Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:39 pm
As a photographer myself, I really don't think this is fake. Those boys were really good, working with what now would be remarkably primitive equipment. The lighting is standard flash fill -- and very well balanced too, by the standards of the time. You just expose for the outside ambient light, and then calculate the amount of fill to pretty much give the same exposure in the shadows, or in this case the darker interior of the aircraft.
Like I said -- pretty standard technique for press photographers dealing with difficult lighting situations...
Like I said -- pretty standard technique for press photographers dealing with difficult lighting situations...
Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:46 pm
Dave, let me be clear. I am in no way raising any question that the mission took place as described or doubting the integrity of any Marine. I am not even accusing the Life photographer of any misconduct because I do not happen to believe there is anything wrong with what we nowadays call manipulation of photos. It has been common since the birth of photography, now more than ever. Often a doctored photo can be more "true" than anything that can be captured without alteration, and this may be such a case.
But I am quite certain that this is a composite photo for the reasons stated. No way is that a PBJ waist position, especially when you look at the wider view in the Life clipping. As a shutterbug myself, I find it interesting, but not at all scandalous.
August
But I am quite certain that this is a composite photo for the reasons stated. No way is that a PBJ waist position, especially when you look at the wider view in the Life clipping. As a shutterbug myself, I find it interesting, but not at all scandalous.
August
Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:20 pm
August,
Not to keep throwing the ball against the wall, but...
You keep referring to the "Life photographer" and the publication of this photo in their magazine. I am totally unfamiliar with, and have never seen, Life's photo. So, indeed, your point about their photo may certainlly be valid; however, if it is the same as the one I posted, I stand firmly that it is an official, untouched, Marine Corps photo. I understand that it was later published in Time (which I also have never seen) and I don't know if Time and Life were associated with each other then.
Also, trust me in my opinion that it was taken from the waist-gun position. When I am working on our PBJ-1J restoration, I know what the waist-gun position looks like and the scope and angles of view it affords, both inside and outside views.
So again, we differ in our views, but that is not so bad or anything to get pi**ed off about. I certainly am not, but just as you stand with your opinion, I stand with mine. Maybe we should put it to bed...agree?
Dave
Not to keep throwing the ball against the wall, but...
You keep referring to the "Life photographer" and the publication of this photo in their magazine. I am totally unfamiliar with, and have never seen, Life's photo. So, indeed, your point about their photo may certainlly be valid; however, if it is the same as the one I posted, I stand firmly that it is an official, untouched, Marine Corps photo. I understand that it was later published in Time (which I also have never seen) and I don't know if Time and Life were associated with each other then.
Also, trust me in my opinion that it was taken from the waist-gun position. When I am working on our PBJ-1J restoration, I know what the waist-gun position looks like and the scope and angles of view it affords, both inside and outside views.
So again, we differ in our views, but that is not so bad or anything to get pi**ed off about. I certainly am not, but just as you stand with your opinion, I stand with mine. Maybe we should put it to bed...agree?
Dave
Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:44 pm
Sorry, my error about Life. I took the page of the publication you posted on page 2 of this thread to be from Life magazine, without reading your text carefully. SaxMan said this is a Life photo and I guess I mentally read it back into your post. I just meant whatever publication it was.
Nor am I really out to persuade anybody. It took me until today to be persuaded by (1) the extraordinarily perfect balance of exterior with interior light, (2) the improbably wonderful composition of the scene in the window, (3) the the varying angles on the airplanes in the window which imply a field of view too wide to have been taken from where the photographer was sitting, and (4) the window/crew position issue (which you may be right about ... perhaps that window is too big to be the nav station ... yes, now that I'm home and can look closely at other pics of B-25s, I can see that the nav's window is barely large enough to frame someone's head, whereas the window in your pic is larger). Tomorrow, somebody might offer arguments that change my mind back again.
I'm interested in the history and technique of photography, especially the traditional kind. I still shoot film, including black-and-white, and my latest serious camera purchase was an all-manual, medium format Mamiya RB67. I like to talk about airplane pictures and would value a continuing discourse, especially because we have skilled photographers like fotobass and Neal whose opinions I must take seriously, as well as your knowledge of the circumstances of the photo. Since we agree that nobody is being criticized or insulted, what is the harm? I realize that not everyone enjoys technical photography discussions, but threads in forums do wander now and then. I do promise to try not to (further) belabor points I've already made, and to let the topic die a natural death if we run out of things to say.
And consider the bright side: this at least is better than the hero vs. traitor discussion!
August
Nor am I really out to persuade anybody. It took me until today to be persuaded by (1) the extraordinarily perfect balance of exterior with interior light, (2) the improbably wonderful composition of the scene in the window, (3) the the varying angles on the airplanes in the window which imply a field of view too wide to have been taken from where the photographer was sitting, and (4) the window/crew position issue (which you may be right about ... perhaps that window is too big to be the nav station ... yes, now that I'm home and can look closely at other pics of B-25s, I can see that the nav's window is barely large enough to frame someone's head, whereas the window in your pic is larger). Tomorrow, somebody might offer arguments that change my mind back again.
I'm interested in the history and technique of photography, especially the traditional kind. I still shoot film, including black-and-white, and my latest serious camera purchase was an all-manual, medium format Mamiya RB67. I like to talk about airplane pictures and would value a continuing discourse, especially because we have skilled photographers like fotobass and Neal whose opinions I must take seriously, as well as your knowledge of the circumstances of the photo. Since we agree that nobody is being criticized or insulted, what is the harm? I realize that not everyone enjoys technical photography discussions, but threads in forums do wander now and then. I do promise to try not to (further) belabor points I've already made, and to let the topic die a natural death if we run out of things to say.
And consider the bright side: this at least is better than the hero vs. traitor discussion!
August
Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:00 pm
August,
I fully agree...I'll post another photo later that may (or may not) add another prospective. Not being a great taker of photos myself, I'll leave it to those that are!
Dave
I fully agree...I'll post another photo later that may (or may not) add another prospective. Not being a great taker of photos myself, I'll leave it to those that are!
Dave
Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:37 pm
As promised, I'm posting another photo that may (or may not) add another prospective of Wada's photo looking out the left side waist-gun position. This is a photo from the outside of damage just above one of VMB-611's PBJs left side waist-gun window.
Notice that if the two .50 caliber machine guns are removed, additional space and an unobscured view is provided. Also notice that in Wada's photo, his right hand is resting on what looks like the mounting tube or slot that the machine gun in this photo would be inserted into. Although Wada's photo is cropped, the size of both windows appear the same.
One point that has not been brought up here, as has been in some of my previous discussions on Wada's photo, is was Plexiglas in the window that was removed for this mission? All my photos, including the below, indicate no Plexiglas, thus allowing full rotation of the machine gun. Some wind protection is provided by the noticeably deflector on the forward side of the window.
Notice that if the two .50 caliber machine guns are removed, additional space and an unobscured view is provided. Also notice that in Wada's photo, his right hand is resting on what looks like the mounting tube or slot that the machine gun in this photo would be inserted into. Although Wada's photo is cropped, the size of both windows appear the same.
One point that has not been brought up here, as has been in some of my previous discussions on Wada's photo, is was Plexiglas in the window that was removed for this mission? All my photos, including the below, indicate no Plexiglas, thus allowing full rotation of the machine gun. Some wind protection is provided by the noticeably deflector on the forward side of the window.