This photo was taken during reenacment "Eagle over Arnhem" (Gryfino, 12th September) by Kriegsberichter der Luftwaffe (https://www.facebook.com/Kriegsberichte ... /timeline/). I've the pleasure be Scharfschutze from this photo
It may not be perfect, but for me is good.
Ps. Bundesarchiv marks is added only for fun.
Kodak Retina I. Film Ilford 400.
Re: most realistic looking reenactment photo
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:12 pm
by Halle
Very good Hagen, very realistic. .
Re: most realistic looking reenactment photo
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:53 pm
by valkyrie895
I think this is a neat thread and a lot of the submissions herein are absolutely awesome- but let's examine what makes a reenactment photo look "realistic".
As I understand it, in this context, "realistic" means "looks most like an original photograph". While many have posted photos of themselves in totally top notch gear head to toe, the photographic quality is very modern, giving a striking image and a "Steven Spielburg" quality (low contrast, backlit, washed out tones, etc). Others show a pretty decent reenactment photo with a weird sepia filter and fake jagged edges and creases and whatnot. To me, this detracts from the photo itself. If you saw one of those photos in print, you wouldn't necessarily mistake it as an original.
Many seem to think that just because WWII was 70+years ago, that optical equipment was not up to par with what it is today- with Europe and Germany in particular at the absolute cutting edge of optical technology (cameras, telescopes, microscopes, anything with a lens really), it is no surprise that many WWII images are extremely crisp, detailed, and lack the very coarse grain that reenactors always seem to photoshop into their photos. Most of the grain you see in original photos is a result of the image being enlarged several times to frame it more artistically for publication. The Robert Capa D-Day photos are grainy because he was shooting incredibly fast film for the era (600 or so if I believe?) to capture fast moving subjects. The faster the film- the grainier the print.
Sepia tone is very, very rarely seen in WWII era photos as by the 1930s it was antiquated and beyond obsolete.
Not trying to stir up shit but some of these look like decent reenacting photos, but nothing like actual WWII era photography.
Re: most realistic looking reenactment photo
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:25 am
by Halle
valkyrie895 you make some good points , and the vast majority of the best are black and white , and a little grainy or blurred . Sepia never works . I think , apart from the way the picture is produced , it's what the subject is doing - a case of " I've seen that somewhere before ! " , though of course , you haven't . This requires the soldiers/vehicles etc. to be exactly as their forebears were , in weight , age and look , very difficult to achieve these days . Group pictures need to look correct , the way the men stand , or the way they're formed up - it's hard to put your finger on , but I'm sure you know what I mean . It has to be either very well posed , or the photographer has to be lucky .The ( only ) picture I've published , of the ice climb , I thought reasonably realistic , though it suffered from being in modern colour - maybe someone could make it look more 'period?'.
Re: most realistic looking reenactment photo
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:27 am
by Halle
Friedrich Köhler wrote:I'm quite pleased with these pictures and think they might pass as originals. What do you guys think?
The top picture is what I mean - can't think of one better , the bottom picture could never be mistaken for an original ( no offence ) .
Re: most realistic looking reenactment photo
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2015 3:12 pm
by SteffenLF
It's very hard from an HD picture to have an realistic looking picture
Re: most realistic looking reenactment photo
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:21 pm
by Leander_H
SS Rottenführer from 23. SS-Panzergrenader-regiment "Norge" hopelessly tries to drag a fallen comrade to safety after a direct artillery hit.