Was the speed of flim used fast enough for this???

[Ross_Moorhouse]

This pic is from http://members.home.net/flyingaces/archive1.htm *Was the film used during WWI indeed fast enough to capture this type of image *???

[Ira_Silverman]

Ross:

The short answer is yes.

Look at the depth of focus of the picture - it's considerable, which leads towards the use of a small aperture. I'm guessing f/8 to f/11, which would be typical for that day and age. The "sunny 16" rule (f/16 at 1/shutter speed in sunlight) would indicate 1/30 sec at f/16, or 1/125 at f/8 with the ASA 25 equivalent ortho films used back then. Insofar as the bomb had little time to accelerate, such a speed and aperture would be adequate to produce this picture.

What I'm saying is, yes, it was possible, but I'm making no comment as to whether the picture is of WW1 vintage. May well have been a 1930's movie still and/or a composite photograph.

VBR,

Ira

[Volker_Nemsch]

Hello Ross, hello Ira!

Maybe I´m wrong, but the bomb seems a bit oversized for this early German 2-seater (first half of WW1, early style of the crosses?).

If the dimensions on the photo are correct the bomb has a lenght of approx. 1,80 m or even more. So it was to big to be thrown out of the cockpit by the observer. The other thing is that the bomb is falling straight downward and not turning from a horizontal to a vertical direction (if a bomb rack was used).

Just an idea ...

[Volker_Nemsch]

Here is a photo of a German 300 kg bomb:

http://members.home.net/flyingaces/images2...ke1068_bomb.jpg

Having this in mind the photo is getting more and more dubious.

But maybe someone else knows more ...

[Ross_Moorhouse]

Maybe a troop of angry boyscouts throw that bomb from the plane? {lame attempt at 'Get Smart' saying. }

Seeing the size of the bomb there could be no way its come from that 2 seater. So maybe just maybe they are flying escort for a larger bomber. Say a Gotha or a Zepplin. Just a theory.

[totoroman]

my first reaction upon seeing that photograph was to narrow my eyes reflexively in disbelief. squinting a bit, just to make sure my eyes were not decieving me. then I felt my upper lip curl back into a sneer "they couldn't have possibly..."

first problem was the bomb was pointing straight down, there's no bomb rack, it's much too large to drop by hand, and finally there is also the prospect that a bomb of that side would never have allowed that airplane to get off the ground, especially if there was an observer in the back!

I could have been jumping to the wrong conclusion--but it immediately seemed to me an utter farce and a poorly done fake.

and to be honest, I'm not even sure, from just looking at that file, whether it's a photograph or not. my first thought was that it was done with charcoal and that they took a photograph of the -drawing- and passed it off as the real deal!

it would have been easier to doctor a photo--obviously--but my first impression was that this was definitely not an authentic photograph. and of course, Volker_Nemsh's provision of a 300kg photograph with the amusingly understated passage "getting more and more dubious." pretty much sent me falling out of my chair with laughter.

again, given that there is a good chance that the airplane we see depicted couldn't push 100 mph with two people without "breaking a sweat" I can't imagine it ever getting aloft with a bomb of that size, especially with no where to put it!

Tigermoths? anyone?
:P

[leo]

When I was younger, the newsreel of WWI came across as being jerky as to the movement of people. Those same films shown today do not have that quality. How did they "fix" it?

[Vigilant]

Leo,

I'm still waiting for them to get rid of that bloody plinkety-plonk piano music that no piece of WWI footage seems complete without!

Vig.

PS - And as for the stick stuck between bicycle spokes noise that passes for an aero-engine, grrr....

[PeterL]

When I was younger, the newsreel of WWI came across as being jerky as to the movement of people. *Those same films shown today do not have that quality. *How did they "fix" it?

As I understand it it's all down to frames per second. The old movies were shot at a slower speed and the action appeared speeded up when played on a faster more modern projector. Twenty or thirty years ago they didn,t bother to correct it as most of what was shown was comedy and they figured it was funnier that way. There isn't much (intentional ) comedy in the average History Channel documentary so they show it at the correct speed.

As to this photo; I think the original phhotograph is genuine enough but the bomb has been added later. The charcoal effect identified by Totoroman is IMO the product of some over enthusiastic retouching, quite a common practice on period photos.

[BobE]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment. Looks to me like the bomb is too far forward in the photo to have been dropped by THAT plane. Because we are assuming the bomb is being dropped by the plane in the picture it appears way too large and is at an improper angle. Perhaps it was dropped from a plane higher up and is actually much closer than we think and therefore smaller in size. Note how close the two planes in the picture are. It appears to be a pretty tight formation and another plane just above is a distinct possibility. Having said all that, I must admit I am a little skeptical.

While on the subject, there is a well known series of pictures of dogfights said to have appeared in "an anonymous autobiography of an RFC officer in the 1930's". They are claimed to be authentic. They appear on pages 126 and 127 of "Warplanes & Air Battles of World War I" published by Beekman House.The publisher comments that they are probably faked. I am sure they must have been discussed here at some point before I came on board but would appreciate hearing from the experts.

I apologize once again for not having the ability to post the photos.

Bob