Announcement

**Shaun Winkler** · 03-05-2017, 11:41 AM

Hi Gents

Before I get into this pic here is something I took off the antique photograph page about 3rd Reich portraits.

Absence of photo paper logotype. This indicator is quite relative and should not be regarded as a guaranteed proof of a forged photo. The vast majority of authentic pre-war and wartime German postcard-sized photos and snapshots do bear logo of paper manufacturer, but a lot of undoubted originals lack appropriate marks on their reverses.

I have owned hundreds of portraits and quite a few have had no markings. I was the previous owner of this portrait and I obtained it from a very,very experienced photo collector. I will send him this thread and ask him to chime in as well. I have seen many fakes of this portrait over the years and have even had one in hand and I can assure you non of them even come close to the quality of this one! the markings and the type of paper used in the fakes is a clear giveaway when in hand.

This portrait is sharp! shows the correct aging and of course it has been black light tested.One shouldn't assume that just because a photo has been reproduced all of these photos are reproduced? the originals exist and this is one of them.

**Edward** · 03-05-2017, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Shaun Winkler View Post

Hi Gents

Before I get into this pic here is something I took off the antique photograph page about 3rd Reich portraits.

Absence of photo paper logotype. This indicator is quite relative and should not be regarded as a guaranteed proof of a forged photo. The vast majority of authentic pre-war and wartime German postcard-sized photos and snapshots do bear logo of paper manufacturer, but a lot of undoubted originals lack appropriate marks on their reverses.

I have owned hundreds of portraits and quite a few have had no markings. I was the previous owner of this portrait and I obtained it from a very,very experienced photo collector. I will send him this thread and ask him to chime in as well. I have seen many fakes of this portrait over the years and have even had one in hand and I can assure you non of them even come close to the quality of this one! the markings and the type of paper used in the fakes is a clear giveaway when in hand.

This portrait is sharp! shows the correct aging and of course it has been black light tested.One shouldn't assume that just because a photo has been reproduced all of these photos are reproduced? the originals exist and this is one of them.

Very interesting and thanks for the informative input.

In a generic sense I would agree with you that there are copies of copies made from actual wartime prints. My understanding, by all means correct me if I am wrong, is that the particular studio portrait in question was not one of the many reproduced from a series of wartime negatives that came out of Germany, or Austria sometime during the late 1980's or early 1990's. If that is the case where this particular example is concerned then that is really something, and a first for this series of portraits that I'm aware of. That said, I would certainly agree that there would be the possibility of surviving wartime printed example(s) of the one in question. Are there other different wartime printed portraits from this series that other WAF members can share, or that are known? One would think so. Have yet to see any.

As you know some TR docs have also been reproduced to a fairly high level using period techniques and various treatments to appropriately age. I think that one must keep an open mind that photos could, and likely are copied from wartime negatives and treated in a similar way to sell on the collecting market. The incentive is certainly there. Particularly when the value of many studio portraits have been sold for 100's of Euro's each for a number of years now.

Just as an aside, I can relate a personal story from the same time period. A German dealer offered me several hundred wartime studio portrait negatives that had been cleaned ouf of an old photography studio. I passed on the lot as negatives were not within my collecting interest, but I do have 2 of the portrait negatives that he sent me gratis as examples. Wonder what happened to the hundreds of others that he had?

**101combatvet** · 03-05-2017, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by SkaraBrae View Post

Empirical data. Professioneller Fotograf, 45 years collecting wartime fotos, attending foto shows in Germany every weekend for 45 years, at least 400,000 wartime fotos seen. You?

Sure

**101combatvet** · 03-05-2017, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by SkaraBrae View Post

1. Foto made in studio, no Fotograph (Atelier) stamp or emboss Logo. Artist studio not signing for copyright, Reklame or pride, sehr aussergewohnlich but not impossible, sometime seen.

2. Foto made in studio using professioneler Kamera equipment und development but no trace Silver Nitrate oder Silver Oxide, so using cheap Eastman Schnappschuss film process for cheap Amatuer camera. Bad sign. Studio Atelier at this period mostly still use high quality chemical process.

3. Foto made in Atelier but using no named Fotopapier (Agfa, Mimosa, u.s.w.) Komish but not impossible, rarely but sometimes.

4. Foto sees no traces of time period age, stain, bend, yellowing, pencil marking, real age. Again can be but not on positive side of Waage.

5. No Name, Widmung, Datum nichts on backside, noch mal can be but also not positive side.

6. Image being reproduced mimimal 30 year, very commom Image of reproduction.

negative Aspekte: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6

positive Aspekte: Keine

You just proved my point.

**101combatvet** · 03-05-2017, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Edward View Post

Very interesting and thanks for the informative input.

In a generic sense I would agree with you that there are copies of copies made from actual wartime prints. My understanding, by all means correct me if I am wrong, is that the particular studio portrait in question was not one of the many reproduced from a series of wartime negatives that came out of Germany, or Austria sometime during the late 1980's or early 1990's. If that is the case where this particular example is concerned then that is really something, and a first for this series of portraits that I'm aware of. That said, I would certainly agree that there would be the possibility of surviving wartime printed example(s) of the one in question. Are there other different wartime printed portraits from this series that other WAF members can share, or that are known? One would think so. Have yet to see any.

