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.
_________________ Obergefreiter Bodo Fehrmann II./984. Grenadier Regiment, 275. Infanterie Division
"Will mir die Hand noch reichen, Derweil ich eben lad'. Kann dir die Hand nicht geben, Bleib du im ew'gen Leben Mein guter Kamerad!"
|