Fake pictures

[NOR_collector]

Hi.

I'm just wondering.. How do you acually see that a picture is a fake?
I can see that there are some really good fakes listed in the bazar section and I have to say that I would have bought them as real.
What is the best way of detecting the fakes?
Are there any good books that has this subject?

Thanks

Best regards,
André

[Tim K.]

Andre,

A starting point for me would be the type of photo paper that it's printed on. It's by no means definitive (and has been discussed a number of times previously on the forum, and granted, I'm not breaking any new ground here), but it's nice to see one of the following 'watermarks' on the back of the paper, such as:

Agfa Lupex
Agfa Brovira
Ridax

...and there are some more that I can't think of right now.

On photo postcards, these are nice (but again, not definitive):

Agfa
Mimosa
Voigtlander

..and of course probably some others.

But another factor that I personally consider just as important is the context of the item(s) themselves...I tend to trust complete albums more than single photos, as with albums there is usually a way to tie all the photos together in some context that 'makes sense', whether that is based on the markings, inscriptions, or the content of the photos, or whatever...i.e. sometimes it's the 'complete package' that tells the story. Not to say that complete albums haven't been reproduced...but I'd certainly be more sceptical in scrutinizing a rare $3000 SS album versus a 'run of the mill' $150 Wehrmacht album. But I'll offer from personal experience that even 'run of the mill' photo albums can turn out to have some very interesting content if you spend the time and dig into the details, even if it's only a couple photos out of a hundred. That's what I find intersting about photo collecting! And I credit this forum for helping to 'show me the way' in that regard!

Tim

[Simon O.]

Is fake the right word for it? The content isn't fake and that's what we're actually interested in. Unless we're talking someone dressing up and taking photos with an old camera.
Must a film have been developed and printed pre-may '45 for it to be genuine? What if uncle fritz left some un-developed films packed away in the loft only for them to be found again 10-20 years later and developed?

I've often seen albums as i'm sure you have with a mix of private period printed photos, private post-war printed and mass produced prints from the unit photographer.


On a slightly different note. What of photos, portrait shots mostly, showing the wearer with decorations to which he was not entitled? Particularly the RK. I have seen one or two such shots, taken either during the war or early post-war. Sometimes on post-war shots the wearer has a weird uniform mix or even a complete fantasy type uniform.

[max history]

Is fake the right word for it? The content isn't fake and that's what we're actually interested in. Unless we're talking someone dressing up and taking photos with an old camera.
Must a film have been developed and printed pre-may '45 for it to be genuine? What if uncle fritz left some un-developed films packed away in the loft only for them to be found again 10-20 years later and developed?

I've often seen albums as i'm sure you have with a mix of private period printed photos, private post-war printed and mass produced prints from the unit photographer.

Well said Simon. Also, remember that a photograph could be developed pre-May 1945, but the negatives are sometimes used later to produce copy prints. They are as "genuine" as the original prints.
In addition to Simon's application of the word "fake" are those photos which are photos of photos. These become fake when they are purported to be the original photo.
To my mind, a photo cannot be deemed original when it is not printed from the original negative, no matter when it was printed.
Max.

[para03]

Here's another thread that was just started and is relevant to what we're discussing here. This might further answer your question....http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...=1#post1243812