Opinions of Hitler photograph on the estand

[RaymondG]

Hi

Well it certainly cannot be claimed to be a private photograph as I think that is the second that Max has turned up.

It is concerning that the one Max has posted is a third one to pop up and is available on the market, all in the style of a private photograph, rather than an officially released postcard style period photo.

Raymond

[max history]

Hi

It is concerning that the one Max has posted is a third one to pop up and is available on the market, all in the style of a private photograph, rather than an officially released postcard style period photo.

Raymond

Sorry, Raymond, but this does not make sense.
Max.

[101combatvet]

Actually, size really doesn't matter..... if it was for sale or a give away during WW2 from a professional or official photographer the print size could vary in size. Most likely it would have been developed in the smaller format. Yes, often they were postcard size but not always. Not defending the print by any means but so far I see nothing that indicates that this is a fake.

Hi

Well it certainly cannot be claimed to be a private photograph as I think that is the second that Max has turned up.

It is concerning that the one Max has posted is a third one to pop up and is available on the market, all in the style of a private photograph, rather than an officially released postcard style period photo.

Raymond

[max history]

Not defending the print by any means but so far I see nothing that indicates that this is a fake.

Nobody is suggesting it is a fake photograph. The point is that it is being offered for sale as a privately taken photograph (not professionally taken) and therefore unique, as 99.99999% of privately taken photos are. The discussion is over whether or not it is a repro photo of a press photo or an original private photo.
Max.

[101combatvet]

This statement makes it clear that someone thought it was a fake.

It appears to be a repro which has been artificially aged.
Regards,
Max.

See my other posts.... it is not a private photograph in my opinion.

[Mogdala]

Let´s bring it to the end. The first person who writes a pm to me with "I´ll want it" gets it for free. Through the circumstances i´m not able to sell it, so somebody gets a nice period photo for free. Privat or press doesn´t matter.

I thought of a privatly taken picture but i was wrong and Max right.

[101combatvet]

I love freebies.... send it to me.

Let´s bring it to the end. The first person who writes a pm to me with "I´ll want it" gets it for free. Through the circumstances i´m not able to sell it, so somebody gets a nice period photo for free. Privat or press doesn´t matter.

I thought of a privatly taken picture but i was wrong and Max right.

[Mogdala]

I love freebies.... send it to me.

Keep the rule and you´ll get it.

[max history]

This statement makes it clear that someone thought it was a fake.

See my other posts.... it is not a private photograph in my opinion.

I think you are confused over the word 'fake'. If you read the post, it doesn't say anything about being a fake photograph. It says "a REPRO....ARTIFICIALLY AGED". That is not a fake photograph.
A fake photograph is when an image is altered to make the subject appear something which it is not or when a subject is photographed to make it appear something which it is not (i.e. someone dressing up as a SS officer last week and being photographed in order to fool another into believing he is a WW2 SS officer). The image has not been altered at all and it is definitely Hitler and von Küchler in the image. Therefore it has not been faked, but the reverse has possibly been made to look older at some stage in order to sell the print as an older photograph. I am in no way alleging that Mogdala has done so as I believe he has made an honest mistake, believing it to be an original privately taken photograph.
Max.

[101combatvet]

I'm confused? Yeah, an excellent Hitler look alike..... please.

fake: a: a worthless imitation passed off as genuine

reproduction: 2: something reproduced : copy

In the collecting world these terms are used synonymously as a copy is an imitation... which to most would spell F-A-K-E.

There are actually two schools of thought on collecting photographs. Some say that if the original negative is used to make the print that it is considered an original print regardless of the time period in which the print was developed. Others will say that it must be period or within the time frame of when the image was taken. I would agree with the later when collecting WW2 images of this type.

As far as the image reverse being discolored that could have occurred from being stored in an album made with acid based paper.

I think you are confused over the word 'fake'. If you read the post, it doesn't say anything about being a fake photograph. It says "a REPRO....ARTIFICIALLY AGED". That is not a fake photograph.
A fake photograph is when an image is altered to make the subject appear something which it is not or when a subject is photographed to make it appear something which it is not (i.e. someone dressing up as a SS officer last week and being photographed in order to fool another into believing he is a WW2 SS officer). The image has not been altered at all and it is definitely Hitler and von Küchler in the image. Therefore it has not been faked, but the reverse has possibly been made to look older at some stage in order to sell the print as an older photograph. I am in no way alleging that Mogdala has done so as I believe he has made an honest mistake, believing it to be an original privately taken photograph.
Max.

[max history]

I'm confused? Yeah, an excellent Hitler look alike..... please.

fake: a: a worthless imitation passed off as genuine

reproduction: 2: something reproduced : copy

In the collecting world these terms are used synonymously as a copy is an imitation... which to most would spell F-A-K-E.

There are actually two schools of thought on collecting photographs. Some say that if the original negative is used to make the print that it is considered an original print regardless of the time period in which the print was developed. Others will say that it must be period or within the time frame of when the image was taken. I would agree with the later when collecting WW2 images of this type.

