Talk:Tutankhamun/Archive 3

message: I suspect Petrograd was talking about Perspective distortion (caused by camera to subject distance). This seems to me to be the most logical explanation for the difference in facial features, especially the ears.
::Right.  I apologize for my old school summary; it's true though that macro lenses are constructed intentionally to amplify natural perspective distortions. (Petrograd 10:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. I selected the Harry Burton black and white photo mostly because it showed the mask at an off-angle, different than the main image.  It also showed the mask without a goatee, giving a slightly different visual interpretation of the face.  But most importantly: you can more clearly see that the lips and nose do not project in an exaggerated way. (Petrograd 10:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: {This is a recap of comments I made on now-deleted image talk pages long ago} Of course, the flattening of the ears is evidence of the macro lens, but the features are still distorted from the orthographic projection. The Discovery Channel image is covered below, but it, also, suffers from macro-lens distortion. Jim Apple 05:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos and perspective 

message: Wow...
It's like you didn't even see anything I wrote!  Deecee's snarly absolutisms are pretty simple to defeat -- it doesn't require a direct onslaught.  Logic is logic; science is science.  Deecee practices neither.  (Note that the "Discovery Channel" photo of Tut's mask is also done close-in and at a low angle, exaggerating prominences).
All this vituperation has highlighted, for me, Wikipedia's fundamental flaw: user egos.  With that now acknowledged and understood, I leave you to your war.  Goodbye, Wikipedia.
(Petrograd 18:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  If the problem of "distortion" is the same, then tell me:  why are the ears not flattened?  So, you're telling me the Discovery Channel doesn't have the good sense to present a decent, accurate photographic representation of Tut's death mask?  Or, perhaps it's a conspiracy from the "Jew-controlled" media -- like, say, www.returntoglory.org??  Worse still, is Discovery Channel the tool or co-conspirator of "a radical Afrocentrist cult"?  Uh-huh.  And "vituperation"?  You seem to forget you're the one who was admonished about your snide, nasty, ad hominem attacks -- not I.  Bye, Pharlap -- uh, I mean Petrograd.  Don't let the doorknob hitcha.... deeceevoice 18:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My answer to this was deleted when these images and their talk pages were deleted. For the record, I'll add it here: The ears are somewhat flattened, and you will see that the posts sourrounding the frame are curved in the image, though they clearly aren't in real life. The DC photographer probably didn't think that the slight distortion in his image would have any scholarly consequences. Jim Apple 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim. 

message: Since Petrograd is gone, I have asked that this page be unprotected on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Request_to_unprotect_Tutankhamun and User talk:JCarriker#King_Tut_edit_war. Jim Apple 17:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotection 

message: First up, I removed three images that are tagged as potential copyright violations.
Secondly, the "close up" image is extremely misleading. We have thousands of depictions of what the mask actually looked like, and it does not look like it appears in this image. I glanced at the above conversation and have to agree with those who feel that it was either taking with a lens that distorted the features quite dramatically or was modified in photo manipulation software. The coloration also is supsect but could be from poor lighting. Not to mention that it is also a copyright violation.
I certainly would not object to an image like that being included as an example of why some people claim Tut was Nubian, but it absolutely needs to have a caption specifying that the dimensions have been distorted trough use of a lens and the color being dark from low lighting conditions, referring to the image at the top of the article (or elsewhere if we add a comparison of the two) as a more accurate rendtion.
Furthermore, the claims in the caption that the mask is shown on th National Grographic cover to the left is misleading, as that image is clearly of the accurate and undistorted dimensions and coloration. Claiming that the "close up" version is on the cover is simply false.
To top it off, it is clear from the comments that the close up image is being advanced here specifically to take a POV that Tut had Nubian features. This sort of thing should not happen. Editing decisions should be made to cover all important sides, and then explain which sides the experts come down on. The idea that Afrocentrists are trying to sneak their agenda into this article is quite disturbing, especially as it is such a minor part of the scholarly view and generally only held by lay persons. DreamGuy 21:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image problems 

message: my word, this place is a regular adolescent pissing contest!  ease up on the egos a bit and throw in a pinch of egyptology, wouldja?  real science.
the nubia/africa thing cracks me up!
i mean, arguing by the artefacts?!  pscha!  take a stroll through cairo museum!
 (Dark droid 06:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  .....riiiiighhhhhttttt.....