A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by pgollin » Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:28 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:18 am

...... I think quite many people (especially officers) had their own camera on board during WWII (my father had one in 1943) even without a formal authorization. .......


The RN had an official ban on private cameras for almost all the war, AND in addition the importation of photographic film was extremely limited (whilst home produced film was almost all for the forces and official media). Private photographs have come to light (often from film obtained abroad) but from what accounts have been published it would seem that the photos were only taken after permission from one of the ship's senior officers (and either had to be submitted to censorship, or hidden). This explains the relative dearth of photos of British actions in WW2 except from limited official photographers.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:37 am

Hello everybody,
pgollin wrote: "The RN had an official ban on private cameras...Private photographs have come to light ... the photos were only taken after permission from one of the ship's senior officers....
...if an official ban was in place, apparently it was quite easily disobeyed (and the disobedience was lightly approved by senior officers), as this photo was taken during a war mission (not an exercise or in harbour) and I have seen many from the Mediterranean as well under similar circumstances (even with the ship at action station and under heavy fire...).

Thus, I still wonder who can have taken this photo (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756#p85163) and if it is the only existing one from PoW related to the Bismarck operation....


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:31 pm

There were private photographs taken of Bismarck during the Denmark Strait battle. The main difference is that they were not taken with a long focus lens. I doubt that there were long focus lenses aboard Prinz Eugen except those of the PK, but if so I don't think they were used because it would have been too conspicuous to use them for snapshots.
Diff1.jpg
Diff1.jpg (3.16 KiB) Viewed 815 times
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:03 pm

Hello everybody,

thanks to Herr Nilsson for posting this interesting comparison between photos taken at few seconds time interval.
I can confirm there are several "private" (usually lower quality) photos (not only this one), taken from PG, that confirm the use of different focal lengths (during WWII the "private" focal length was the standard 50 mm).

They will all be published in the next Antonio Bonomi's books on Bismarck as they all match the "agreed" reconstruction (download/file.php?id=3593) that Antonio proposed first in 2005, with very few slight adjustments as the one proposed in the discussion unfortunately left "open" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424).

Re. the "flash effect" photo itself, its "poor quality version" just confirms (if still needed) that it can be timed at just after 06:08 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756#p85161) and that in no way it can be timed at 06:04 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756#p85162).


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Tue Dec 10, 2019 8:44 pm

Fellow Contributors,

Oh well, here we go again, chasing the White Rabbit down the Wormhole.
that is totally incorrect, as 1) there are no railings in the "flash effect" (NH69730) photo
I never said there were any railings in the Flash-effect photo. Apart from an enigmatic observation on attribution, there was no response to the question which was: who thinks the muzzles in the photo are 4.1" ones and does anyone agree the barrels are in the horizontal ie stowed position, and is it likely therefore these are starboard side weapons which did not engage the British ship/s unlike the port side weapons?

If these are the starboard side weapons and they are in the stowed position, ie on centreline pointed forward, (the aft mount stowed aft) then the photographer is looking at about 30-45 degrees aft of the starboard beam towards Bismarck. This means PG is on Bismarck's starboard bow. Therefore PG has turned considerably more than a right angle to starboard from Bismarck's course. The only time anything like this is depicted on the Gefechtskizze is long after Bismarck has ceased firing, yet in the photo Bismarck is still firing.

The photo from Lagemann's collection which shows PG side railings at 90 degrees to Bismarck's heading, and therefore PG's heading at 90 degrees to Bismarck's heading, and thus disagreeing completely with Mr Bonomi's conjectural reconstruction is Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-061-27

Original caption on or with photo:
Seegefecht des Schlachtschiffes "Bismarck" unter Island. Nunmehr richtet Schlachtschiff Bismark seine ganze Feuerkraft auf das sich zurückziehende Schlachtschiff "Prince of Wales". Wilhelmshaven; Herausgabe-Datum: Juni 41 PK: MPA-Nord Bildberichter Lagemann

Battle of the battleship "Bismarck" under Iceland. Now battleship Bismark is directing all its firepower to the retreating battleship "Prince of Wales". Wilhelmshaven; Date of issue: June 41 PK: MPA-Nord Picture reporter Lagemann
also www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/ph ... 69729.html

Too bad the Bundesarchiv can't spell Bismarck consistently, or maybe that misspelling is Lagemann's own authentic mistake, faithfully reproduced.

What Bismarck is actually firing at is a matter for conjecture, despite the caption/s, but the relationship between the two vessels, which, if shot with a standard lens, are apparently unnecessarily close together, is clear.

