New Method To Help Photomatch Shirts - Super Cool!

[TriplexXxSports]

I use a variety of methods to obtain specific characteristics of a shirt in order to have a better knowledge of what to look for in photos and videos. Black & White, Negative Photos, Dark Room, etc.

I came across a very cool method today to help in photomatching shirts and I wanted to share it with all of you and maybe get some thoughts or pics of other GU shirts that might have hidden characteristics.

I was on vacation this past week and while I was laying in my beach chair sipping on Johnnie Walker a new method came to me - Ultraviolet/Blacklight. CSI uses this to see blood and stains that won't show to the naked eye, why not use it to check out a shirt?

I have been working on this Orton Bears shirt for about 6 months now (w/o any success) and I unveiled a whole new light on a possible photomatch/videomatch.

The jersey was tagged 05-44 with NO VISIBLE ALTERATIONS, and a couple of team repairs. I searched every '05 game Orton played in & I could not find a match. After running the blacklight over the jersey I saw the reminance of previous numbers - #87.

Since #87 was used in 2005 by Mushid Muhhamed, I knew it could not be his. After a little research I found that prior to '05 #87 was worn by Justin Gage. (Gage had changed his number to #12 after the '04 season)

It seems as though Orton & Gage were the same size so instead of ordering up jerseys for Orton, they altered an existing jersey with his numbers/name.

Now hopefully I can find a match using pis-n-flicks of Justin Gage and see if I can't match up the team repairs!

I know recycling jerseys is a common practice among professional teams. However, in all my experience (until now) there has always been indications of alterations. This one had NONE that were visible to the naked eye.

Without this new technique, I would have never seen this. I just think this is cool, and a very neat way to get another outlook on shirt characteristics to help aide in the photomatch process.

Anyone have any input? Has anyone else ever tried this? Try it on some of your shirts and post some pics! I am eager to see what others may find that they never knew were there.

HERE'S THE PICS!!!

[sportscentury]

Triple - interesting post. Without being able to "ultraviolet/blacklight" the jerseys shown in the players' in-action shots, I'm unclear as to how this approach would be helpful except in pretty unusual scenarios (such as your Orton shirt). There aren't going to be too many jerseys with alterations that are invisible to the naked eye. As for other markings (bodily fluids), any evidence that this approach would reveal could not be matched to the in-action photos (if it is invisible to the naked eye when the jersey is in hand, it's certainly not going to be observable in the in-action photos). Maybe you could help me to understand a bit better ... perhaps I'm missing something.

With this said, I enjoyed reading your post and I wish you the best of luck with photomatching your jersey (to either player who wore it).

[gwh11]

Matt,
I've used a hand-held UV light to look for things on occasion, but they seem to be a bit more useful for flannel baseball jerseys.

Dave Grob at MEARS wrote an article a few years ago titled "The Use of UV or Black Light". If you are a subscriber it could be referenced in their news article archive.

Guy

[sox83cubs84]

Matt,
I've used a hand-held UV light to look for things on occasion, but they seem to be a bit more useful for flannel baseball jerseys.

Dave Grob at MEARS wrote an article a few years ago titled "The Use of UV or Black Light". If you are a subscriber it could be referenced in their news article archive.

Guy

MEARS also has one at our HQ that gets plenty of use on items submitted for examination.

Dave M.
Chicago area

[TriplexXxSports]

Triple - interesting post. Without being able to "ultraviolet/blacklight" the jerseys shown in the players' in-action shots, I'm unclear as to how this approach would be helpful except in pretty unusual scenarios (such as your Orton shirt). There aren't going to be too many jerseys with alterations that are invisible to the naked eye. As for other markings (bodily fluids), any evidence that this approach would reveal could not be matched to the in-action photos (if it is invisible to the naked eye when the jersey is in hand, it's certainly not going to be observable in the in-action photos). Maybe you could help me to understand a bit better ... perhaps I'm missing something.

With this said, I enjoyed reading your post and I wish you the best of luck with photomatching your jersey (to either player who wore it).

I don't think you are missing anything. But what if the shirt is laundered? Stains will not be as pronounced, if seen at all. Seeing shirts in different light can help highlight lighter, or laundered, stains such as dirty sweat marks or the remains of another stain.

Blood, for example, can wash out without leaving any real visual discoloration and in normal light, seem invisible. Yet, under a blacklight you can see the remains of the blood in its entirety.

In my case it revealed the pre-existing #87, which was 100% nonexistent to the naked eye, so it worked in this case.

Will it work on other characteristics, such as imbedded or laundered stains? I have no idea. That's why I was asking if anyone else has ever done this, or to try it out and if it is successful post some pics.

I have yet to try other shirts, but I will be sure to stay updated.

[sportscentury]

I don't think you are missing anything. But what if the shirt is laundered? Stains will not be as pronounced, if seen at all. Seeing shirts in different light can help highlight lighter, or laundered, stains such as dirty sweat marks or the remains of another stain.

Blood, for example, can wash out without leaving any real visual discoloration and in normal light, seem invisible. Yet, under a blacklight you can see the remains of the blood in its entirety.

In my case it revealed the pre-existing #87, which was 100% nonexistent to the naked eye, so it worked in this case.

Will it work on other characteristics, such as imbedded or laundered stains? I have no idea. That's why I was asking if anyone else has ever done this, or to try it out and if it is successful post some pics.

I have yet to try other shirts, but I will be sure to stay updated.

Triple - okay, I'm on board. This makes great sense (and see, I was missing something). Excellent posts ... thanks for starting what should be a very useful thread as time passes. My favorite threads on GUU are those that have to do with photomatching, and this thread certainly makes a contribution to this "e-literature."

Dave and Guy - can you point me (and all of us) to the articles about this technique?

Thanks.

[34swtns]

Wow, what a cool idea, TXS. Makes me want to pull out all my gamers and hit 'em with the blacklight to see what tales they could tell.

On an Orton note, I have an '04 season Orton home gamer that was most likely used in Kyle's very first pre-season home game, (based on the fact that I've only been able to style-match it to that particular game), but it has almost no visible use so it'll be interesting to see what the UV light shows, if anything. BTW, my Orton is a size 46.

[TriplexXxSports]

Wow, what a cool idea, TXS. Makes me want to pull out all my gamers and hit 'em with the blacklight to see what tales they could tell.

On an Orton note, I have an '04 season Orton home gamer that was most likely used in Kyle's very first pre-season home game, (based on the fact that I've only been able to style-match it to that particular game), but it has almost no visible use so it'll be interesting to see what the UV light shows, if anything. BTW, my Orton is a size 46.

LOL......Orton was at Perdue in '04......