Question theme: Authentic or not?

[101combatvet]

A scan which reveals this complete photograph and atleast scanned at 300 DPI. Size as long it does fit the WAF system it is ok. 600 x 800 is min. to be good if possible .

Actually, it was scanned at 300 DPI or greater.

[101combatvet]

i think this is a simple case of a double exsposure of the film and not somthing going wrong in the faking process.



the dirty look, high contrast, grainy photos you have been posting i agree with.


this is a thread for people to take what they will, and for discussion on how to spot some of the easier fakes ("russsian archive" etc...)

101combatvet is testing you now!

Anyone.... can give their opinion.

[HouweTrouwe]

i think this is a simple case of a double exsposure of the film and not somthing going wrong in the faking process.



the dirty look, high contrast, grainy photos you have been posting i agree with.


this is a thread for people to take what they will, and for discussion on how to spot some of the easier fakes ("russsian archive" etc...)

101combatvet is testing you now!

No No Mousey, those are all originals I posted with the blurry photos etcetera. It is just because Marcel B. said that he worried about the lines and blurry spots, that I posted such photos to show him that he has not to be worried about it.

101, then I would buy a new scanner. The scanner I use delivers such photos at 300 DPI. Can you scan them at higher quality and in full, please?

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/hdsZN2-JeHB7rsUDvtWNcQ?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_kHrkAIeGckg/TSt-DrAOzyI/AAAAAAAABlA/dPqi2W8W9Xk/s800/00938.jpg" height="545" width="800" /></a>
.

[Thälmannpionier]

seems this thread goes in a bad direction with Herr "101combatvet" who seems to have some issues with either this thread or some people who want to share their expierence in photo collecting and try to help each other or do I get something wrong here???



Andreas

[HouweTrouwe]

Thanks!!! It's nice to know all are original and that such blurry spots and also black edges are seen more because these were for me my main concern.

People the photos scanned in post #50, 51, 52, 55 and 56 are all original. It are replies to the concern of above Quote.

[101combatvet]

seems this thread goes in a bad direction with Herr "101combatvet" who seems to have some issues with either this thread or some people who want to share their expierence in photo collecting and try to help each other or do I get something wrong here???



Andreas

Oh.... I have to much experience to ask a simple question?

[101combatvet]

No No Mousey, those are all originals I posted with the blurry photos etcetera. It is just because Marcel B. said that he worried about the lines and blurry spots, that I posted such photos to show him that he has not to be worried about it.

101, then I would buy a new scanner. The scanner I use delivers such photos at 300 DPI. Can you scan them at higher quality and in full, please?

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/hdsZN2-JeHB7rsUDvtWNcQ?feat=embedwebsite"><img src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_kHrkAIeGckg/TSt-DrAOzyI/AAAAAAAABlA/dPqi2W8W9Xk/s800/00938.jpg" height="545" width="800" /></a>
.

300 DPI is 300 DPI.... nothing wrong with my scanner.

[Simon O.]

Actually, it was scanned at 300 DPI or greater.

It may have been scanned at 300 dpi but what you posted is very low res. A 300 dpi photo does not come out as a 21.5kb jpg file

[Mil-Archive]

It may have been scanned at 300 dpi but what you posted is very low res. A 300 dpi photo does not come out as a 21.5kb jpg file

I think for a verdict on a photo it should not be cropped and should also include the reverse.

[Thälmannpionier]

do you not notice that hes just playing with you all???!!!!

[Simon O.]

I think you guys should really try and get some sort of proper idea of what is 'real' and what is 'fake' or 'authentic' or 'original' as far as photos go.

to quote from the first post in the thread

Here you can post your question about (a) photograph(s) to know whether they are authentic to the Third Reich or not

The value of a photo lies in the image, not on what or necessarily when it was printed. The actual paper itself is worthless and yet a lot of focus is given on the paper and when the image was apparently printed. Lets leave aside the modern digital age for a moment.

consider the following.

A print, printed during the war from the negative
A print, printed post-war from the negative
A print, printed during the war from another print
A print, printed post-war from a print


Take this scenario

A soldier returns from the war, perhaps from captivity in Russia. We're into the 1950s. After a while he decides to get some of his old films developed from his army days which he didn't do at the time.

Clearly such prints are every bit as 'authentic'

In fact, if someone found a roll of film that had never been developed today and if it could be developed, i would argue those images would hold just as much value as anything developed in 1940 or 1950

the other thing of course is that a print can be reproduced infinately, every print is a repro in any case.

the nature of photos puts them into a completely different class than anything else collected here and yet collectors try to apply the same rules and ideas about them as to say an EK or soldbuch.

[HouweTrouwe]

Simon, I totally agree with you. Everyone should read following: http://www.kriegsberichter.de/Data/fake01e.htm. The purpose of this thread is to avoid reprints from original photographs or photographs trying to be sold as original while they are not. Photographs sold with wrong description or purpose to make money. I also have photographs or portraits produced after the war or in Kgf. and for me they are original. This thread is ment to beginners or so can learn to avoid them and save their money.

Likewise following portraits on ebay. Sold as original! Only the middle one is original. A person who didn't know he can buy these bad fakes for less then $5 now bought them for $85,32 !

[Mil-Archive]

That photo on the left crops up very often. I once saw an album on ebay full of those extremely poor quality SS repros sold as original. I agree with the points made re http://www.kriegsberichter.de/Data/fake01e.htm & on the last few posts - but just because a negative can produce multiple prints does not mean that it has done. I think it's a reasonable conclusion that most original ww2 era photos are unique.

[Simon O.]

Simon, I totally agree with you. Everyone should read following: http://www.kriegsberichter.de/Data/fake01e.htm. The purpose of this thread is to avoid reprints from original photographs or photographs trying to be sold as original while they are not. Photographs sold with wrong description or purpose to make money. I also have photographs or portraits produced after the war or in Kgf. and for me they are original. This thread is ment to beginners or so can learn to avoid them and save their money.

Likewise following portraits on ebay. Sold as original! Only the middle one is original. A person who didn't know he can buy these bad fakes for less then $5 now bought them for $85,32 !

good link, i hadn't actually seen that page before. I've also got quite a few photos taken in '45 after the 8th of may, perfectly original of course.

As he says, even a print made today could be considered original and a copy or reproduction is not necessarily a fake.


Helden

I agree, because most photos are really pretty boring. I would think studio photos usually had multiple prints made of them, then you have the official, unit\ship or PK type photos which printed, sometimes in large numbers and then you have copies of some of the more interesting private photos passed around between friends or comrades after the war at veteran meetings.


Clearly there's no way to garantee a photo any of us has hasn't had multiple copies made of it only a level of probability.

I would venture that quite often a buyer will buy a photo or photos because he hasn't seen the image before, thus to him it may seem unique. That's particularly the case with newer collectors who simple haven't had the time to see vast numbers of images. We've seen a few threads here of people suddenly seeing a photo they have, which they thought was unique also turning up in someone elses collection. It's certainly happened to me!

[HouweTrouwe]

Here are original photographs that were printed more than once .. For all reasons possible ..