As far as the image reverse being discolored that could have occurred from being stored in an album made with acid based paper.

Actually there are several things wrong with your observations:
1. You obviously don’t read or don’t understand what has been previously written. I did not say that there was a Hitler lookalike in this photo. If you can’t understand that my simple example was metaphorically used, well….. It is a well known fact that some photos emanating from Russia have been recently staged in studios and made to appear as war date photographs. They are fakes.
2. A fake does not have to be worthless….Konrad Kujau.
3. All photographs are reproduced….from the original negative.
4. In your train of thought, just explain what is an acceptable time frame? One day? One week? One year? Five years? If you agree with the latter argument, you must know when your agreement changes to disagreement.
5. If the photo was stored in an album with acid based paper, it would not produce the type of colouring and pattern found on the reverse of this particular image. The brown spots are known as foxing and this is usually found where paper has been stored in a damp atmosphere. This effect can also be achieved artificially by the use of certain consumables being dropped on paper and left to stand for a period. The light brown staining (most noticeable on the right of this scan) is also achieved by the application of certain liquids, most commonly tea which contains a natural dye. The brown spots can also result from certain chemicals used in modern photo printing, but this is usually found on the image side of the photo.

Anyway, to return to the reason the print is under discussion. My point was that it cannot be a privately taken photograph for a number of reasons:
There are numerous copy prints in existence;
I have owned an original press captioned copy;
It has been published in books;
It is one of a series of press photos by the same press photographer of the same visit.
Max.

[101combatvet]

Well, it's very plain to see that you've educated yourself since your previous posts. Except for one small detail..... I agreed with the thought that it was a "professionally taken" photograph. A statement like this shows your lack of understanding of the photographic process: "3. All photographs are reproduced….from the original negative." It seems that maybe you're leaning in another direction now? So tell us all Einstein.... really what is it?

1. A FAKE

2. A REPRODUCTION

3. A COPY

4. NONE OF THE ABOVE

5. ALL OF THE ABOVE

Actually there are several things wrong with your observations:
1. You obviously don’t read or don’t understand what has been previously written. I did not say that there was a Hitler lookalike in this photo. If you can’t understand that my simple example was metaphorically used, well….. It is a well known fact that some photos emanating from Russia have been recently staged in studios and made to appear as war date photographs. They are fakes.
2. A fake does not have to be worthless….Konrad Kujau.
3. All photographs are reproduced….from the original negative.
4. In your train of thought, just explain what is an acceptable time frame? One day? One week? One year? Five years? If you agree with the latter argument, you must know when your agreement changes to disagreement.
5. If the photo was stored in an album with acid based paper, it would not produce the type of colouring and pattern found on the reverse of this particular image. The brown spots are known as foxing and this is usually found where paper has been stored in a damp atmosphere. This effect can also be achieved artificially by the use of certain consumables being dropped on paper and left to stand for a period. The light brown staining (most noticeable on the right of this scan) is also achieved by the application of certain liquids, most commonly tea which contains a natural dye. The brown spots can also result from certain chemicals used in modern photo printing, but this is usually found on the image side of the photo.

Anyway, to return to the reason the print is under discussion. My point was that it cannot be a privately taken photograph for a number of reasons:
There are numerous copy prints in existence;
I have owned an original press captioned copy;
It has been published in books;
It is one of a series of press photos by the same press photographer of the same visit.
Max.

[Akira Takiguchi]

As a moderator, I request you to post only one message per day for this thread. Otherwise you will be infracted.

We have plenty of time to discuss. Do not do it in one day.

[max history]

101combatvet,
If you learnt to read I might reply to your rude gibberish. Once you've achieved that (in your case) monumental task, you might understand that my points have remained the same throughout and anyone with an ounce of intelligence does not require me to repeat things over and over again. I notice you avoided answering my points and instead replied with insults. As far as I am concerned, this discussion with you has degenerated into a farce given your obvious lack of understanding and limited abilities to discuss matters coherently and politely. Feel free to reply once again with immature nonsense and insults, but my participation in this thread with you is now at an end.

[Simon O.]

Max is quite right. Photographs are a completely different beast to other areas of collecting and various collectors look for different attributes in their photos when making a decision to buy.

As i mentioned in the other thread, all prints are reproductions. From that you can split it down to reproduced from an original negative, reproduced from a print, reproduced from a print of a print, reproduced prior to May-1945, reproduced post-1945 etc.etc.
Then there's the question of whether it's taken privately, by a press or other official photographer, a unit photographer or privately by someone who then made lots of copies for his friends and comrades.

A photo printed post-1945 is in no way a fake. If i had extra prints made of my photos from my time in the army does that make them fake? Are my photos only 'genuine' if i had them developed and printed whilst i was in the army or during a particular period? No of course not.

To me at least the value of a photo is primarily about it's content, quality of the shot and uniqueness. The actual photo paper coming from 1944 or 1954 is virtually irrelevant to me.

to each his own...