50th Anniversary Get Back LP - new front cover photo?

[ennolenno]

I wonder if the front cover photo of the new official Get Back LP is new to us or not.
Well, I'm only talking about the variations where John and George wear the light suits, not the dark ones.
Up to now I've known of two variations of photos with the light suits, which were used as front cover photos for Get Back LP bootlegs:

Variation 1:
- John's Middle and Ring finger of his left hand are very close to the railing
- George's mouth is shut
- Paul smiles.

Cover-Variation-1.jpg (141.76 KiB) Viewed 2425 times

Variation 2:
- John's fingers of his left hand are not so close to the railing
- George's mouth is open
- Paul smiles not so much.

Cover-Variation-2.jpg (175.57 KiB) Viewed 2425 times

Variation of the new Get Back LP:
- John's fingers of his left hand are not so close to the railing
- George's mouth is shut
- Paul smiles.

Cover-Variation-3.jpg (116.47 KiB) Viewed 2425 times

Now to my question: Has the photo of the new Get Back LP been in circulation before or is it new? Is it real?
Or do we have (I hardly can say it) a new butcher cover?

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: Variation 2 was also used for the Blue Album, of course.

[CultTVman]

Doing some quick and dirty overlays and #3 appears to be a composite of #1 and 2. Ringo, Paul, and George comes from image 1. John's head comes from #2, but the rest of the body is #1.

[Much2Much]

Fascinating stuff - I have waited a long time to have this cover in my possession having missed the various bootleg vinyl issues way back.
I am interested to learn more regarding the various incarnations of this sleeve.

Thank you to EnnoLenno and CultTVman for your information

[alphabeatles]

Notice Ringo's head is moving as well.

[Beatles4you]

.

[Kwai Chang]

Why the heresy?
This is an iconic image that had more to say about getting back than the music that it was to adorn.
The new image is pure PhotoShop mayhem. I don't understand what has been accomplished in visual terms.
I always thought that the bootlegs were all deficient in their own treatment of this image.
But, is this really the best definition available?
1967-1970 Blue album???
Anybody?
Thank you, ennolenno (and...Beatles4you)
(The beginning)
KC

[paul62]

The negatives for Angus McBain's photos, taken for the "Please Please Me" LP cover, were kept at EMI and they were carelessly tossed away by a cleaner going about their duties one day (this was about fifteen years ago): I wonder if the '69 replica photos taken by McBain were also in the container that was tossed? If that's the case, then this might explain why there's been some revisionism with the artwork...

Get back! Cleaner 'threw out' Beatles photos

Christopher Hope

April 07 2007 12:11 AM

A CLEANER threw out £700,000 (?1.03m) worth of original pictures of the Beatles - including the only surviving copy of the photograph on their breakthrough album 'Please Please Me', according to a legal action filed at the High Court.

EMI, the record giant, and the Beatles' music publisher Apple Corps, is now suing the cleaner's employer Crystal Services after the pictures were sent to a waste compactor and lost forever.

The photographs were taken in 1963 at EMI's former head office in Manchester Square, London, by the late Angus McBean, whose work was the subject of an exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery last year.

As well as the 'Please Please Me' photograph, also lost was the photograph used as the cover of their 1973 'Red Album'.

The writ describes the photographs as "historically important and valuable".

EMI and Apple claim that the seven Beatles photographs were thrown away by a cleaner in January 2001, even though they had been in a box clearly marked "Not Rubbish - Do Not Remove".

Crystal Services disputes most of the claims by EMI and Apple, including that the boxes were in the office with a note saying not to remove them. No-one at EMI could be reached for comment yesterday. Crystal declined to comment. Crystal admits that Mr Rees spoke to EMI the next day, but he admitted no liability.

Rather, Crystal says: "Mr Rees was apologetic." (© Daily Telegraph, London)

[Doug]

So why are they leaving a million dollars worth of photographs lying around in a box? Did they ever think of, you know, locking them up somewhere, or maybe just putting them in a cabinet?

What a bunch of morons.

[powerPC]

EMI executive #1: "These photographs are historically important and valuable... we should store them safely away."

EMI executive #2: "Agreed... they should be kept SAFE! Hey, here's an empty cardboard box..."

EMI executive #1: "PERFECT! They'll be completely safe in that, now just toss the box in a corner and let's go to the pub for a Guinness."

[WilliamShears]

EMI executive #1: "These photographs are historically important and valuable... we should store them safely away."

EMI executive #2: "Agreed... they should be kept SAFE! Hey, here's an empty cardboard box..."

EMI executive #1: "PERFECT! They'll be completely safe in that, now just toss the box in a corner and let's go to the pub for a Guinness."

Intern : Hey shouldn’t we at least write "Not Rubbish - Do Not Remove" on the box?

EMI executive #1: Bloody brilliant! What do you know about remixing?