SS Fotos

[Tommy]

I think its repro but nice...

[Tommy]

Part 2

.

[Tim W]

Dear Tommy: The top photo is of Horst Gresiak. Das Reick KC winner. Yes The photo has got to be a repro, I have it along with many others of this officer. And I know i've seen others for sale here and there.
Tim

[Maximiliano]

question

Hello tommy,

How do you know when a photo is a reproduction?


Cheers,

Max.

[Tommy]

In this fall the paper has with a blacklight Lamp shine...
When orginal the paper not shine and some photo with the age they become a brown site...And every fotos are not reproduction ,,,SS very lot...

Some orginal has a Agfa paper or a Stamp from Photographer...And not shine with blacklight...

[Tommy]

I think this is orginal...see the picture...

[Maximiliano]

Thanks Tommy,


Yes the photos under black light not shine... but the modern yes,
like fluor.
I compare them with antique photos of my family and the color of paper is the same, dark red or brown.


Cheers,

Max.

[Akira Takiguchi]

>Yes The photo has got to be a repro, I have it along with
>many others of this officer.

I believe Tim understands it well but for other people may misunderstand it; I have to emphasize@that <b>Because you have it</b>, <b>others are repro</b> is not a valid@discussion. I have about 160 Gresiak photos, on unmarked paper with stamps "Inhaber Hans Eckhardt". These are most likely postwar prints but in very good condition. Manuel has many too, don't know how his prints look like. H.Gresiak kept his negatives after the war and made many prints. That's what I heard.

<b>Negatives</b>

Negatives are usually considered to be one-of-a-kind, but there@are repronegatives, which are made from prints or directly from negatives (duplicated negatives).

<b>Prints</b>

All prints directly made from original negatives are@<b>original</b>s, in my opinion. You may be able to tell "old originals" from "new originals" but the demarcation is not clear. Are prints made from duplicated negatives originals? A difficult question, I think. I believe that many large sized PK photos were made from duplicated negatives, but I have no data.

Anyway, <i>Bildberichter</i> photos were printed usually printed in quite a few numbers.
The same with privately taken photos, printed for comrades, all <i>originals</i>.

Many prints were made after the war. It is my personal belief that it is impossible to tell from pre-45 prints and post-45 prints, if printed on papers like <i>Agfa-Brovira</i> and <i>Agfa-Lupex</i>. Really new prints are easier because they're printed on papers that did not exist in 1945 and glow under blacklight.

New prints are usually cheaper but those made by good printers are as good as period originals. Period originals made by poor printers should sell less pricey, in my opinion. The quality of photograph and the motif counts.

<b>Repro prints</b>

Photo duplication was <i>quite</i> common. <i>They were not made to cheat you!</i> If you have only prints available, and you want to share the photograph with your comrades, photoshops are willing to make reproductions.

There are many reproductions circulating. It is very difficult to tell from originals from reproductions if professionally done (Repros made with say 4"x5" equipment is excellent to say the least!). Some reproductions show poor focus. Some reproductions are marked as such by the photoshop.

[Akira Takiguchi]

No more words. Just photos

<img src="http://www.history.jp/images/Gresiak-2-1.jpg">

<img src="http://www.history.jp/images/Gresiak-8-1.jpg">

[Tommy]

Nice picture Akira...

I have from a Soldier a picture...he shows he is boring..

[Tim W]

Akira: Yes your right on on this topic. I had heard that H .Gresiak did that with his negs, now I dont know how many of us have these sets but I enjoy them. I have the first one you showed but not the second. I wonder if you have some different ones than me?Let me know if you want to trade scans? Also as a side question Akira, what type of scanner do you use? And software.Your photo scans always seam sharper than mine.
Tim

[Akira Takiguchi]

Hi Tim,

>now I dont know how many of us have these sets but I enjoy them.

Yes, these are really great photos. I've sent you an email.

>what type of scanner do you use? And software.Your photo scans always seam sharper than mine.

<i>The grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence</i>, probably

I was <i>not</i> completely satisfied with my scans, and some of my friends had complained about the quality from my old scanner ($1400, 300dpi, 8bit. Used for pictures above). So I bought a new one ($280, max 2400bpi, 16bit). Works much better. Both <b>Epson</b> scanners.

But the quality of the original prints is most important. When scanning an excellent picture, the new one gives me outstanding result. When scanning a so-so one, the result is also so-so.

I use <b>Photoshop 6.0</b> on Windows to enhance my picture a little.

These days I usually scan everything at 1200dpi and reduce it to 640 (for forums) or 1024 (for my website) pixel width, and add 50% sharpness.