Lakesidetrader - Top
Display your banner here
Page 34 of 38 FirstFirst ... 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 380

Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs

Article about: Well, I know there are other threads that have been started in the past about the originality of Wartime Photos. However, I frequently receieve PM's asking for advice or assitance about how

  1. #331
    ?

    Default

    Hello,

    I am not very comfortable with these two photos. The coloration and condition of the photo paper is very questionable. The edges do not look worn hardly at all. The photo paper definitely looks too bright to not have optical brighteners in the mix. Even being glossy stock, it shouldn’t glow that much.
    I don’t have access to my photos currently but I feel like there wasn’t gloss photo paper from Leonar like how these shine under the light.
    The photos must be larger for the first one to have six Leonar stamps on the reverse.

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Age
    2010
    P
    Many
     

  3. #332

    Default

    Quote by Witt View Post
    Hello,

    I am not very comfortable with these two photos. The coloration and condition of the photo paper is very questionable. The edges do not look worn hardly at all. The photo paper definitely looks too bright to not have optical brighteners in the mix. Even being glossy stock, it shouldn’t glow that much.
    I don’t have access to my photos currently but I feel like there wasn’t gloss photo paper from Leonar like how these shine under the light.
    The photos must be larger for the first one to have six Leonar stamps on the reverse.
    Thank you for your opinion. The size of the photos is cca. 13 x 9 cm. The second one is a little smaller (few mm).

    I just recently bought a UV lamp and decided to check my whole collection (around 150 photos). These two were the only ones that glowed bright blue under the UV light. The only thing that glowed on the other photos was the glue residue or other surface damage.
    Without checking with the UV light I never would have thought they were fake. Sure, they look like they are brand new, but I thought they were just greatly preserved.

    Also, the "Leonar" stamps look genuine. A member from another forum said that since they glow under UV light it’s fairly safe to say they’re on post 1950s photo paper.

    I would like to hear more opinions on their authenticity.

  4. #333

    Default

    Quote by Kriegsmarine Admiral View Post
    Hello, I would appreciate your opinions on these two photos. Make sure to open the photos in a new tab to see them in larger size.

    When they arrived I thought they looked a little too good to be true. They look brand new, the paper is still white. The paper is relatively thin and the surface is smooth/reflective. The back has "Leonar" stamps (although on the second photo they are upside down). The quality of the image is sharp and there are no blurred edges. One thing I noticed when I angled them in light is that the whole image is reflective (except the small part of the white edges). It looks like the images have been glued over the paper.

    And finally, I compared these two photos with an original one under UV light. Both the photos glow bright blue on both sides under the UV light. The original one above them doesn't glow. The photos taken with my phone don't show how it actually looks, they glow more brightly. I was surprised these two photos glowed because I bought them from a respectable eBay seller (nauatu). And if I remember correctly he advertised them as 100% original. But I bought them more than two years ago.

    Does this mean they are fakes for certain?

    Thanks!

    Attachment 1643992 Attachment 1643993
    Attachment 1643994 Attachment 1643995
    Attachment 1643996 Attachment 1643997
    Can other members also share their opinions please?
    Thanks

  5. #334

    Default

    These two photographs also seem to very quite high contrast, the greatcoats are almost black where they have been dodged/burnt in - overexposing this part of the picture while the warship in the background appears almost lost in mist? The photographic paper would appear modern and not wartime from the appearance under the UV light.

  6. #335
    ?

    Default

    Hello all!

    I wanted to ask if any of you know the seller schneifel44, based in the netherlands.
    I was browsing Ebay DE, and suddenly i saw a couple of familiar photos. Only a couple of weeks ago i saw them sell (start march), by a different seller. Now it's perfectly ok if schneifel purchased them to resell, but it all just strikes me a little odd so i would like to hear your opinion on them. Was about to say i couldn't find the old listing, but after some searching i found the seller and looked in his "sold" section.
    Perhaps someone else here has seen them, or can recognize the images?

    Seller from NL says they're 34. ID / Artillerie Rgt. AR 34. But looking at the previous listing from 77yearsofbraindraininsaxony he listed the POW photo under "Foto Russland Ukraine russische Kriegsgefangene POW Soldaten Freiwillige im Wald"

    Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs

    Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs

    Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs
    Nothing on the back says the seller, so no photo
    Ridax fotopapier

    Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs
    Original 77years post, also Ridax fotopapier

    The auction of 77years had a great zoom, but when you tried to open up the image it only had it in small format. schneifel44 on the other hand had two images (both of the front), one small without "copy protection", and one large version with the protection.

    this next image, my comparison is therefore not perfect, but i think it'll get the job done.

    Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs

    imo it's clearly not the same photo. There's a clear colour difference in lighting, and it looks like small blemishes (note: back of guy with rifle, dots on POW in the middle) have been removed (if they are the same image- photoshop?). You could give him the benefit of doubt, saying they probably had multiple prints (which could explain the lack of blemishes), but what bugs me is how dark the Dutch seller's image is and that the photo i highlighted isnt the only one i've seen being sold before.

    As far as i could see, i don't think schneifel44 purchased the photo, the winner of 77years' auction is different. Maybe he managed to copy the photo from the auction somehow? Or perhaps i'm all wrong, both being ok. I'm far from well versed in spotting fake photos, but thought i'd post this oddity for you all to enjoy.

    sidenote: In the past i have bought from 77yearsofbraindraininsaxony once, hench how i recognized the image in the first place. The photo i purchased appears to be ok, but he was a bit hush hush when i asked about the source of the image (estate, possible vet name, etc). I know some gladly provide it while others don't, so not much of an issue for me personally. I just found it a little weird that he in his title description could give info, but that the photo is blank + he said he didnt have any history of it's origin.

    even though i now have been brainstorming in this post a little, please know that i'm not judging either of the two, i'm just very curious what is going on, and therefore wanted to hear some opinions on the POW photo.

    I apologize for the (way too long) post.
    Friendly cheers from Denmark

  7. #336
    ?

    Default

    Hello Mailio,

    I have never heard of either of the sellers you have mentioned but I have looked into both of them for the sake of further informing myself on this topic.
    I first looked into the origin of the photo, the 34. Division, and artillerie regiment 34 but I did not find any trace of this photo or any of the others that accompanied the same supposed origin. Unless the subject matter of the photo is more appealing or well known it seems most can fall under the radar with who knows how ever many photos were taken during the war.

    The seller ‘schneifel44’ seems to be a newer seller as he has not sold very many items. Between his current listings and those recently sold, he has multiple dozen photos that are the supposed photographs from artillerie regiment 34.
    I have a strong feeling that this POW photo is not privately taken, it has to be some kind of PK or canteen photo or something similar. First looking at this same POW photo sold by each seller. They are the same minus the exposure and some surface defects. The paper appears to be the same except the one takes up more of the paper and is slightly tilted. The same large scratch is seen on both while only one has an additional scratch and dot present. Then you compare the one sold by schneifel44 with the rest of his his listings from the same origin. They all look pretty similar, which could be expected, but some look suspicious and others have some qualities that feel more advanced than what are usually encountered with personal photos. Not sure what it is.

    I do not really care for how either present their listings of photographs. The small, blurry image of the photo both use for the first image are terrible and are pretty useless really. That is a really easy way to peddle junk photos. At least the Dutch seller includes the larger, more detailed images of the photos after the small image unlike the other seller. I only saw a handful of current and previous listings between the two where they included an image of the reverse. I usually won’t even bother if they don’t include this.

    Regards, Ben

  8. #337
    ?

    Default

    Hi Guys,

    I have to admit I have never thought to run my photos under a U.V light.
    Thanks for the tip.

    Time to have a look over what I have.

    Cheers

    Danger

  9. #338

    Default

    I don't know if schneifel44 says what size the photographs are, but if they are larger than one might expect then this might suggest they were press photographs as Witt has already implied. If this were the case I would expect stamps on the back. The presence of several photos all of a larger size, on unmarked photographic paper would be a concern for me.

  10. #339
    ?

    Default

    Thank both of you for your opinion.

    I think what mainly made me curious was that both were put up for sale so close to each other, which felt a little suspicious.

    Friendly cheers from Denmark

  11. #340
    ?

    Default

    Hi Guys,

    Could I please get your opinions on these?

    Thanks,

    Danger
    Click to enlarge the picture Click to enlarge the picture Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs   Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs  

    Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs   Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs  

    Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs   Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs  

    Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs   Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs  

    Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs   Assistance with Id'ing Fake Photographs  


Page 34 of 38 FirstFirst ... 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Assistance Required

    In SS Helmet forum
    12-23-2011, 11:27 PM
  2. 03-18-2011, 10:16 AM
  3. Tunic Assistance

    In Heer, Luftwaffe, & Kriegsmarine Uniforms of the Third Reich
    11-06-2010, 12:06 AM
  4. Help! M1 Assistance

    In US M1 steel helmet forum
    05-14-2010, 04:07 PM
  5. 04-26-2010, 11:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Lakesidetrader - Down
Display your banner here