Mr Bonomi's map showing PG crossing at no more than 45 degrees from Bismarck's entirely conjectural track at about 06:08:30 is thus disproved by this single photograph. The idea that PG would execute an emergency turn across the flagship's bow, only a few hundred metres ahead, at 06:06:30 risking a catastrophic collision, merely so as to be a few hundred metres further from an already beaten opponent and then turn back onto the original heading by 06:09:00 makes tactical and ship handling nonsense.

However I believe Mr Virtuani is correct in one matter: I have seen no evidence Lutjens ordered PG to take up any position to starboard of the flagship. That she did so must lie entirely with Captain Brinkmann's own initiative.

It would be interesting if Herr Nilsson could make the other under exposed photo available in a more visible size.
I can confirm there are several "private" (usually lower quality) photos (not only this one), taken from PG, that confirm the use of different focal lengths (during WWII the "private" focal length was the standard 50 mm).
These photographs would seem to be being "witheld" in order to hamper the investigative work being attempted here. If they aren't being withheld, why can't they be reproduced? Mr Jurens may choose to give an opinion as to whether one can tell the lens focal length from a print, when one does not have access to the full negative extent, or any idea how far away the subject is.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:43 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote "I never said there were any railings in the Flash-effect photo"
after having written: "Unfortunately a dogmatic reconstruction has been forcibly and strenuously presented, which refuses to take account of PG railings clearly visible at right angles to Bismarck's course when she is firing, something which is also incompatible with the Gefectskizze timings."
...therefore, please do your best to try to stay on topic, we speak about the flash effect photo here. We can speak about Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-061-27 or any other photo you would like in another dedicated thread, or possibly in the (abandoned by everybody) existing one (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424) . Thanks in advance.

Wadinga wrote: "If these are the starboard side weapons and they are in the stowed position, ie on centreline pointed forward, (the aft mount stowed aft) then......."
If is the key word. If they are in stowed position....
Please demonstrate they are, before getting to totally wrong conclusions. Thanks again..




The only conclusion is that, based on the recently "agreed" reconstruction (download/file.php?id=3593) the timing of the flash effect photo is necessarily around 06:08:20 and surely not at 06:04 (viewtopic.php?f=1&p=85126&sid=f59663896 ... cb4#p85162), even if we are still waiting Mr.Jurens answer regarding the pag.228 caption in his book.... :think:

In the meantime, have you been able to follow the line to photo 19 in the snapshot I have posted for you here (viewtopic.php?f=1&p=85126&sid=f59663896 ... cb4#p85161) ? Any additional doubt ?

If still in disagreement, show me an alternative battle reconstruction to time the photo. I have seen only one up to now: the battlemap proposed by R.Winklareth (using a reversed photo printing theory...). Nothing has been presented by Mr.Wadinga.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:13 am

Fellow Contributors,

Since I started the thread I choose what is on topic...……………….

For Mr Virtuani

Since you say
I can confirm there are several "private" (usually lower quality) photos (not only this one), taken from PG,
but since you are party to the withholding of them from study, maybe you can confirm the attribution "Fritz Dungert"?

Please demonstrate they are, before getting to totally wrong conclusions. Thanks again..
That they are stowed?

Please demonstrate they aren't.

Do you accept the photo is from Denmark Straits? Do you accept these are 4.1" muzzles?

Since the engaged 4.1s would have been firing at ranges of over 18,000yds they would have required elevation. These guns are clearly horizontal. The perspective of the muzzles would have required the camera POV to have been floating over the sea if the guns were anything except fore and aft. Since we are looking from the deck to the sea they are pointing forward.

Do you think they are starboard or port side weapons?

Since the photo shows PG to be at a far greater angle from Bismarck, say 45 degrees off her starboard bow and BS is not directly astern of PG at 06:08;30 which Mr Bonomi's conjectural plan depicts, it is fundamentally flawed and needs redrawing.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:16 am

There has been a lot written in the past few hours, and I have only been able to read it over briefly.

Two questions seem to have been asked; one regarding the attribution of the photo in the Bismarck book and the other asking if the focal length can be derived from just looking at a print of from the negative.

Regarding the photographic attribution, I can only say that although I am a CO-author of the book in question, I am not THE author of the book in question. Although I did participate in the selection of captions and photos, this was not my primary focus and, really, not my primary interest. If others wanted to be a bit more adventurous in attribution, etc. it was not the sort of battlefield I felt willing to die on.

