The Eagles Over Europe Project

[Larry Hickey]

Hello,

I've obtained the permission of the buyer to show what the problem is with a photoshopped emblem added to an auction item, which is still listed on eBay.

Someone took a photo of 1./KG4 aircraft 5J+GH that force-landed and was written off in Poland during 09.39, and added a KG54 "death's head" insignia to the fuselage of this aircraft. I've got about 20 photos of the KG4 aircraft and NONE of them show the KG54 insignia on either side.

This photo from the EoE Collection shows this aircraft as it actually appeared at the time of its crash-landing.

http://ihra.smugmug.com/photos/i-dBb...-dBbjwmC-S.jpg

The second photos shows this photo as it was recently sold on eBay with an authentic KG54 emblem, but added to an aircraft on which it didn't belong. In fairness to the seller, he claims that he had purchased the original photos from someone else, believing that it was an authentic. However, it is once again for sale on eBay.

http://ihra.smugmug.com/photos/i-wsZ...-wsZrDm6-L.jpg

So once again, it is Buyer Beware.

[ouidjat]

Hmmm ... And the bump on spinner has been erased too...

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, all

I do not wan't to contest your conclusion, and we should always be aware of the possibilities of trickery.

However - another possibility exist - namely wartime retouching of the photographs. I have such examples from my main area of interest where both insignia an callsigns have been retouched and thus removed before publication.

Since I have both versions (the original from a pilots photo album with all 'regalia' visible) and the retouched version where Gruppe and Staffel badge has been erased with official stamps and the PK photographers name on the backside one can easily be impressed by the quality of the retouching work. In other instances this has been quite crude and obvious.

Just a though I wanted to share, even back then a photo was not necessarily the full truth.

To address the two photos you show, Larry, they are to me obviously not from the same negative, as angle, lighting etc is totally different. I doubt you would be able to do this in Photoshop. See how the details are much more visible in the second one due to the difference in lighting conditions.

So - maybe the 'frauded' version is really the good one - and we have a He 111 with this insignia on. That would be kind of cool?

Regards,
Andreas B

[RudiS]

Hi Andreas,

I think it was a common practice for censors to remove all items on a photo that could lead to the identity of a downed aircraft of their own forces before releasing the photo to the public.

In this case however it's quite the opposite: a photo of an a/c that was sold on ebay whithout an emblem , was enhanced with an emblem and then a modern repro of this was made and sold again on ebay.

Attached is what I believe is the original photo sold on ebay, without the emblem and the enhanced version sold again as a modern repro.

Regards,
Rudi.

[JohnnyB]

Hi Rudi,

maybe, it was common practice to remove items - but was it also common practise to remove damages, for example to erase the bump on a spinner as ouidjat said already ? Only a tiny detail in the photo - but clearly visible.

[ouidjat]

And, Rudis explanation is interesting since ...

Did censorship remove details on negative? If so How can we have a modern repro WITH the emblem?
Did censorship remove details when printing on news paper? If so, how can we have the first eBay photo WITHOUT the emblem??

Maybe is too much complicated for my little head ...



Regards, Franck.

[taitbb]

I dont think the bump on the spinner was removed per se. It has merely been made less visible because of the brighter contrast between the two photos.

here i have darkened it, and you can see the bump reemerge.

[Sergio Luis dos Santos]

Originally Posted by taitbb

I dont think the bump on the spinner was removed per se. It has merely been made less visible because of the brighter contrast between the two photos.

here i have darkened it, and you can see the bump reemerge.

Yes, I agree the bump is there. Lighting effect.

[obdl3945]

I'm confused... !

Attached below is the version I've got, with the dent on the upper spinner evident, but the one on the underside invisible/missing. I think this is the same one as the first photo Rudi posted.

I thought maybe the photo was taken closer to the aircraft, but can't quite get my head around the lower dent not being seen as I think it should be, given it is rather noticeable on post #4 by Larry. Apologies if I'm making you as confused as myself!

Paul

[Andreas Brekken]

Hi, all

RudiS - how can you be sure that this is the way this happened? Do you know that the buyer of the first photograph is the seller of the second one?

ouidjat - he/she/it doesn't need to have the original negative - you can make a 'new' negative by photographing a print - and then work on this before you make a new set - hence 'repro' - reproduction.

I am still not convinced - I can not see how you can get so much new detail out of the obviously much darker print which RudiS present as the 'original' the person has been working from.

As I know how many different or nearly similar copies/prints/versions exist of photos in my main area of interest, I believe we are looking at different wartime versions.

I guess we will have to wait and see - and as the seller seems to have made a modern repro/copy we will probably never really know... if he/seh is not willing to share either the negative or the print he has copied for analysis.

Regards,
Andreas B