As you know some TR docs have also been reproduced to a fairly high level using period techniques and various treatments to appropriately age. I think that one must keep an open mind that photos could, and likely are copied from wartime negatives and treated in a similar way to sell on the collecting market. The incentive is certainly there. Particularly when the value of many studio portraits have been sold for 100's of Euro's each for a number of years now.

Just as an aside, I can relate a personal story from the same time period. A German dealer offered me several hundred wartime studio portrait negatives that had been cleaned ouf of an old photography studio. I passed on the lot as negatives were not within my collecting interest, but I do have 2 of the portrait negatives that he sent me gratis as examples. Wonder what happened to the hundreds of others that he had?

Well, I have printed from old negatives and often you get mixed results. Depends on how they were stored and handled over the years. Negatives in themselves can be a big gamble.

**Edward** · 03-05-2017, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

Well, I have printed from old negatives and often you get mixed results. Depends on how they were stored and handled over the years. Negatives in themselves can be a big gamble.

Pretty cool. I did the same thing in Germany decades ago with a nice period negative that I had found of the Hindenburg. Kept it in a cigar box. Used the photo lab and it came out great. Cannot recall the photo paper I used....about 45 years ago. It was probably either glosssy, or matt.

**SkaraBrae** · 03-05-2017, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

Sure

Perhaps you tell us from your expertise of Fotos the very basic Aspekte about this selling Foto every Anfänger can say:

1. What type of Kamera was used to take this Foto would you say?
2. How would you describe the Latitude of this Foto?
3. How would you estimate the ISO used for the exposure? High or Low? What number would you suggest?
4. What type of film do you think is used here, since we do not see a silver nitrate type process?
4. Which development process would you then say was used for this print?

No? I thought perhaps not.

**101combatvet** · 03-05-2017, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by SkaraBrae View Post

Perhaps you tell us from your expertise of Fotos the very basic Aspekte about this selling Foto every Anfänger can say:

1. What type of Kamera was used to take this Foto would you say?
2. How would you describe the Latitude of this Foto?
3. How would you estimate the ISO used for the exposure? High or Low? What number would you suggest?
4. What type of film do you think is used here, since we do not see a silver nitrate type process?
4. Which development process would you then say was used for this print?

No? I thought perhaps not.

I'm not here to educate you; however, I can suggest some good books on the subject.

**David Lenk** · 03-10-2017, 05:48 PM

I agree that wartime photos without the familiar paper markings should be viewed with caution, especially for this asking price! Without any paper markings it can be difficult to authenticate so it must come down to personal judgement based on experience and technical knowledge.

You can clearly see that the rank on this tunic was modified after the original photo was taken. The chevrons on the arms and several gulls on the collar tabs have been removed, thereby changing the rank from Obergr. to Oberjager. Having personally started an apprenticeship in the late 80’s very early 90’s in the reprographics and printing industry I am familiar with the techniques for intentionally making minor modification to a photograph, prior to sophisticated digital technology. The usual procedure was as follows.
<O

</O

Make a print from the original negative.
<O

</O

Using special inks and a detailing brush, edit as desired. Usually basic crisscross strokes as seen in this photo.

<O

</O

Then re-photograph, produce a negative and then re-print.
<O

</O

It appears to me that this is what has happened here and maybe explains the non-standard, ‘exotic’ , photographic paper that has been used. Personally I am not convinced that an editing facility / service would have been available in general wartime (WW2) high street photographic studios. This helps explain a possible reason for the unmarked photographic paper, perhaps this particular example was commissioned via a more specialised service?
<O

</O

Now, background history to the photo reportedly of Eugen Griesser. I know from personal correspondence with Volker Griesser he confirmed that this is indeed his relative; if memory serves me correctly he was unsure if Eugen was indeed a Crete veteran. Because of this I ‘believe’ Volker chose not to show the full portrait in his book, at least in the 2005 French language version. I believe the theory at the time was that Eugen borrowed the tunic for the original photo. As I remember there were three reasons for this theory. Combination of the tropical cap with standard tunic, anomaly with Eugen’s known combat citations and the reasoning for later rank modification on the tunic.
<O

</O

Regards
<O

</O

David <O

</O

**lohengrin** · 03-12-2017, 04:46 AM

Hi guys,

I agree with much what has been written above.

This is indeed a very nice portrait. In my limited experience (collecting/dealing with period photos for the past few decades) I would view this example as a post-1945 reprint. It has certain classic signs from the size and edges to the fact that the swastikas and other nazi insignias are blurred or removed (that has been a common practice in FRG from 1950s to the late 1970s).

Also, I would like to note that there it is an important difference between:
An original (period) photograph,
a period reprint (reproduction),
a post-1945 reprint (reproduction),
fantasy photo (using re-anactors), and
a fake photo (made purposely to deceive collectors)...

Fake photo is not the same as reproduction!!!

The photograph in question is without ANY doubt a post-1945 reprint, very likely from the original (albeit slightly modified) negative!

It is a great image nevertheless!!

M.

**FrenchVolunteer** · 03-12-2017, 08:50 AM

Hi,

a picture is pre-1945, or post-war (no matter all the "explainations" that may found).

This one is a confirmed post-war, case closed.

See You

Vince

**Sonderkommando** · 03-12-2017, 09:42 AM

Skarabrae,
You have a very thorough knowledge of photography, and know your subject well

Announcement

need to discussion

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread