A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:07 pm

Fellow Contributors,
I was actually working on NH69724
NH69724 is surely the exploding Hood picture, taken on the port side of PG.
Title: Battle of the Denmark Strait, 24 May 1941
Description: Explosion of the British battlecruiser Hood. Smoke from HMS Prince of Wales's gunfire is faintly visible just to the left. Photographed from the German heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen. Copied from the report of officers of Prinz Eugen, with identification by her Gunnery Officer, Paul S. Schmalenbach, 1970. U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command Photograph.
Catalog #: NH 69724
The two references Hans has identified are the head-on pictures of Bismarck taken on the Starboard side.

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 » Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:38 am

Yes, it appears we were talking a bit at cross-purposes. Looking at Bild 146-1990-061-27, which is, I think, the one Herr Nilsson suggested, and assuming the 'as advertised' uncropped negative size of 24x36mm, and a 50mm lens, a quick geometric analysis would suggest we have a situation where one is looking essentially perpendicular to the railing line, with Bismarck at a distance of about 685 meters. This latter computation depends an awful lot on exactly what one uses for vertical reference benchmarks on Bismarck, and the sample download that the website provides is, to say the least, a bit indistinct, but that's about what I come up with, trying to judge the distance between the waterline and some reference points on the vertical masts. One could easily be out 5-10% either way, so a reasonable range would be something between about 630 and 735 meters. One is also reaching for definitions here, as Bismarck is not really a point source, it's a big ship, so a distance of 685 meters to the longitudinal center could also be seen as a distance of only about 565 meters to the bow...

Bill Jurens

hans zurbriggen
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 8:15 am

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

Post by hans zurbriggen » Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:14 pm

Hello,
thanks to Mr. Jurens for evaluation of Bild 146-1990-061-27 photo. I agree on distance, if image is not cropped (and image is surely at least slightly cropped, not respecting proportion for 36x24 mm) and if lens is 50 mm. We can only hope it is cropped only vertically.
About angle of railings view, I am more in agreement with Mr. Nilsson who said that no firm conclusion can be derived from an image taken from the same height of the upper railing (and too close to the lower railing) for providing (especially if image is cropped and even more if a telelens is used) a good estimation of angle of view.
In Bild photo, lower railing is not parallel to horizon but inclined 2-3° (it is the horizon that is not horizontal). In NH69724, taken from a much higher POV (thus enhancing railing inclination optical effect), railing is inclined 3-4° only. Visual effect is misleading between these two images.

hans

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 » Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:08 am

Post deleted due to inappropriate personal commentary directed at other contributors.

Bill Jurens (moderator)
"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 » Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:09 am

Post deleted due to inappropriate personal commentary directed at other contributors.

Bill Jurens (moderator)
"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 » Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:10 am

Post deleted due to inappropriate personal commentary directed at other contributors.

Bill Jurens (moderator)
"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 » Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:11 am

Post deleted due to inappropriate personal commentary directed at other contributors.

Bill Jurens (moderator)
"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 » Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:12 am

Post deleted due to inappropriate personal commentary directed at other contributors.

Bill Jurens (moderator)
"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 » Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:14 am

Post deleted due to inappropriate personal commentary directed at other contributors.

Bill Jurens (moderator)
"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)

Goodbye !

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:26 am

Post deleted due to extensive and aggressive personal attacks on the moderator and other participants. As this would appear to represent Mr. Virtunani's final submission to the forum, an unedited copy -- which appears to be essentially a duplicate of the post deleted here -- has been retained 'for the record' in the thread entitled "Mr. Virtuani's Opinion".

W. Jurens (moderator).
"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)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

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

Post by Byron Angel » Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:03 pm

Arrivederci, Mr Virtuani.
This forum will certainly not be the same without you.

Byron

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 » Sat Mar 14, 2020 4:00 pm

As readers will note, Mr. Virtuani has, as anticipated, returned with a vengeance and apparently chosen to hereafter 'self-isolate' from further postings to this board. Although I am -- for what I presume are, to most, fairly obvious reasons -- tempted to delete his recent posts immediately, in fairness, I will leave them up for a brief period so that all might have a chance to read what I presume to be his final words on these subjects and, if they wish, reply. I will thereafter lock the this thread, which others may reopen under a different title so that purely technical discussions on the 'flash photo' issues, etc., may continue as appropriate. Insofar as Mr. Virtuani has apparently chosen to withdraw permanently, it would seem that there is no immediate need to impose a permanent ban on his postings, which I think many would otherwise consider appropriate.

