New topic
Printableprettymansson said: THERE IS ZERO PROOF THAT THE FIRST PIC IS PRINCE !
 It's not Prince! The film technology available in 1958 was not capable of producing images of the same quality as that first picture. Hell, you can see the difference in technology just by looking at the other pictures that would have come after the first and would have been of better quality.  | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
SexyBeautifulOne said: prettymansson said: THERE IS ZERO PROOF THAT THE FIRST PIC IS PRINCE !
It's not Prince! The film technology available in 1958 was not capable of producing images of the same quality as that first picture. Hell, you can see the difference in technology just by looking at the other pictures that would have come after the first and would have been of better quality. I was thinking the same thing.  surviving on the thought of loving you, it's just like the water
I ain't felt this way in years... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Pic 1: Look at his left pinky! Like someone mentioned, it's like he is singing. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SexyBeautifulOne said: prettymansson said: THERE IS ZERO PROOF THAT THE FIRST PIC IS PRINCE !
It's not Prince! The film technology available in 1958 was not capable of producing images of the same quality as that first picture. Hell, you can see the difference in technology just by looking at the other pictures that would have come after the first and would have been of better quality. What makes you think this. Film technology was just fine in 1958 and even fine in the early twenties and maybe even earlier. I'm not saying this is Prince, I do not know but I have pics from my grandparents from the twenties and baby pics from my parents from the forties and these are great quality pics. You cannot compare the other pictures with the first one. The two pics (with his dad) are screenshots, not pictures and the one with him sitting is possibly a blown up version of a very little picture so it looses quality too. That baby picture can be very well from 1958. Still not confirming it is Prince. But it could be. I've doubted for a long time if the pic with him sucking his thumb was him. People would have questioned this one too if I had posted it alone. But last week I found the one with his dad and him with that red/white shirt and I thought, it IS him. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CJanssen said: SexyBeautifulOne said: It's not Prince! The film technology available in 1958 was not capable of producing images of the same quality as that first picture. Hell, you can see the difference in technology just by looking at the other pictures that would have come after the first and would have been of better quality. What makes you think this. Film technology was just fine in 1958 and even fine in the early twenties and maybe even earlier. I'm not saying this is Prince, I do not know but I have pics from my grandparents from the twenties and baby pics from my parents from the forties and these are great quality pics. You cannot compare the other pictures with the first one. The two pics (with his dad) are screenshots, not pictures and the one with him sitting is possibly a blown up version of a very little picture so it looses quality too. That baby picture can be very well from 1958. Still not confirming it is Prince. But it could be. I've doubted for a long time if the pic with him sucking his thumb was him. People would have questioned this one too if I had posted it alone. But last week I found the one with his dad and him with that red/white shirt and I thought, it IS him. Each decade has had very distinctive differences in regards to film and the quality of pictures printed during the time with the technology available. That print is not from 1958. The coloring of that baby's skin and hair is too well defined, that wasn't yet possible in 1958. Still don't believe me? Google-Image "pictures from 1958" and tell me the distinctive difference that you will notice, that my conclusion is based on. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SexyBeautifulOne said: CJanssen said: What makes you think this. Film technology was just fine in 1958 and even fine in the early twenties and maybe even earlier. I'm not saying this is Prince, I do not know but I have pics from my grandparents from the twenties and baby pics from my parents from the forties and these are great quality pics. You cannot compare the other pictures with the first one. The two pics (with his dad) are screenshots, not pictures and the one with him sitting is possibly a blown up version of a very little picture so it looses quality too. That baby picture can be very well from 1958. Still not confirming it is Prince. But it could be. I've doubted for a long time if the pic with him sucking his thumb was him. People would have questioned this one too if I had posted it alone. But last week I found the one with his dad and him with that red/white shirt and I thought, it IS him. Each decade has had very distinctive differences in regards to film and the quality of pictures printed during the time with the technology available. That print is not from 1958. The coloring of that baby's skin and hair is too well defined, that wasn't yet possible in 1958. Still don't believe me? Google-Image "pictures from 1958" and tell me the distinctive difference that you will notice, that my conclusion is based on. Pfff, now you have me looking for pic's from 1958. Well, this will seriously ruin this thread. This is a train from 1958 
And in this nice link you'll find pics going up to 1941 and they all look fine imo. I notice no difference. There was nothing wrong with picture quality back then. http://www.skyscrapercity...p?t=142692 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CJanssen said: SexyBeautifulOne said: Each decade has had very distinctive differences in regards to film and the quality of pictures printed during the time with the technology available. That print is not from 1958. The coloring of that baby's skin and hair is too well defined, that wasn't yet possible in 1958. Still don't believe me? Google-Image "pictures from 1958" and tell me the distinctive difference that you will notice, that my conclusion is based on. Pfff, now you have me looking for pic's from 1958. Well, this will seriously ruin this thread. This is a train from 1958
And in this nice link you'll find pics going up to 1941 and they all look fine imo. I notice no difference. There was nothing wrong with picture quality back then. http://www.skyscrapercity...p?t=142692 You can not honestly look at this picture and the other picture and think they were taken during the same year. Then again I guess you can. I don't. The color blending (a distinctive quality in a photograph) in the 1958 photo is limited and flat as it was during that time period. This is not so in the picture of the baby. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CJanssen said: I've doubted for a long time if the pic with him sucking his thumb was him.
Those pics were shown in a WCCO report by a cousin of Prince (there are four of them). The first baby pic came out all of a sudden without a source and no one has ever told where it came from. So I don't think it is Prince. If it was him there would be a story behind it. Formerly known as Parade @ HQ and formerly proud owner of www.paradetour.com | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CJanssen said:
: [Edited 2/10/08 13:46pm] Fell in love with this pic the last time it was posted.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i almost fell of my chair when i saw these pics  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Twinkly1 said: CJanssen said:
: [Edited 2/10/08 13:46pm] Fell in love with this pic the last time it was posted. Aaaawwwww... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
that baby ain't him. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
alwayslate said: that baby ain't him.