Regarding the question revolving around the extraction of focal lengths, I can say, from my photogrammetric background, that in some instances a focal length - or at least an effective photogrammetric focal length in the case of a print -- can sometimes be approximated if there are clearly defined images to be examined. In this case there are not. Contrary to popular belief, the geometry of the image on the film, though it may vary in scale, is completely independent of the focal length of the lens used -- the lens is only in one position in space, and thus the light rays entering the lens always present exactly the same geometry to the film. Printed enlargements, effectively change the focal length, but not the image geometry. Again, in a purely geometric sense, optical geometry is fixed and independent of focal length when the photograph is exposed. A two-times enlargement effectively multiplies the focal length by two, but does not change image geometry.

Photogrammetric measurement essentially boils down to the relationships between actual object size, distance from object to the nodal point of the lens, distance from the nodal point of the lens to the film, and the size of the projected image on the film. Given any three, one can usually define the fourth. In the case of the flash photograph, we do not have three items to work from.

It is, incidentally, unlikely in my opinion, that any sort of dramatic telephoto lenses were employed during the photography; longer focal length lenses of the period tended to be very 'slow' with regard to light gathering ability; this -- coupled with the fact that film of the time was, by current standards, almost glacially slow, and the fact that unless a long focal length lens were held very steadily, it would produce only a blurred image, probably meant that in practical terms, in the lighting conditions then prevailing, only relatively fast short or normal focal length lenses could be used.

Bill Jurens

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:51 am

@wadinga

I got my copies of the several private photos from a friend about ten years ago who got it from a Prinz Eugen crew member. It wasn't intended for further circulation and I'll keep my promise.

@Bill Jurens

Because of the barrels in the foreground the flash photo looks like a telephoto lens compression of distances, but I'm no expert and may be wrong.

What I meant to say was: the flash light picture is totally different in regards of richness of detail. The copy I have even shows foot ropes, anchor lights on top of the range finder, a ladder to the turret top and the builder's plate. There seem to be persons on the foretop and stanchions for security ropes on the forcastle.
As Alberto said, the private photo was apparently taken at almost the same time and I agree. I see no way to get such details from this picture and from this kind of camera even it would have been taken under much better conditions. Conversely, in my opinion the flash effect photo was taken with excellent equipment. Therefore I assume this picture was made by the PK.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:13 am

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote (quoting me) : " Please demonstrate they are, before getting to totally wrong conclusions. Thanks again..
That they are stowed? Please demonstrate they aren't. "
It's you the one who pretends to analyse the photo based on the gun barrels position: it's you who have to demonstrate they are exactly in the "stowed" position at that exact timing whenthe photo was taken.
The images I have (during the operation) show the same mountings in any position, not only stowed (for PG as well as for BS). The majority of them show the gun barrels in a non-stowed position....therefore it's up to you to present a proof.

Of course, the un-cropped version of the "poor quality" image posted by Herr Nilsson would possibly show the mounting positioning.... :wink:


"Do you accept the photo is from Denmark Straits? Do you accept these are 4.1" muzzles?"
Of course I do. They are starboard side guns. The starboard side guns were not engaged, so any position can be valid. The photographer is looking aft of the beam of PG. Bismarck is going to cross PG wake shortly.


Are you finally able now to understand when the photo was taken according to the only possible reconstruction presented up to now by Antonio Bonomi and Bill Jurens (download/file.php?id=3593 and download/file.php?id=3603) ?


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:05 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:16 am

Hello everybody,
Herr Nilsson wrote: "in my opinion the flash effect photo was taken with excellent equipment. Therefore I assume this picture was made by the PK."
I agree. It was not the same equipment (and not the same "hand") that took the "poor quality" one.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:22 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "...I am a CO-author of the book in question, I am not THE author of the book in question. Although I did participate in the selection of captions and photos, this was not my primary focus and, really, not my primary interest...."
Thanks for this disclaimer, that answer my question 1) (please see here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756#p85162). However, I would like to understand how another "CO-author" could time the image at 06:04, having (presumably) seen your battlemap....

Please be so kind now to address also question 2) and question 3) from the same post.

Specifically, question 2) should be easy to be answered as you have signed (as THE only "author") the battlemap at pag.211...
For question 3), should we assume that the "Lutjens's order theory" is a free interpretation of another CO-author, or what else ?


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2132
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga » Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:34 pm

Fellow Contributors,

It has been said:
Are you finally able now to understand when the photo was taken according to the only possible reconstruction
Of course not, since the relative orientations of the two ships are completely incompatible with these conjectural tracks. Even more incompatible is photo 18 (also known as NH69729) in this "scientific analysis" presented by Mr Bonomi, and clearly taken shortly before the "flash effect". This photo is speculatively timed at 06:07:20 seconds. According to the "agreed battlemap" this picture should show Bismarck from c 45 degrees on her port bow charging towards a potential collision with PG which is missed by a mere 30 seconds according to a speculative timetable. It shows nothing of the sort, but instead, Bismarck seen from head on and with PG side rails (a location identified by Mr Bonomi) at 90 degrees to the flagship's course. The 90 degree crossing recorded as it was in reality, but not present on the "agreed battlemap".