I am now back in Winnipeg (apparently just in time to avoid COVID-19 isolations) and can now resume full duties as moderator. My sense of things is that recent developments will have will have rendered the need for intervention by the moderator to be much less frequent than before.

My thanks, as always, for the patience and understanding of all participants in the forum.

Bill Jurens.

User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

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

Post by wadinga » Sun Mar 15, 2020 11:05 am

Fellow Contributors,

It would be a shame if this thread which has had many useful contributions from Herr Nilsson, Byron Angel, Paul Mercer, Hans Zurbriggen and others including Bill Jurens were to be locked and therefore isolate these earlier postings. The vitriol which was liberally splashed across several threads yesterday has been expunged elsewhere, but unfortunately preserved here.

I'm sure we all appreciate the Moderator's effort and valuable time spent in deleting the majority of this outpouring of near-universal hatred, copied and pasted across several threads, but surely the only place it needed to be saved (even if only for a brief period) was in the perpetrator's own "opinion" thread, allowing it to stand as a stark reminder of that person's real "contribution" over the years to this forum.

This thread has a particularly fine piece of detective work, for the first time anywhere I believe, accurately identifying the location aboard PG where much of the photographic material on Denmark Straits originated, offering the potential to derive much of value for further research. Restarting the thread under a different title leaves that valued material and its originators isolated. Original photos showing the ability of the Arriflex movie camera when handheld to cover a fast-moving combat situation, as likely used on both sides of PG, will be left in this isolated pocket.

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 Mar 18, 2020 7:17 pm

I have, as readers will note, and as mentioned earlier, deleted the majority of Mr. Virtuani's commentaries posted on or about 15 March. For the most part, these consisted of redundant and repetitive personal attacks on the moderator and various other forum participants. Although I still find some of the content offensive, I have in an attempt at fairness retained retained most or all of Mr. Virtuani's final commentary, unedited, in the "Mr. Virtuani's Opinion" thread.

Wandinga's recent comments have some merit, and I will therefore leave the thread open as requested.

It is regrettable when members choose to leave the forum, particularly when they feel actively displeased at the content, or feel that their treatment has been unfair. In that regard, it should be emphasized that at least some of the viewpoints of Mssrs Bonomi and Virtuani may hold some (and perhaps fairly substantial) merit. It is important, I think, to note that these individuals were banned, etc. not because of the content of their ideas, but because their commentary tended towards ad hominem attacks and arguments rather than concentrating on more technical issues. Briefly, it was not so much WHAT they said, as HOW they said it. Divergent and controversial interpretations and analysis -- even from those who have chosen to withdraw from the board -- remain, if respectfully phrased, welcome.

Bill Jurens

Kev D
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:27 am
Contact:

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

Post by Kev D » Sun Apr 12, 2020 3:38 pm

As someone with only a basic knowledge of the B of DS, and only a passing interest in same if the truth be known, and at the risk of taking heavy flak for my ignorance / stance, is the photo below (which is simply a cropped version of a larger image that shows nothing else in the photo, and which is no doubt well known to you aficionados;
1) Actually from some time during that battle?
2) And if so, when, i.e. where in the timeline so to speak (say as compared to the 'flash effect photo' that was the subject of this thread)?
3) Or if not from that battle, then when?

TIA (I hope) and pardon my ignorance on said subject.

PS. If I have placed this request in the wrong thread, i.e. this photo ID request should be in another specific thread, then my apologies, and by all means a moderator should move it there please.

SORRY, CANNOT GET PHOTO TO ATTACH DIRECTLY AT PRESENT, KEEP GETTING THE FOLLOWING IN PLACE OF THE IMAGE.
Untitled.jpg
(107.49 KiB) Not downloaded yet
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942

Post Reply