Is the photo faked?

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,288
Dhaka
#81
And this:
Wirephoto - Wikipedia

This was in the days when international phone calls were expensive. One couldn't simply waste hours sending a large number of photos. The news agencies had to be selective.
The camp was liberated (and the photo taken) in April, and the photo was published in NYT on May. There wasn't much of an hurry so as to send the photo via wire. E.g. photos of fall of Berlin would be wired.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
34,487
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#82
The camp was liberated (and the photo taken) in April, and the photo was published in NYT on May. There wasn't much of an hurry so as to send the photo via wire. E.g. photos of fall of Berlin would be wired.
Nonetheless, the agency is not going to send multiple, similar images. It will select what it considers the most appropriate, and send them together with other images for other stories. If the photographer took 5 images at the same time, they will simply select the best.
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,406
South of the barcodes
#83
Allow me to come back on that exchange with a couple of precisions as I think it's important to know/keep in mind a couple of things when dealing with pre (aprox.) 1990's photographic documents.

If we restraint to the "35"/"Leika" film format, that became extremely popular and it was extensively used by war photographers from WWII to as late as 1990's, here is a pic to exemplify what we're talking about:


View attachment 22158

it's my good old Canon AE1, slightly bigger than a good deal of cameras used in WWII, the cigarette pack, the matches, the film rolls are identical in size as in WWII (6 rolls, some 200 shots available). To have a scale of comparation, the bottle is 33cl one.

First thing is that the camera isn't that small, the 35mm films rolls aren't that small, when You have to take with You, especially in a war zone. Plus, the standard is only 36 shots on a roll. Having 10 with You (which is a lot, in fact) gives You 360-380 shots in total.

Second thing is that the photographer doesn't know what he actually shot, he cannot see it, check it. Plus, unlike the digital shot, he cannot "erase" that shot afterwards and "re-use" that frame. Once shot, that frame on the film is gone. I don't even mention that You have to take out the film and put a new one, and of course, the it's when You see the shot of Your life ...

That is something that's making a totally different psichology, a different approach for a film photographer compared to a present "digital photographer". War photographer on film, it's was quite a ruthles challenge.

There's also the processing aspect: the film has to be developed, then the photos made. Which normally, wasn't made in place. Rolls were sent back for that. Maybe the special units at the end of the war had mobile labs, but very often, the rolls went all the way back to London, or Moscow or US.

And I didn't get into retouching, editing, in an era without computers, graphic cards and Gimps or Photoshops.

In conclusion, when analysing photography on film, the first thing to do is to get out from the "digital mindset" we have these days.


Just by doing that, a couple of things become much clearer.
You missed out a couple of the other joys of 35mm, like every time you open the case to replace film dirt and sand can get in which can scratch the celluloid or get into the shutter and winding mechanism. Salt water is even worse.

If the camera gets dropped or knocked the seal on the access flap can come loose letting in just enough light to ruin the exposure on every single image and you'll never know until the film is developed.

Cameras of the era are built like engine blocks, my SLR weighs less then the lens of my 1980s era Praktica, that thing can probably be used to beat tigers into submission.

I kind of miss the suspense of celluloid, maybe not the bit where you have to wait two weeks to find out youve got three pictures of a thumb, four that are overexposed, another two out of focus and on the only one thats perfect someones sneezing.
 
Apr 2018
608
India
#84
A funny thing that I find -

1. This image -
1565415030175.png

is from the Sunday Edition of NYT Mag, 6th May, 1945, Page 42-43, or so says the Russian site. But as a testament to his idiocy, the fool actually uploaded the snapshot of the whole magazine -

1565414818661.png

and then posted a slight close-up and then a more detailed close up of the photo in concern, both of which he claims are from a "scanned" image (my a**) -

a0e2ec67437378ae2d30565b0461e024f.jpg

Just answer one question, why does a 1945 vintage photo on a 1945 vintage magazine have WINSTONSMITHMINISTRYOFTRUTH.BLOGSPOT.CO.UK written on it (check the whole mag pic carefully)? It's there in both so called 'scanned' and 'snapped' images of the magazine. Whereas in the photo with the man it's not there.

My take, probably the original mag photo came with the man. Something probably happened during the archiving process. That's why the horribly grainy image in NYT online archive shows total darkness where the man stood. This idiot took the opportunity but in an attempt to make name for himself messed it all up. Should have taken a break from the tediously noble task of defending his/her great Aryan heritage in crappy corners of the internet.
 
Last edited:

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
34,487
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#85
A funny thing that I find -

1. This image -
View attachment 22172

is from the Sunday Edition of NYT Mag, 6th May, 1945, Page 42-43, or so says the Russian site. But as a testament to his idiocy, the fool actually uploaded the snapshot of the whole magazine -

View attachment 22171

and then posted a slight close-up and then a more detailed close up of the photo in concern, both of which he claims are from a "scanned" image (my a**) -

View attachment 22173

Just answer one question, why does a 1945 vintage photo on a 1945 vintage magazine have WINSTONSMITHMINISTRYOFTRUTH.BLOGSPOT.CO.UK written on it (check the whole mag pic carefully)? It's there in both so called 'scanned' and 'snapped' images of the magazine. Whereas in the photo with the man it's not there.

My take, probably the original mag photo came with the man. Something probably happened during the archiving process. That's why the horribly grainy image in NYT online archive shows total darkness where the man stood. This idiot took the opportunity but in an attempt to make name for himself messed it all up. Should have taken a break from the tediously noble task of defending his/her great Aryan heritage in crappy corners of the internet.
We have already established that the NYT removed the man when it published the photograph, but other news outlets did not.
 
