Originally Posted by PRobb
I thought Mr. Hitchcock was asking about breath mints.
I was kidding about the Photoshop
I'm sure this was composited the old-fashioned way, in the darkroom.
Originally Posted by binarymilton
I saw an original print of the photo last night, it's part of an exhibition of photos from the Hollywood golden age that's on in London right now. At the National Portrait Gallery (they've also got an exhibition of Rolling Stones photos from the 60s in the downstairs room concurrently, which is pretty cool too).
I am sad enough to have caught myself thinking "that looks like an SM7" when I saw it.
The photo's genuine, of the period. It's not Photoshopped. It was taken by Clarence Sinclair Bull and I can see why you might think it was doctored. Sinclair Bull was a master of black'n'white exposure/contrast: there are some truly amazing photos of his in the exhibition where things look uncanny, almost 3D. There's another one of Hitchcock sitting opposite the lion at a dinner table.
Presumably just out of shot are some well trained lion handlers ready to step in in case Leo there decided to gnaw on a bit of Alfred Hitchcock. He had quite a bit of meat on him after all.
Of course, I don't doubt this is a period shot. I've seen it a number of times before.
But -- with no disparagement of a fine photog intended -- I really, really, really
do not believe this image is not composited.
For one thing, it looks
composited (aside from contrast issues which I wasn't even considering) -- just look at the way the bottom hem of the curtain of the pedastal 'drapes' on the supposed floor. And look at the shadow around the edges of the lion and pedestal. Honest, I'd bet $5 on this. And I only
bet when I'm sure of winning. Unfortunately for the purposes of such a bet, my knowledge of Hollywood practice and process would preclude me accepting what we might like
to think of as authoritative sources on this. So, even if you have your finger on a write up suggesting that this was the result of a 'real' shoot with Hitch and the lion were really there simultaneously, I'm afraid I would personally not be able to accept that as true.
One last thing, now that we're talking about Hitchcock's presumed proximity to the lion -- that proximity would appear to be about 8 to 10 feet. Now, if that was the case, that would have to be one huge lion
. Look at his size relative to Hitchcock. African male lions max out at about 4 feet high (measured to the shoulder). This guy appears to be considerably bigger in comparison to Hitchcock (although, granted, Hitch was no giant, himself, at 5'7").