SS Ceremony pics, a question & a strange coincidence

[Al P]

2 pictures, taken at the same event, at very near the same time, but are they from the same camera?

Take a look and post your thoughts.


Al


Also if anyone reading this thread has any knowledge of the event, unit, date, location etc, of the 2 pictures you see below, please feel free to post your thoughts. There are some clues in the pictures but my knowledge of all things ss is very limited and your help would be appreciated.

.

[Kaile67]

Hi, no it doesnt look like at all. The best u can see, where one soldier is holding up the hand (facing to the camera). there is a different in both photos. Hope u can understand what I mean. Anyway, my guess, two soldiers or viewers has standing beside eachother and making a photo at the same time......pretty cool.

cheers, Kai

[Al P]

I own the top photo and when I saw the second photo for sale on the estand recently I almost had a heart attack as I immediately recognized it and thought that my photo may be a reprint, or worse yet, a fake.

After a quick comparison it soon became obvious that the pictures were not identical, but perhaps they came from the same photographer and were just seperated over the years, but this too does not seem to be the case.

I don't know about you, but I think that having these 2 photos show up in the collections of 2 different forum members 60+ years after they were taken is a mighty strange, but happy coincidence.

Al

[RaymondG]

What a wonderful coincidence for the other photograph to turn up

I think the chances are that they are from the same camera,given the positioning, with one photograph taken a little after the first.

Great stuff

Raymond

[HouweTrouwe]

Look to the head of the officer (front, left) you'll see at the 1rst picture he looks up, at the second photo he doesn't.

[Johnny R]

Photo

This looks like a swearing in ceremony where they state an oath of loyalty to Hitler etc.

[HouweTrouwe]

My findings, I could be wrong:

[Richard]

My findings, I could be wrong:

The tree at the far right of the upper photo is not in the lower photo as the lower photo was taken with the camera facing more to the viewer's left. The tree you see in the upper photo on the far right is the tree that is just to the left of the one you have circled on the lower photo. Notice that on the lower photo there is also more of the building on the left. This indicated the camera was turned a bit more to the viewer's left when taking the second photo. These were also not taken at the exact same instance as the helmeted soldier taking the oath on the right has his mouth open in the lower photo and closed in the upper. The second photo was taken by either someone else or the same individual who stepped to the right, a bit back and took the photo from a lower angle. They are very obviously from the same event only moments apart.
Richard V

[Al P]

The missing tree is due to the angle of the camera more than anything else.

I am still of the opinion that these pics are from 2 different cameras rather than just 1 with the photographer having just took a step to the right for a better view.

I am not sure of the correct terminology but the top photo is of a more close up view, while the second one is of a farther or wider angle view. Look at the officer on the left, and note how much more of him and his boots we can see in the one picture.

I have little knowledge of the abilities of camera lens' in those days, but to do that effect with my camera today I would have to zoom in or out.

Your thoughts are welcome.

Al

[Erich B.]

Looks like the same camera and photographer to me. He took the first shot, then stepped a few feet closer and over to get a better shot and slightly different perspective--also as noted, one shot was taken at around waist height, the other while standing.
Erich

[entasis]

As noted already, it's all about camera angle.

On the lower photo, with the more 'hidden' trees. photographer has likely crouched for the photo....that's my take.

[entasis]

here's a link to photo and postcard images take at nearly the same moments in time by different photographers.

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ghlight=france

[jmark]

Are there any marks on the backs of either photo? Studio imprints on the backs are a great way to match up photos from the same series. Are the photos the exact same size? The rear of a photo can sometimes tell you much more than the front, even if there is no caption.

Jason

[Al P]

The only mark on the back of mine is for the Agfa Brovira paper, and if memory serves correct from the estand sale post the other photo is also marked the same but I will check with the new owner to be sure.

On the crouching theory, if that were the case wouldn't what would be gained in view at the bottom of the picture (more of the boots) be proportionally lost from the top half of the picture (less sky)? On the picture where we see more of the officer on the left, we also see much more of the sky.

Thanks for all the comments and please keep the thoughts coming, and if any photographers want to speak up to help with my sad terminology, please do.

Al

[byterock]

How about same camera but two different lenses

The first one look like a mild telephoto 90mm or 135mm the second perhaps a wide angle 35mm or normal 50mm assuming it was made with a 35mm camera of course.

Note the haircut on the officer exactly the same.


If a long lens was used in the first shot then the back ground would be compressed and the tree looks closer

if a wide lens was used in the second shot to keep the people in the shot the same size the photographer would have to step forward and thus the tree would be out of the shot.

So IMVHO it is even more of a coincidence same camera just different lenses