Questions in the title, are these photos genuine photos taken during the battle, or are they staged?
Thanks all
Thanks all
Staged or true??
- Thread starter [FERGIE]
- Start date
How can one tell, after so many years?
All WWI they are, I guess?
Maybe the last one is staged.
All WWI they are, I guess?
Maybe the last one is staged.
Upvote
0
I hate to say it but there were reporters on the front lines of every war from now till the end of time. It's not a resent thing. IE there were people back in midevil times who would write down what they saw as the battle unfolded before their eyes.
So it's a big possability that all of them are real. But I would think a shot of real WW1/2 would have some more wear and tear on it. Unless it was digitaly fixed up witch is also a possablitiy. I highly doubt that anyone would fake a action shot of WW1/2 think of all the truble they would get in if it was found they were stageing historical photos with actors, and sepcial effects.
Upvote
0
id say maybe the 1st and last photos.......they did stage them after the fact, the first one only because of the limited field of view, you cant really see what is going on except that maybe its near verdun because of the nasty mud. The last one only because crossing trench wire in that lighting wouldnt be so calm.......so either its a training photo or an after the fact propoganda shot.
I do know there were alot of stagings after the fact in ww2 france when Guderian was racing across the countryside because he was going too fast to be filmed........he was known as the ghost in france because even HQ didnt know his exact location because of his speed
I do know there were alot of stagings after the fact in ww2 france when Guderian was racing across the countryside because he was going too fast to be filmed........he was known as the ghost in france because even HQ didnt know his exact location because of his speed
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I'd say definitely staged. Or more likely, old movie stills. Look at the point of view on the first photo. That guy would have to be standing upright with a big old slow camera, he's not in a foxhole like the others. No way is it real. The last one-no way that's real, look at the guy pretending to throw a grenade by holding it over his head while a bunch of friendlies are in fromt of him and the enemy would have to be at leats 100 yds away. Plus the camera would have to be set up in No Man's Land (suicide) and the "trenches" have no parapets or loopholes or anything. Obviously fake.
Upvote
0
Alot of german photographs were infact staged in ww2 for political reasons. Highly decoraded soldiers, and snipers were a favorite choice for photographers. Check out the book called 'the k98k rifle. propaganda series vol. 1' for great photographs.
Upvote
0
To me, the 3rd one seems the least likely to be staged. There's a big gun there so it could either be taken from a movie, or some (un)lucky reporter being in the wrong place at the right time at a barrage on an artillery position.
Upvote
0
Cameras in the 19-teens were not the same massive devices found in the 1870's. The Brownie camera (introduced in 1900) and others of similar ilk were around at that time! Photography was becoming a popular pastime already. I used to have a Brownie when I was a kid. It was about 6x6x8 inches or so. Weighed maybe a pound and a half, maybe less. Film cartridges for it cost, back in the day, 15 cents apiece.
First and third look real. Fourth looks like a propaganda shot. Second ... dunno.
In the first one, look at the guy in the upper right. He's getting shot in the back. I'm guessing that these guys are on their way back to friendly positions after a failed charge.
Third - duh. There's a explosion going off, and a dude getting knocked around by the blast.
The second ... it could be staged after the fact, but before they collected the bodies from the day's / week's / months' fighting. Fourth ... again, could be real, but it looks staged. Nothing's happening. Everyone's just ... waiting.
First and third look real. Fourth looks like a propaganda shot. Second ... dunno.
In the first one, look at the guy in the upper right. He's getting shot in the back. I'm guessing that these guys are on their way back to friendly positions after a failed charge.
Third - duh. There's a explosion going off, and a dude getting knocked around by the blast.
The second ... it could be staged after the fact, but before they collected the bodies from the day's / week's / months' fighting. Fourth ... again, could be real, but it looks staged. Nothing's happening. Everyone's just ... waiting.
Upvote
0
Those look like French soldiers charging the German line, judging by their helmets.
All of those photos look staged. The person getting shot in the first photo looks particularly suspicious and staged. In the second one, for a camera man to get that shot he would have to run infront of the charge, turn around, and take the photo placing his back to enemy fire, I don't think even suicidal photographers would go to such lengths to get a photo, always easier and safer to stage the thing. Third photo also looks staged. In fourth photo one of the soldiers appears to be looking directly into the camera.
Upvote
0
![[-project.rattus-]](/data/avatars/s/0/161.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Due to the difficulty of photography and the bulky and very fragile eqipment, most fotos were taken several miles behind the frontlines, and thus staged.
Upvote
0
Actually in the second one i thought they were retreating or falling back from a position, if they were attacking or it was a real action shot they would undoutably have had their bayonets fixed.
Upvote
0
id say the only shot not staged is the 3rd one
in all 3 other fotos the cameraman would have to be in a suicidal position
in all 3 other fotos the cameraman would have to be in a suicidal position
Upvote
0
Total myth. As already said, cameras were neither that bulky nor primative at the time. Video maybe, but photography was easily portable into no man's land.
The 2nd and 3rd look real(ish) to me, infact there are others in the series to go with number 2, all with the same dead french soldier. 4 looks a little too calm, so I reckon staged. Not sure about 1.
WW1 actually had very few staged 'combat' pictures in comparison to say WW2. The British army didn't like war photographers taking pictures of bodies as is and the Germans had a similar attitude, so they didn't exactly like going around staging them.
Upvote
0
One thing which make me think they are staged is the position
the photographer have in all these pics.
Is he dugged in with a periscope camera ? So most likely pictures from movies
The 2th picture as an example the guy on the right is hit behind hime there
is another death. So the photographer should have lead the attack then turned
around and took the picture.
The 4th picture shows quite a lot soldiers ready to throw a nade.
Looking closely it seems they all carry nades even the guy proning in the
foreground has one. Is this a nade only mutator.
About WW1 camera's they had really good camera's back then.
http://www.after-hourz.com/misc/drecks/panorama1.jpg
the photographer have in all these pics.
Is he dugged in with a periscope camera ? So most likely pictures from movies
The 2th picture as an example the guy on the right is hit behind hime there
is another death. So the photographer should have lead the attack then turned
around and took the picture.
The 4th picture shows quite a lot soldiers ready to throw a nade.
Looking closely it seems they all carry nades even the guy proning in the
foreground has one. Is this a nade only mutator.
About WW1 camera's they had really good camera's back then.
http://www.after-hourz.com/misc/drecks/panorama1.jpg
Upvote
0
Yes, my wife has an old Brownie camera. It's not very big, but back in the early 1900's the film was quite slow. I don't think you could get good snapshots of people running.
The bodies in these photos look staged. They don't have the crumpled appearance that one usually sees in real war photos. And they're not missing limbs or blown to bits. They look like guys who just laid down for a photo.
As previously mentioned the point of view of the first photo would have exposed the photographer to a suicidal level of danger.
The proximity of the blast in the third photo would likely have killed or at least flattened the photographer if it was from a real HE shell hit. And the guy slumped over behind the gun appears to be already dead, not getting killed by the blast. He's likely a dummy.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0