All

Have just done a quickie experiment to ascertain how different the TS face might look if it had been obtained by contact-imprinting, resulting in some lateral expansion (see earlier). It's a crude experiment, admittedly, but a photo of the as-is TS image on plain paper was stuck to the side of a wine bottle so as to cover about a third of the circumference, then re-photographed.

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/befor...

That's the regular image (left) from Shroud Scope on the left versus the ssumption-laden curvature-adjusted image (right).

So which is the correct one - the fuller face, or the leaner sallow look? I leave it to readers to judge.

PS: For the sake of completeness, I ought perhaps to say there's another means available, at least in principle, to imprint off a 3D template with minimal 2D image distortion, at least one without 'sticky-out' bits (like that problematical nose we all come equipped with).

What one does is to invert the geometry. Instead of laying the subject down and spreading linen on top, one spreads the linen over some kind of underlay with plenty of 'give' (but not too much) and presses the template DOWN into the linen.

Now you might think that would cause too much wrap-around effect, giving rise to the dreaded lateral distortion. But if you take, say, a Cola bottle as your model template, and press it down sideways into linen spread over several layers of woollen jerseys, you may get a surprise. Such is the resistance of wool to being compressed that one can only "bury" about a third of the bottle's circumference, such that any attempt to capture raised relief (like one has on a coke bottle) results in a partial imprinting only.

Now here's the interesting part: recalling school maths, with circumference = 2pi times r, an imprint from just 1/3rd (approx) of a circumference when opened out and laid flat has a width that is the full diameter of the bottle! So the imprint looks like one that is the full- width of bottle when in fact it's captured just a third of the relief. In the case of the human face, admittedly not perfectly cylindrical, the result is a passable imitation of the face with "correct" width, but the eyes a bit further apart than they should be (easily overlooked) but - the giveaway) - severe image cutoffs at both sides of the face, approx at cheekbone level, with no prospect of imprinting the ears.

Ring any bells? Yup, that's precisely what one sees with the TS face - sharp cut-offs left and right to give a mask-like appearance, with missing ears! So that mean ol' wrap-around effect can actually be made to work to one's advantage - whether TS modeller Mark 1 (mid 14th century) or internet-modeller Mk2 (early 21st century).

There's a caveat if adopting the above routine, ie. inverted press-down imprinting, with a real human face. One needs to choose someone with a snub-nose. If the nose is too pointy, one's imprint is likely to have some tell-tale creases radiating diuagonally-downwards from the tip of the nose. The linen gets rucked, and it happens 'out-of-sight'.

That's why I went for the original "face-up" mode of imprinting, but using the imprinting medium (flour sprinkled onto an oil-coated face) to keep the imprinting restricted to the highest relief only (i.e. by carefully wiping the medium off the extremities of the face where the frontal plane curves round to each side i.e.receding plane, which is where one wants the imprinting to stop). The linen can be stretched in upright mode around and beneath the chin, avoiding those diagonal creases, but introducing a new one - approx horizontal at chin level, maybe with a kink in the middle. Again, ring any bells?

Can't get round the distortion problem with a real human face you say?

That's what Itoo thought for the best part of 4 years, Allen, tending to believe Luigi Garlaschelli when he said a shallow bas relief would have needed to be used for the face. But then I got to wondering if it might be possible to imprint off a human face as if it were a bas relief, i.e. capturing the highest relief only.

Some recent experimentation has given some promising answers. One selects an imprinting medium to smear over one's face that is then 'tidied up' so to speak, i.e. wiping it off all the places you DONT want imprinted, like the sides of the face. You then press your coated face into taut outstretched linen, so as to capture the facial equivalent of a shallow footprint in the sand, a pseudo bas relief so to speak. Hey presto you have your distortion-free imprint, it not mattering whether the linen wrapped around the side of your face, provided there was no medium there to imprint.

Where there's a will, to say nothing of big reward for a successsful medieval-era outcome, there's a way.

See this, my latest posting, for practical details, using oil/dry white flour imprinting onto wet linen, followed by oven-roasting to model the TS.

https://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/modellin...

As should be clear from my earlier comments. You can't get past the distortion problem.
Appreciate the terms, thanks!
“lateral distortion”
“wrap-around effect”.

Two years ago or so, I would have agreed with you Stuart that the image on the TS was NOT that of the crucified Jesus, but an artist's portrayal of the barbecued Jacques de Molay.

But it was necessary to account for the crucifixion paraphernalia (yes, clearly visible have to say, as do others) on the Lirey medallion, despite its small size (6cm x 4cm). I got round that by supposing that the body image was imprinted first, using a hot metal template - the so-called "scorch hypothesis" - target I might add for much ill-informed and frankly hostile, mainly pseudoscientific criticism- and displayed secretivelly in Templar initiation rites etc as described in somewhat vague terms by Barbara Frale.

Later, maybe a few decades, the potential of the image was realized as a lucrative draw for pilgrims to de Charny's 'private' chapel at his Lirey country seat, read cash cow for a chivalrous knight with a predilection for getting captured and ransomed by the English foe (twice!). Yes, It may have been displayed initially by de Charny himself, maybe without deception as a 'liturgical prop' in conjunction with something else - like a wooden statue of the crucified Jesus, as suggested recently on the lapsed shroudstory site by BSTS Editor Hugh Farey OR maybe by his widow, immediately following her hubby's death at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356.

The re-invention required addition of blood including those 372 scourge marks in all the right places - while noting the Adler/Heller claim that blood was imprinted BEFORE body image - but there's a possible flaw in their interpretation of the experimental observations under the microscope that can wait for now.

In other words, I was suggesting that a Mark 1 Templar exhibit was re-invented and Christianized so to speak, it being handy that Jacques de Molay and Jesus were both reputed to have facial hair (we'll gloss over the age difference, and/or whether the faint negative image allows one to estimate age at time of death).

So what suddenly caused me to drop the Templar connection altogether, and with it the idea that the image was a simple contact scorch from a hot metal template? Answer: the Machy mould for a Lirey medallion that followed ( or possibly preceded) the one that is in the Cluny Museum in Paris.

Are you au fait with Ian Wilson's two monograph (pdf) articles in BSTS newsletters on the Machy mould? I expect you are, being well-informed, but I'd be happy to provide a short summary and overview on my previous postings on the subjec if you wish.

The key feature, replacing the crucifixion paraphernalia on the Cluny badge is the addition of what Wilson describes as a "disembodied face" above the word SUAIRE ("shroud"). Curiously he fails to link the two, despite being next to each other, but I think I know why they were added.

Think another contact imprint, arguably more legend than history, a supposed "holy relic", immediate smaller-scale antecedent of the TS, one that was drawing huge numbers of cure-seeking, indulgence-paying pilgrims to Rome in the 1350s, the subject of a posting on this very site in December last year, one to which I'm presently composing a belated response!

Best stop here. Now back to that other 'holy relic'.