The first one isn't but all the others are. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jasmine3121 said: alwayslate said: that baby ain't him.
The first one isn't but all the others are. yeah. the newborn pic ain't him. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
alwayslate said: jasmine3121 said: The first one isn't but all the others are. yeah. the newborn pic ain't him.  I don't think so either, but, damn, is he adorable. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
raveun2thejoyfantastic said: Jeffiner said:  He looks like he's singing even then.... 
 Adorable."When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MrBiGsTuFf said: That first pic might well be Prince's baby but it is definitely NOT baby Prince.
sure ok but do you think they heard you? dont worry baby, aint nuthin new, thats just love sneakin up on you ~ bonnie rait | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
that baby pic is not prince. thats eva Pigford from americas next top model. A happy face, A Thumpin Bass, For A Lovin' Race. PEACE. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
SexyBeautifulOne said: prettymansson said: THERE IS ZERO PROOF THAT THE FIRST PIC IS PRINCE !
It's not Prince! The film technology available in 1958 was not capable of producing images of the same quality as that first picture. Hell, you can see the difference in technology just by looking at the other pictures that would have come after the first and would have been of better quality. I'm not here to address the issue of if that's Prince or not in the photo. I'm just curious as to your statement about the photographic technology that existed in the late 1950's How can you make that type of statement without even addressing the film format/filmstocks or even the camera & lenses? A consumer grade camera might have produced an inferior image because the optics weren't too good. These type of camera are what the average joe used to take snap shots.(ie: a kodak Brownie) Now if you had the access to better equipment and better filmstock it would be reflected in the resulting image. (Assuming you knew what you were doing). Your statement suggest that the availabe technology wouldn't allow you to produce a sharp qualtity image which simply isn't the case. Anways.. that's my 2 cents LOL! |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
kstrat said: SexyBeautifulOne said: It's not Prince! The film technology available in 1958 was not capable of producing images of the same quality as that first picture. Hell, you can see the difference in technology just by looking at the other pictures that would have come after the first and would have been of better quality. I'm not here to address the issue of if that's Prince or not in the photo. I'm just curious as to your statement about the photographic technology that existed in the late 1950's How can you make that type of statement without even addressing the film format/filmstocks or even the camera & lenses? A consumer grade camera might have produced an inferior image because the optics weren't too good. These type of camera are what the average joe used to take snap shots.(ie: a kodak Brownie) Now if you had the access to better equipment and better filmstock it would be reflected in the resulting image. (Assuming you knew what you were doing). Your statement suggest that the availabe technology wouldn't allow you to produce a sharp qualtity image which simply isn't the case. Anways.. that's my 2 cents LOL! Hi there! Nice you came by because that was exactly my 2 cents too but I don't have any knowledge of film technology. I'm not saying the pic is Prince (although I would like to) but if you click on my link (under the train pic) you see similar quality pics Iand some even better, they could be from today, it looks great!) from even before 1958. And imo the quality of that baby pic isn't that fabulous at all. So why couldn't it be from 1958 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
To keep the thread complete (I don't have any more babyprince pics)
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CJanssen said: To keep the thread complete (I don't have any more babyprince pics)
 Is that P? Holding Planet Earth and wearing his shades? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jeffiner said: CJanssen said: To keep the thread complete (I don't have any more babyprince pics)
Is that P? Holding Planet Earth and wearing his shades? Don't forget about the gun in his left hand.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Christaro said: Jeffiner said: Is that P? Holding Planet Earth and wearing his shades? Don't forget about the gun in his left hand. Hmm, another nonbeliever.... I just need someone else to tell me that they couldn't make good colorpics in 1963 or so....
I think it is supposed to be a cellphone in his hand. It's all photoshopped (by Prince himself probably) but it is Prince. Common, no-one knows where this pic is from? I'm waiting.....  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Jeffiner said: CJanssen said: To keep the thread complete (I don't have any more babyprince pics)
Is that P? Holding Planet Earth and wearing his shades? And the walk is there too! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CJanssen said: Christaro said: Don't forget about the gun in his left hand. Hmm, another nonbeliever.... I just need someone else to tell me that they couldn't make good colorpics in 1963 or so....
I think it is supposed to be a cellphone in his hand. It's all photoshopped (by Prince himself probably) but it is Prince. Common, no-one knows where this pic is from? I'm waiting..... Emancipation booklet... easy peassy CJ, where'd you get the baby pic? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
paintedlady said: CJanssen said: Hmm, another nonbeliever.... I just need someone else to tell me that they couldn't make good colorpics in 1963 or so....
I think it is supposed to be a cellphone in his hand. It's all photoshopped (by Prince himself probably) but it is Prince. Common, no-one knows where this pic is from? I'm waiting..... Emancipation booklet... easy peassy CJ, where'd you get the baby pic?Very good, you're a real fam. Long time ago, my grandmothers sister used to live in Miniwood, she got to babysit this cute little baby, very talented allready, he could hit the high notes very well... I stole it from somebody's photobucket  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CJanssen said: paintedlady said: Emancipation booklet... easy peassy CJ, where'd you get the baby pic?Very good, you're a real fam. Long time ago, my grandmothers sister used to live in Miniwood, she got to babysit this cute little baby, very talented allready, he could hit the high notes very well... I stole it from somebody's photobucket
Said one fam to another.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
darrenj said: Jeffiner said: Is that P? Holding Planet Earth and wearing his shades? And the walk is there too! Agreed that is Prince... This is my baby!
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
