Fake/repro or genuine - how do I tell the difference?

[Christian Anker]

Is there any safe way to make sure if a photograph is genuine or not?
I usually take yellowing as a good sign, but I know this can be faked too...

Also, how is the Soviet paper quality? Is it like the German, or s it inferior (like thin cardboard/thick paper)?

A lot of questions

[Akira Takiguchi]

>Is there any safe way to make sure if a photograph is genuine or not?

No safe way have I found, let me know when you find one

Pictures that glow under black light is out of question, but I was told that they can chemically process a photo so that they won't glow (giving at the same time "aged" look). If you are really nervous, you can "crack in" the edge of a photo to check the inside to see if it glows. <b>Warning</b>: I don't think you can return a photo after such a surgery. What you can do is never to buy from the same seller again.

If you collect signed photograph, authenticity of the signature is <i>very</i> important. But if you don't, what is important for you? Do you <i>really</i> have to worry so much about the authenticity? If you pay only 2 EUR for a picture and that's what you get, whether it is a repro or not is not a big problem. Sharp photographs are always more desirable. I do not see a good reason to pay more for a poorly printed "<i>original</i>" photo than 1) a recent prints from original negatives, or 2) a professionally <b>repro</b>duced photo from an excellently printed <i>original</i>.

If you buy hell a lot or pay good price for one photograph, you'll be worried, of course, like I do. Well preserved photos won't turn yellow much. But if you do not feel right when looking at the photos, probably you're right

No info regarding soviet papers (I can't say anything from my feeble examples), sorry.

[Rick Research]

Alas, we have gone from brown paper market bags full of Soviet officer personnel file photos (some of which appear in the International Forum) to fakes now, even of those coupla bucks items.

Soviet paper is often appallingly bad. I have a general's photo I haven't posted yet because it is so encrusted with some sort of after-processing chemical corrosion I don't dare put it on my scanner! The photography is usually poor, too.

But how to tell Soviet fake photos? The ones I have seen recently come on all sorts of paper-- rectangular straight edges, those old fashioned kind with the curly "random" edges... yet all regardless of the type of paper, have a curiously DULL finish, especially when viewed in clumps, since a baggo originals are never all the same looking, and I suspect on very close magnified inspection they will reveal the dots found from copying newspaper or book photos, not seen with real photos. The fake officer personnel file photos all have an identical incorrect stamp on back, all are "certified" by the same childishly written General "Ivanov," and often one finds dates (poor "General Ivanov" was never promoted in 25 years, it seems! ) which precede introduction of the uniforms shown by decades!

I suppose I should be noble and buy a couple of those turkeys for Scientific Purposes at our next "big" (ha!) militaria show in December...

the thing is, Seba is soooooooo stingy with our expense accounts, I find it difficult enough to pad... uh, nevverrrr mind!

[ned kelly]

SO are all photos that react to light made after 45?
If so a four letter word comes to mind!!

[Christian Anker]

Thanks for your help!

I used Akiras advice, and I found 16 photographs in my collection that were flourecent. Most come from the seller Waffen-XX from eBay, so now you're warned. He lives in Russia, so there's not much to do about it...

All but 3 were from Russia - go figure...

Oh, well - I'll live, but it's still annoying. Maybe I'll keep them as repros... Glad I found out now rather than later anyway...

[Akira Takiguchi]

Dear Ned and Christian,

being fluorescent does not kill the value of a photograph, by itself. Naturally whether you should have paid $1 or $5 or $10 or $100, is a problem. But aside from price, the photograph stays as a photograph, no more, no less. <b>There's a BIG difference, when compared to badges and uniforms</b>. A Paratrooper badge made after 1945 is just a filler to your collection and no value otherwise. A photograph printed after 1945 is, by itself, is no problem, for the most case. A photo album made up from several different source is a heavy crime but they can be split and may possibly be restored to original state. But photographs <b>recently taken by shooting reenactors and surviving weapons, then sold as original pre-45 shot</b> should be hanged to death! There were such a Hetzer photo sold at ebay. Researchers can tell the difference between a real Hetzer and a swiss G13, but some can fool us, depending on the angle!

I have some fluorescent <b><i>Agfa-Brovira</i></b> papers but they came from otherwise a very good grouping and it is hardly conceivable that they were added by forgers. Thus I assume that some of the (probably postwar) Agfa-Brovira type were fluorescent. There are not a few paper types to suit different usage, today and back then as well. So I won't really be surprised if some papers were fluorescent.

To make it short: worrying over paper types too much does not do much good!

See also: <b>http://daggers.infopop.net/2/OpenTop...1&m=7873035382</b>

[Christian Anker]

Of course, the motive is the most important, but if the photograph is sold as an original and not a reproduction, it's a lie...

I have paid more for the photographs because they are originals, and although it is nice motives, these do not justify some of the prices I have paid.

[ned kelly]

Yes in my case the photo was on a wherpass (ss) which was why I was freaking but after the forum check I went 'blacklighting 'and found that it was white and not the fluro colour of modern photos which I checked it against.BIG SMILES AGAIN!!!!!Anyway a good learning experience and again a happy ower of anorigonal piece!
Thanks again for the info guys.

[Strider]

Photographic Copyright

...another issue that causes confusion when collecting photographs is that just because you may own a unique set of photographs or even original negatives it does not mean your own the copyright for these images.

Copyright laws are a nightmare and have constantly been changing but the International law during WWII as far as I'm aware was that the copyright in a photograph lapsed 50 years after it was taken. Photographic copyright was different to other published works, where copyright lapsed 150 years after the author died.

Therefore I believe any photograph taken during the war (well certainly true for German, British and US photography) the copyright has now lapsed.

However, if you own unique photos you can charge reproduction fees to a publisher or anyone else who wants a copy of your photo. The sensible way of doing this is to agree a reproduction fee based on how the image will be used and get payment and a written contract before supplying a publishable copy of your photo. The amount you can charge depends on how the image will be used and this should be exactly outlined in any contract, e.g. if it's going into a book details about the print-run of the publication, the size of the photo on the page, position in the book (inside pages on the front cover), whether it will be reproduced in colour or monochrome. You can also charge reproduction fees for use on a website or TV or CD-ROM, etc.


Lee
www.psywar.org