Apr 2018
608
India
#86
We have already established that the NYT removed the man when it published the photograph, but other news outlets did not.
Yes I have gone through the thread. That's a plausible explanation. But we don't have any pic of the original mag that doesn't show the man in the photo (Except the one with the signature of Lord Winston Smith).

I don't know when the NYT archives were digitized. But it's easier than sleeping to adjust the curves of the original photo in PS and then rub off the man. If anyone has PS then it's worth a shot to adjust the curves of this one
1565437131425.png to check whether it actually looks like the grainy image of the archives. This I say because the right side of the NYT online archive image seems way too pitch dark (not a hint of the bunks or the ceiling).

It may be the case that the alteration took place not in '45 but when the archives were digitized.

This 'revelation' first came up here Discovered! Iconic photo in Buchenwald is dishonest photo-fakery | Elie Wiesel Cons the World Discovered! Iconic photo in Buchenwald is dishonest photo-fakery | A Blog Dedicated to Finding out the Truth about Elie Wiesel's Tattoo and here Discovered! Iconic photo in Buchenwald is dishonest photo-fakery | Carolyn Yeager in 2012. Both sites are managed by a certain Carolyn Yaegar who happened/happens to be a holocaust revisionist radio presenter.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,598
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#87
Listen, the early German work [I've posted a link to it] shows the standing guy. If you observe the other pictures there are some which can make a sensitive person vomit ... NYT [Magazine] didn't publish them. They decided to publish the less tremendous one ... editing it to erase something too disturbing.

I'm not going to make a research about Carolyn Yaegar, I don't mind. Propaganda has always existed and if you can make something bad even worse ... you do it. The real point here is the difference between edited and faked. Did they exaggerated? Ok, may be ... but after what they knew in their life they were justified to exaggerate. Historical investigation can put things in their original order.
 
Apr 2018
608
India
#88
Listen, the early German work [I've posted a link to it] shows the standing guy. If you observe the other pictures there are some which can make a sensitive person vomit ... NYT [Magazine] didn't publish them. They decided to publish the less tremendous one ... editing it to erase something too disturbing.

I'm not going to make a research about Carolyn Yaegar, I don't mind. Propaganda has always existed and if you can make something bad even worse ... you do it. The real point here is the difference between edited and faked. Did they exaggerated? Ok, may be ... but after what they knew in their life they were justified to exaggerate. Historical investigation can put things in their original order.
Yea. Neo Nazis survive by making Mount Everest out of termite mounds. But just tell me one simple thing, if the photo was edited in '45, then what is this thing (arrow) doing here?
Inked1565414818661_LI.jpg

Putting it elaborately, if the photo had already been retouched, why go through this trouble to make a fake one of the Magazin itself?
 
Oct 2013
14,438
Europix
#89
Yea. Neo Nazis survive by making Mount Everest out of termite mounds. But just tell me one simple thing, if the photo was edited in '45, then what is this thing (arrow) doing here?
...
Putting it elaborately, if the photo had already been retouched, why go through this trouble to make a fake one of the Magazin itself?

Firstly, it's a good thing, pointing to that watermark. Secondly, ... I don't know why the person posted the watermarked NYT. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


As far as I could go, the edited photo appeared not once, but two times in the NYT: on April 29th, 1945, cropped (*) and on May 6th, 1945 (see: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/archival/19450506notforget.pdf)(**).


But the same photo appeared in other journals, in the same period and it seems the source was am Associated Press wirephoto(**).


For example, "St. Louis Post-Dispatch", April 29th 1945


Well, I think I have to stop on this: I'm on vacation, with just a crappy smartphone and an even crappier access to the net: no way to make a real research :(


So ... thanks Anna Frank for bringing it and all those getting into it. It's good having an interesting and informative real discussion. Debunking fake history, conspirationism, negationisms in the same time was the cherry on top.


_____
(*) couldn't find the confirmation yet
(**) credits: Are any of the allegations that some Holocaust photos are frauds true?
"The Most Famous Holocaust Photo a Fraud" ?
 
Apr 2018
608
India
#90
Firstly, it's a good thing, pointing to that watermark. Secondly, ... I don't know why the person posted the watermarked NYT. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


As far as I could go, the edited photo appeared not once, but two times in the NYT: on April 29th, 1945, cropped (*) and on May 6th, 1945 (see: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/archival/19450506notforget.pdf)(**).


But the same photo appeared in other journals, in the same period and it seems the source was am Associated Press wirephoto(**).


For example, "St. Louis Post-Dispatch", April 29th 1945


Well, I think I have to stop on this: I'm on vacation, with just a crappy smartphone and an even crappier access to the net: no way to make a real research :(


So ... thanks Anna Frank for bringing it and all those getting into it. It's good having an interesting and informative real discussion. Debunking fake history, conspirationism, negationisms in the same time was the cherry on top.


_____
(*) couldn't find the confirmation yet
(**) credits: Are any of the allegations that some Holocaust photos are frauds true?
"The Most Famous Holocaust Photo a Fraud" ?
Thanks for the Axis History Forum link. Found a whole lot of info which indeed supports the NYT retouch hypothesis. It seems there is another (authentic) clear version of the doctored image is available. This is on the cover of holocaust survivor Mel Mermelstein's book "By bread only" -
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81J349WzFFL._SL1500_.jpg

However, AHF user named Sergey Romanov has quite efficiently debunked this fakery hoax in his blog - Holocaust Controversies: The denier logic at its finest: the famous Buchenwald photo.
 

Similar History Discussions