So, just to clarify what the quality of the "bumper" photos posted here represent, at best, in light of the new information (that it's a picture of a picture)---
When a black & white film-type camera takes a picture, the negative is "exposed."
The negative has an emulsion coating which is composed of tiny, light sensitive particles. Different films have different sizes of these particles, which is referred to as "grain." Generally, the more sensitive films are "grainier," and are referred to as "high speed," and they can take pictures in lower light conditions, or faster shutter speeds. These grainier films have larger sized particles, and would correspond to low-resolution in a digital camera. Low speed films have finer grain, the equivalent of higher resolution. The "grain effect" results in tiny grain spots in the final photo.
When the roll of film is completed, it is developed, and put into an enlarger. The enlarger shines a light through the negative and a lens, which projects a larger image onto the "print" paper. The print is then developed, and that is the "photograph" that we look at. This "print" paper also has various speeds, and thus various levels of grain.
So, if I understand correctly, the original bumper photograph was folded, worn, and damaged. Then that picture, itself, was later photographed with another camera. This second shot adds to the original "grain" resolution problem of both the negative and print, with an
additional negative and print.
So that results in the first problem, of the original being damaged by tearing, plus the original was apparently already old and mis-handled and worn, and so it is probably the source of the "crazing" effect on the surface of the photo, as seen on the driver's side fender along with what looks like white "4".
Then a photo of
that photo was taken, adding two more grain factors to the already existing two, making
four separate, totally random, grain "image noise" applications, each one on top of, and modifying, the others. This is like distorting already existing distortion. Three more times. If this effect is the source of the mysterious white "4," then what other shapes and illusions is it responsible for? I don't think there is any way to tell.
With all those grain distortions, the wear and tear of the original, the apparent crazing of the original print emulsion, the angle of the Stones to the camera, and the angle of the sunlight, I just don't see how
anything can be said for certain about the existing photo which would
really represent,
in detail, the actual Stones as they sat there on that bumper.
