Wow Gary you sure have a lot to say about something you have very little info about. First, NO KIDDING you didn't find this image on Google images, because as I said in the first post, it came from a neighbor. He has a big box of family photos, this was in them. I doubt it has seen much outside his own family. In fact if it was a fake, odds are it would have been published more. There are all sorts of web pages full of faked images back from the early days of photography
Two, what can be done rather easily today in Photoshop, was a real PITA in the darkroom. I have done a lot of merged photos back in the film days (Bachelors Art/Photo 1989). Most faked images became postcards or travel photos back them. Once again, I doubt the photographer would go through the hassle of only doing one.
Third, The image is the typical size of images that were contact printed from the film of the day. I don't think 620 was around quite yet, but I would say it's a Kodak print from a box camera
The image I scanned is small and the aging is not faked It was aged about as much as you would expect for a 90 year old photo.
You remind me a lot of all the naysayers we had a few years ago when someone posted a photo of Mike Wolff and the President of Lionel posing next to a baby stroller (his child or grandchild) at York. People over analyzed that photos for weeks. It was really quiet a hilarious site to see everyone trying to explain why they thought that photo was fake (It wasn't). Maybe you should go find that one for us
