Official Canadian snapper in fake tank photo shock

[Martin Bennitt]

Just picked up the latest issue of the French Batailles magazine which deals with the Somme. There's a picture in it of what is supposed to be a tank in action. Caption says it is a fake, a photomontage done in November 1916 by official Canadian photographer Lt William Ivor Castle, of a tank that had already been knocked out -- a broken trailer wheel on the Mark I male is obvious -- but the Daily Mail paid him 1,000 pounds for it and published it on November 22. Apparently another sequence of pix entitled 'Over the Top' was in fact also taken in training.

Given the arguments about Hurley, who admitted some of his shots were composed, the 'fake' shots from the Somme film, and certain supposed photos of aerial dogfights which turned out to have been models, I wondered if anyone knows anything more about Castle, and on a wider front how extensive picture faking might have been, and to what purpose (cash from newspapers, propaganda, added 'realism'), and ultimately, does it matter very much today?

Sorry about the length of the post, but as a media professional I find it interesting, knowing that 'the first casualty in war is truth'.

cheers Martin B

cheers

[Andrew Hesketh]

You OK Martin?!

[Martin Bennitt]

Yes thanks, just pressed the wrong button. Re-edited post, hope it's okay now.

cheers Martin B

[Moonraker]

... certain supposed photos of aerial dogfights which turned out to have been models, I wondered if anyone knows anything more about Castle, and on a wider front how extensive picture faking might have been, and to what purpose (cash from newspapers, propaganda, added 'realism'), and ultimately, does it matter very much today?

.

cheers Martin B

cheers

Prewar it was common for postcard publishers to cut photos of aircraft out of aviation magazines and add them to their own scenic photographs, such as those of Westbury White Horse and Stonehenge. Some looked quite realistic, and very early in my postcard-collecting days I naively parted with £20 for one. So it matters a bit for me!

Last week I was happy to get £3.71 on eBay for a comparable card after I had warned that the aeroplane had been added. (It went to a guy from English Heritage, so I dunno if there was something interesting about the stones, several of which at the time the photograph was taken were in danger of collapsing). Another vendor last week stressed in his item title that the card was faked, though in this case this was fairly obvious: there were three aircraft, including a balloon, hovering very close to the monument.

Moonraker

[Martin Bennitt]

The case of Castle struck me because he was paid what was a very large sum in those days for a fake picture. It would be interesting to know if he negotiated something privately with the Daily Mail, despite being an official photographer, or if the newspaper made it known it would pay highly for tank pictures. Whatever the case, his colleagues/competitors must have been somewhat miffed to see the picture in the paper.

Ironically another photographer, John Warwick Brooke, who took the much better Flers-Courcelette tank pictures that are now familiar to all, had them initially censored by the War Office because they were too revealing.

I can appreciate that the temptation to fake pictures must have been great because of the difficulties in taking them and the pressure of public demand, but I find it difficult to condone.

In the air it was even more blatant. See this link:

http://airminded.org/2006/06/30/am-i-fake-or-not/

cheers Martin B

[delta]

is this the photo

[Martin Bennitt]

That seems to be the one, but I don't have the magazine with me so can't do a direct comparison. I thought there was more of an 'explosion' effect at the front of the tank, and it was taken from a bit more side on, but will check later. There were definitely two IWM references numbers.

cheers Martin B

[barrieduncan]

Oh joy, we used that photograph in a Somme exhibition a few months back!

[delta]

It is very similar to Tank Museum 410/C4; Trevor Pidgeon states that that phoo it was probably taken by the assistant to Frederick Bovill who was taking cine shots of the assault of the approach to Courcellette on 15th September.

Creme de Menthe certainyl had sustained damaged to her steering wheels on that day before she crossed the start line; mind you I have also seen the photo used to illustrate her part in the assault on thiepval on 26th Septber when she again sustained damage to her steering gear

stephen

[Martin Bennitt]

Just had another look at the picture reproduced in the magazine. It is similar but not the same. The IWM catalogue numbers given in the caption are CO 988 and CO 991. Anyone got a Daily Mail of 22/11/16?

cheers Martin B

[delta]

No but I have the Daily Mirror

[Guest KevinEndon]

if the world was led to believe that Nessie existed and a gullable paper paid thousands for the photo then action from 1916 would be easier to fake, owing to the quality of the pics.

At least Barrie Duncan hasn't been duped.

[Martin Bennitt]

That's the one. It's possible the French magazine made a mistake in the name of the paper, especially as Castle was a former Mirror photographer.

And it's still going on -- a Reuters photographer got sacked the other day for hyping a picture from Iraq, courtesy of Photoshop.

cheers Martin B

[Martin Bennitt]

Thanks for your input on this -- I just wanted to make two points before this thread dies:

a) Castle was undoubtedly guilty of some sharp practice but he was also a good photographer who did a lot to highlight the role of Canadian forces in the War.

Batailles magazine made no mistake in the paper where the fake tank picture appeared. It was indeed The Mirror not the Mail, I just misread the caption. Freudian slip perhaps -- I prostituted my own talents to the Mail myself for a number of years.

cheers Martin B

[Guest jrlpva]

The case of Castle struck me because he was paid what was a very large sum in those days for a fake picture. It would be interesting to know if he negotiated something privately with the Daily Mail, despite being an official photographer, or if the newspaper made it known it would pay highly for tank pictures. Whatever the case, his colleagues/competitors must have been somewhat miffed to see the picture in the paper.

Ironically another photographer, John Warwick Brooke, who took the much better Flers-Courcelette tank pictures that are now familiar to all, had them initially censored by the War Office because they were too revealing.

I can appreciate that the temptation to fake pictures must have been great because of the difficulties in taking them and the pressure of public demand, but I find it difficult to condone.

In the air it was even more blatant. See this link:

http://airminded.org/2006/06/30/am-i-fake-or-not/

cheers Martin B

Hello,

I know a fair bit about William Ivor Castle as he was my grandfather. My mother always said he was extremely brave. He was a very flamboyant character. Can tell you more if interested.

Lesley Valentine (nee Castle)

[Martin Bennitt]

Hello Lesley and welcome to the forum

Hope I didn't offend you with my comments, and I'm sure many people here would be glad to know more about your grandfather.

cheers Martin B

[Neil Mackenzie]

Lesley.

Welcome to the forum - I am sure we would all be interested in hearing what you know about William.

Many of the photographers/film men of the time seem to have been real characters.

Neil

[2ndCMR]

Caption says it is a fake, a photomontage done in November 1916 by official Canadian photographer Lt William Ivor Castle, of a tank that had already been knocked out -- a broken trailer wheel on the Mark I male is obvious -- but the Daily Mail paid him 1,000 pounds for it and published it on November 22. Apparently another sequence of pix entitled 'Over the Top' was in fact also taken in training.

Pity to see Lord Northcliffe separated from some of his hard-earned fortune!

[MelPack]

Hello Martin

There is some interesting material on Castle in the first couple of chapters of this:

http://www.anu.edu.au/ITA/CSA/photomedia/ph_d.pdf

Regards

Mel

[Martin Bennitt]

Hello Mel

That is very interesting indeed, and not just the first two chapters. Thanks very much.

I thought the thread had died: unless mistaken, Castle's granddaughter hasn't come back with anything yet.

cheers Martin B

[healdav]

I don't think this is unusual.

I remember reading the memoirs of a news cameraman many years ago and he said that one occasion he went into battle in the desert with one unit and was involved in a well known engagement at the time with the Free French - I think.

He proudly got back to Cairo a week later with unique footage only to find that another cameraman had gone to a training ground, picked out all the men with beards (so that they looked as though they had been in action for a week or so) and filmed them storming across the training ground. He had sent this to London as the real thing.

The real footage was thrown away!

[Guest inkwell]

Hi there. Just stumbled upon your site while looking for information about Ivor Castle. I can tell you, from what I've been able to learn, that Castle commonly released photo montages as if they were taken on the spot. This is something that soldiers and other photographers seemed to know at the time, but I don't believe it was widely known among the general public. In the 1970s, William Rider-Rider, who succeeded Castle as official photographer for the Canadian War Records Office, complained that because of Castle's "fakes," he had to live down quite a bit of ribbing when he went to visit units in the field.

One of Castle's photographs shows Canadian troops crossing no man's land during Vimy Ridge. This is one of the most famous Canadian First World War photographs, and it has been published in countless books. Recently, the LAC (Library and Archives Canada) revealed that this was also a montage. They discovered the original photo, and now you can get easy access to both. I've attached them here, just in case anyone's interested. You can clearly see that Castle added the explosions in the background and the bodies in the foreground; and in fact, the main part of the photo was taken during a training exercise and not in the heat of battle at all.

Having said all that, I think we should give Castle some credit for making the war come alive in the imagination of those at home, and for helping to boost morale among the troops. Additionally, I imagine it would have been quite difficult, given all the equipment required, to get on-the-spot photos in those days.

Interesting discussion. I'm glad I happened upon it.

[Guest inkwell]

Looks like the second image didn't come up. I've added it here.

[SiegeGunner]

It's a shame that Lesley Castle hasn't come back with more info about her grandfather, as it would be very interesting to learn more about the work of a WW1 war photographer and perhaps also about the pressures on them to provide dramatic pictures. Many publications of the period still used drawn illustrations, which could be as dramatic and fanciful as the artist wished, so I can't imagine that montages that conjured up a reality that existed, but was difficult to capture 'live', would have been regarded as dishonest.