WWII photos & UV (black) light test

[Chris Taylor]

I ment to say these are postcard studio portraits.

So which criteria should these fall under, portrait or postcard?

Appreciate the help.

[AlexV]

I ment to say these are postcard studio portraits.

So which criteria should these fall under, portrait or postcard?

Appreciate the help.

A studio portrait can be printed on "postcard paper", but it's still a "unique" (not mass produced) photo. A postcard is a mass produced piece of paper with a printed image on it (like in a book).

[Bunited2]

RE Black Light Test

Hey Guys,

I know I'm resurrecting a very old thread here. But I have a lot
of very old photos, I read through the thread and looked at other
instructions.

Well, I went cheap and got a black light twisty bulb from Home Depot.

I know some of the photos are very old 40's and possibly 30's of
German related pilots, etc.

I just didn't notice a difference between the 'presumed' older photos
and later ones to compare, even side by side under the light.

Could it be just because it was a cheap bulb?

Also, if a photo has a very, very faint printed photo manufacture stamp
on the reverse, could it be an original, a reprint, or does it matter?



Thanks, Brian

[Frankenland-Dan]

Gents,

I think that there is an error in the logic train here, the black-light test is used to detect chemicals in cloth (chemicals or synthetic materials which were not present in natural cloth materials in WWII Germany. The film industry can’t be held to this same standard as they use chemicals in the processing process! Yes, I black-light my paper, have for some time but they sometimes demonstrate some reflection from the chemicals used (I’m not a chemist and can’t say definitively why), I see this in metals producer of the period also (often a post-stamping wash or something).

I have stuff which shows a slight reflection not a glow which is 100% pre 8 May 1945…

Take from it what you will, can’t always use the same logic on all collectables (IMO).

Later!

[BrianK]

If you search "blacklights" in various areas of WAF you will see that their use in detecting pre 1945 material is becoming suspect these days, as more evidence of pre 45 chemicals causing glowing having been used is uncovered.

[Bunited2]

Thanks Guys,

I read on an internet post that in 1951 (Europe) and 1953 (US) that
brighteners were added to photo paper. If the photo paper was post
these dates, that the photo would glow as opposed to pre these dates
the photo would not.

I compared more recent photos to these:





The reverse of the photos:





I take it the smaller is an original and if so, it would have to have been
taken in 1941 or earlier, since Ernst Udet committed suicide, in 1941.

I compared the photos and they showed no difference and compared the photos to
more recent photos, also no difference.

Are there any other ways to date a photo?

Your thoughts?

PS Irene was his wife.

Thanks, Brian

[Frankenland-Dan]

I completely agree with BrianK and in my experience, black-light is less than convincing in suggesting production periods (pre-may 45) on anything white - especially white wool insignia…

[toadboy65]

blacklight

It would be nice if we really lived in a world where there was a magic light test that could tell if something was made after a certain date. The truth is, things in the natural world fluoresce, and many pigments and materials, even those from ancient times do as well. In reality, most paper and cloth items from before 1945 do not fluoresce, but it is by no means a hard and fast rule. There was much experimentation with new materials and processes during the Third Reich. I think most of us have had an item with perfect wartime provenance that fails either the black light test or some other "sure-fire" method for detecting fakes. We need to look carefully at items to be authenticated, and use all of our senses and careful scientific methods before pronouncing an item either real or fake.

[Bunited2]

Thanks Guys,

No 'Magic Light Test'?

Next you'll be telling me there's no Santa Claus!

Hah Hah....Hah?


Brian

[Simon O.]

I wish some photo collectors would realise that you can't apply the same standards to photos as you do to uniforms, insignia, medals etc. A photograph printed after 8 May 1945 is not a fake or a copy necessarily. All prints are copies anyway, a print made from a negative by a returning soldier in 1955 is just as genuine as one made in 1945. What makes a print fake is the intention of the person making the print and what they claim for the print. Baseing when a photo was printed or if it is 'genuine' or not on the paper used for the print makes no sense. The value of the photo lies in the image, not the paper, a print can be made from old paper today using the same kind of chemicals used 60-70 years ago. A vet could have had prints made for his old war buddies in the 60s and a photo might have had prints made from prints during the war or a film might not have been developed or had prints made until long after the war.



My point here is that you cannot set a line in the sand with photos and say a post-may 45 print is bad. It's a dilema for photo collectors, but then again, different collectors value different things as important.