WWII Photographs: Real or Fake?

[BillSpargo]

WWII Photographs: Real or Fake?

This link (http://www.tinyvices.com/W.W.II) was originally posted at Missing Lynx (http://missing-lynx.com/index.htm) in this thread (http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1154551259/Very+interesting+pictures).
They had a discussion whether or not they were real. I originally thought they were fake but am not so convinced now. I'd like to know what all of you think.

[edit]There are a series of photos in each section. Just click on the small white symbol above the image.

[Volvulus]

The pictures look too perfect to be that old, but you never really know.

[Kaos]

The story sounds hokey...

If they recently developed the negatives, then why do the photographs themselves look weathered?

[Blame Canada]

I can't say for sure, but I've got some Danish photographs taken in 1941 and some of them are of equal quality. So it's definitely possible that photos taken at the time could look so "new"...

[Lt.Winters]

Some of them are defin. real .. but some you would have to think twice..

[OliverMarshall]

Hmmm, No.2 looks real but not so sure about No.1

[BillSpargo]

Hmmm, No.2 looks real but not so sure about No.1
There are a series of photos in each section. Just click on the small white symbol above the image.

[Fallschirmjäger]

Some look a bit off maybe,but why mix new fake stuff in with old,just for a laugh and to fool people,get there kicks out of it,but then i could be wrong and there all real?.

[xplosiv]

I really can't see why anyone could dismiss these photos as fakes. I don't see anything suspicious about them (although im no expert). Furthermore, as Fallschirmjäger has said - I don't see any good reason to make fakes at all :confused: whats the point?

[DarkCanuck]

most look real, some are suspect.

[75thDeadMan]

no.1 does look at bit fake, but i'm not sure you can ever really tell. maybe the lighting was just right when he shot it and he got an awesome picture. it's happend before, i'm sure it will happen again.

[enigma]

i know just the people who will be able to give the lowdown on these

*posts on the Battlefront forums and releases the grogs!*


I do have a healthy ammount of skeptism on some of them, some look rather staged and on one of them ... a one man firing squad? yea right.

[Kaos]

i know just the people who will be able to give the lowdown on these

*posts on the Battlefront forums and releases the grogs!*


I do have a healthy ammount of skeptism on some of them, some look rather staged and on one of them ... a one man firing squad? yea right.

Enigma's opinion is good enough for me, he's the expert in my eye.

Edit: Wow, that doesn't sound gay...

[enigma]

Enigma's opinion is good enough for me, he's the expert in my eye.

Edit: Wow, that doesn't sound gay...
hello lover boy :D

Well the Grog Grogs havnt replied yet (over on the battlefront forums) but the peeps who have think there legit.

I dunno i wouldnt take my word as gospel on this one :p

I think some are legit and some raise suspicion

[Katulobotomia]

I would say they are 99% real. I live in Finland and as we share most of our border with Russia these pictures (atleast some of them) show Russian troops and even I can detect the same wildlife we have here, the trees look very dry and worn out, because of hard winters at the time, I even spotted the metallic food-box-thingie where they eat their food. Our military uses them even today. The people look Russian too. :P

[enigma]

Ost troops then prehaps?

I dunno i still think some are suspect but:


Why would people question these as "fake". I have a great deal of experience in making and looking at photographs. The amount of effort that would go into "faking" these would involve a Hollywood size effort, to no benefit. To what end would they be fake?

supose i prehaps just a paranoid bastard :p

[Tough Ombre 359th]

I think some of them are real. Some look fake becuase they are too crisp and clean.

[sid]

Some look like pictures of reenactors to me.

[xtc-alec]

True i dont see the point of mixing a few fake in with the real...

[Volvulus]

People on the internet you really never know...

[ThomasStewart]

IMHO the photographs are original.

Why do I think this? Because:

We have a photographer in our unit who uses original 1940's cameras and the modern equivelant of the appropriate film. His images of us look totally period but somehow not too dis-similar looking in terms of quality from modern photos. Now in his black and white images, it is VERY hard to tell whether the images are wwII or not, but there are tell-tale signs, for example the film has no weathering, no scratches, nothing; this is because the quality of modern film is better to that of the 1940's. Secondly the film ressonance is clearer, this isnt due to any modern development, this is because he knows how to set-up the camera approprietly; the magority of photos we see of WWII are taken either in a hurry or by amatures - 1940's cameras are finicky and require the photographer to adjust the settings accurately and measure UV. So, photographs taken by a photographer who knows his business, are more often than not, exceedingly clear shots. For example images found in the "Signal" magazine archives have been found to be some of the most clear and "modern looking" images of ww2 around.

Therefore I dont see why these images are fake in terms of the film quality. Looking at the people, uniforms, vehicles and backdrops I can see no reason to suggest they are fake.

[ThomasStewart]

To prove film quality, here is an image of myself taken on a 1940's camera with the modern equivelant of the 40's colour film.

http://www.panzergrenadier.net/coppermine/albums/userpics/10014/normal_16.jpg

[enigma]

To prove film quality, here is an image of myself taken on a 1940's camera with the modern equivelant of the 40's colour film.

http://www.panzergrenadier.net/coppermine/albums/userpics/10014/normal_16.jpg
:eek: ITS A FAKE!!!!!!



:p




cool pic, and i like your explination. (am just a tad paranoid and supious of things :p )