I am disappointed to hear the normally reliable Herr Nilsson colluding in the with-holding of these so-called "private" photographs from study here. There is an amazing amount of secrecy about this evidence from the German side on Denmark Straits. An official report map is described as "worthless and useless" based on other information available at the time and thus requiring replacement, and yet erroneously used as a reliable primary research document subsequently. A series of photos which are deliberately kept from public scrutiny for nearly 80 years by people still requiring oaths of secrecy before passing them on. Either individuals are hoping to make a pile of money for selling the rights, (or even a sight in a much-touted book), to photos that really belong to long-dead people or defunct organisations, or that the contents, like these examples here, contradict the standard understanding which must be maintained for some reason.
It wasn't intended for further circulation
Why the secrecy? Presumably the PG crewmember wanted them to be kept hidden and firstly extracted an oath of secrecy from the "friend" who has perpetuated the cloak of security many decades on, by demanding the same from Herr Nilsson. Will this latest "holder of the knowledge which must not be known" be unshackled when Mr Bonomi eventually publishes his "tour de Force" and lays bare the "secret images" for all ?

If there are truly
stanchions for security ropes on the forcastle
this would be surprising, since these are normally folded down (cleared away) when the guns are firing either on exercise or in action, to avoid blast damage. This "richness of detail" is presumably real contrast in the original image where the flash from the gun illuminated certain structural items against the murky grey background.

By my limited knowledge the very limited depth of field exacerbated by the slow lenses available as described by Bill would mean the muzzles would be totally out of focus and probably out of shot. This is far more likely IMHO to be a standard lens giving good depth of field and accidentally including extraneous detail in the foreground. The size and detail visible in Bismarck indicate she is much closer than is safe to PG.

What a shame we need a virulent catalyst to stimulate such discussion

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Herr Nilsson » Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:26 pm

wadinga wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:34 pm

Why the secrecy? Presumably the PG crewmember wanted them to be kept hidden and firstly extracted an oath of secrecy from the "friend" who has perpetuated the cloak of security many decades on, by demanding the same from Herr Nilsson. Will this latest "holder of the knowledge which must not be known" be unshackled when Mr Bonomi eventually publishes his "tour de Force" and lays bare the "secret images" for all ?
I don't know the reasons, I just know my promise. I'm sorry, my hands are tied.
...IIRC the picture was published by courtesy of my friend in a cropped version on the Danish forum about 2005 or so. I don't know if it's still available.
wadinga wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:34 pm
If there are truly
stanchions for security ropes on the forcastle
this would be surprising, since these are normally folded down (cleared away) when the guns are firing either on exercise or in action, to avoid blast damage. This "richness of detail" is presumably real contrast in the original image where the flash from the gun illuminated certain structural items against the murky grey background.
There were a rope and stanchions on Prinz Eugen's centerline during the battle:

security rope

As I said the stanchions seem to be there, it's just an vague impression.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:56 pm

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote (quoting me): ""Are you finally able now to understand when the photo was taken according to the only possible reconstruction?"
Of course not, since the relative orientations of the two ships are completely incompatible with these conjectural tracks"
A pity, there is NO incompatibility whatsoever, as demonstrated by the wide "adoption" of the reconstruction (download/file.php?id=3593) and by the "poor quality photo" kindly posted by Herr Nilsson.
Sorry for Mr.Wadinga who is still "of course not" (as per his answer above) able to understand when the photo was taken.
I am able to understand that the photo cannot have been taken but at around 06:08:20 (please see here: download/file.php?id=3603) and I'm quite happy with the reconstruction itself, not embracing myself Mr.Winklareth'one (that is the only alternative one).


& "Even more incompatible is photo 18 (also known as NH69729) in this "scientific analysis" presented by Mr Bonomi"
Photo NH69729 is ANOTHER photo and this thread (dedicated to the "flash effect" one) is not the right place to discuss it.

Antonio was trying to analyse the "incompatibility" outlined by Mr.Wadinga in this thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424), already proposing some adjustments, but Mr.Wadinga was not interested at that time to contribute to a better positioning of photo NH69729. If he is now, I'm afraid he will have to persuade Antonio to get back to the forum and explain to him how he has (already) solved the "inconsistency".

In alternative, Mr.Wadinga may propose his tracks and discuss them with the people currently present here....


& "What a shame we need a virulent catalyst to stimulate such discussion"
...and this is just a free provocation, for the "moderator" to handle...


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

Post Reply