early 1900s: A Portrait of Actress Joan Crawford That's 'Photoshopped'
Imgur: The magic of the Internet
-
Originally Posted by lawson-stone
Originally Posted by adrianh
Originally Posted by KirkP
Thanks for the info all Very interesting, glad to see I'm not crazy!! I'm surprised, I didn't know this level of convincing photo editing was available at this time. For me, I actually liked getting to the bottom of this mystery, makes me feel like I know a bit more about a musician I look up to. Good day!
-
i find this thread stoopidly offensive
maligning the gods of jazz with 21st century "looks" blather!!?? before & afters...ugh
who cares what the $^&* he looked like, we should all be 1/10th as great!
bird lives!
cheers
-
It's safe to say Bird knew about these pics and the editing that was done, these were his first publicity photos after all, taken in 1945 just as he was doing his first recording sessions as a leader, he would have seen them used in many places. I'll admit the thread title is a little hyped haha, but hey, it's all in good spirit! Originally Posted by neatomic
Bird's one of my heroes too, not trying to malign him or anyone. Personally I found it interesting and wanted to share.
-
Me too. Thanks for sharing. Originally Posted by Salt Peanuts
It's safe to say Bird knew about these pics and the editing that was done, these were his first publicity photos after all, taken in 1945 just as he was doing his first recording sessions as a leader, he would have seen them used in many places. I'll admit the thread title is a little hyped haha, but hey, it's all in good spirit! Bird's one of my heroes too, not trying to malign him or anyone. Personally I found it interesting and wanted to share.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
When I close my eyes and listen to Bird, I ain't picturing his face. When he's on, I'm picturing my gal's face, or a night on the town, or a smoky backroom ... Originally Posted by neatomic
The guy could look like Oscar the Grouch and I wouldn't give two shits rubbed together.
Reply With Quote
Has anyone tried the JHS Clover preamp pedal?
Yesterday, 05:41 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos