Talk:Robert Capa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death of a loyalist soldier[edit]

the technical talk about this photo, seems way too technical for an article about Cappa the photographer. Maybe the photo deserves a page on its own.

Fake proven: location 30 miles from the fighting[edit]

The references I put here prove that the photo was staged. Combats in Espejo, where the photos were taken (see graphical demonstration http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1201116/How-Capas-camera-does-lie-The-photographic-proof-iconic-Falling-Soldier-image-staged.html ), took place the days 22-25 of September, but the photo was made public about 25th of September in France (I don't know exact date). Combats in Cerro Muriano ended the 5th of September. So it's clear that it was staged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.233.74 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The photo was published the 23th of September, in Vu magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.233.74 (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem rather convincing, doesn't it? Still, not sure it meets authoritative standards? Anyone? Rwintle (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Whelan proved to his satisfaction it was not a fake as allegations since 1975 had alleged. Capa photographed The Falling Soldier during the battle at Cerro Muriano, on September 5, 1936. (After further studying the articles presented later I now believe he was mistaken. - added)

"Alas, the controversy raged on — with a superabundance of hot tempers and a dearth of objective analysis or research — until a fantastic breakthrough occurred in August 1996, when Rita Grosvenor, a British journalist based in Spain, wrote an article about a Spaniard, named Mario Brotóns Jordá, who had identified the Falling Soldier as Federico Borrell García and had confirmed in the Spanish government’s archives that Borrell had been killed in battle at Cerro Muriano on September 5, 1936." PBS has excerpted his arguments online http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/robert-capa-in-love-and-war/47/ 

 Elemming (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capa's political believes[edit]

i miss some information on Capa's left wing attitudes. he deeply disliked capitalism and of course fascism. iirc he was a militant in his youth and he continued his work with some perspectives of a better & peaceful & socialist world. however interesting the angle-of-the-sun might be, we could do greater justice to the man in remembering his dreams and what he lived for.

Sinzov 07:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capa's arms on DDay[edit]

It says that Capa was armed with just cameras during the D-Day invasion. If he was in the first wave, wouldn't he be supplied with at least a pistol? It seems hard to believe because of the danger and possibility of combat he was in.--Exander 07:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe, but true - no weapon at all.
Xdamr 09:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Born in Hungary?[edit]

I'm watching a documentary on TV right now - they say he was actually born in Paris, France, but grew up in Budapest, Hungary.


According to his brother, Cornell Capa, "Endre Erno Friedmann was born on October 22, 1913 in Budapest." Also, the most recent bio of Capa, "Blood and Champagne," states that Capa was born Endre Friedmann in Budapest, Hungary, in 1913. See also, "The Great Escape: Nine Jews Who Fled Hitler and Changed the World." Same date and place of birth.

Capa did eventually live in Paris, but as an adult. What is the documentary which gave his birthplace as Paris?

The documentary, "The Mexican Suitcase" indicated that he was born in Hungary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizconno (talk • contribs) 07:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life references source[edit]

The book "The Great Escape: Nine Jews Who Fled Hitler and Changed the World." by Kati Marton has information regarding Capa's birth, time in Paris, and relationships with Gerda Pohorylle and Ingrid Bergman. Maybe someone with the book in hand can add the references? I would do it, but I do not have have a copy of the book at present.--Ggeller (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

missing information[edit]

I think it should be mentioned that Capa worked together with the famous writer John Steinbeck. They went to USSR in 1947 and Capa took the photographs for the book A Russian Journal.

trivia removed[edit]

An editor removed the trivia; I don't disagree, but it may be that some of it can be worked into a longer more detailed article at some point. So I'm listing here for easier finding:

Excessive detail?[edit]

It seems to me the paragraph added by Desertfax is a great deal of unreferenced detail, possibly OR, about one photograph, not even the man being discussed. The header "Spanish Civil War" is dominated by a complex analysis of a single, albeit significant, photograph. Any objection to my removing it, or greatly abbreviating it. It could be copied to the talk for incorporation elsewhere if appropriate? GoodnightmushTalk 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

It is by tradition known that the Borrell Garcia picture was made at Cerro Muriano on September 5, 1936, about 1300 Local Zone Time for Spain, this being GMT + 1 hour. The soldier's vertical image, his shadow and the line from his head to its silhouette graphically describe an equilateral triangle. This feature is sufficient to configure and work up a two triangles system containing Garcia supposedly having run sidelong the direction of the sun appearing southwestwards at about 68 degrees azimuth. The line interconnecting Garcia's head and its silhouette on the hillside with [out of picture] trenches has a computed 30 degrees inclination with regard to the horizontal plane which is astronomically parallel to the celestial horizon. When subsequently sun's altitude over Cerro Muriano is checked for 1300 local time, 1200 GMT, it is found to be 59 degrees. It is thence a reasonable assumption that the picture has been taken earlier, or conversely later on the day. For the respective time points we find 0843 and 1655 Local Zone Time [the Time Equation for simplicity deleted ]. In 2002 Richard Whelan in a biographical article of Capa states that Garcia fell in the presence of witnesses as the first of two identified soldiers at the same place at 0500 p.m. in the immediate vicinity of trenches on a slope of Mount Las Malaguenas. The 1655 Local Time solution should therefore be considered representative. If eventually, sun's computed altitude for 1655 LZT over Cerro Muriano is established to be 30 degrees for sun's 7 degrees declination, it is clear that the about 1655 LZT point of time of the recording exactly matches the helio–geographical configuration of Cerro Muriano in coordinates 4 deg 47'–W ; 38 deg–N for September 6, 1936, at about 1555 GMT with sun's azimuth N–247–W. This renders the picture suspicious in a minor sense as far as only the time point is concerned for a for practice zero difference [actually 6 minutes with application of the Time Equation of [+]1 minute for September 5] with Whelan's conclusions and a difference of 4 hours for the traditional point of time, both differences unavoidably suffering some inherent inaccurateness due to graphical measuring . Whatever the outcome of precise timekeeping might be, it does not injure the authenticity of the picture as a live recording made at about 1600 GMT on September 6, 1936.

I've removed it and brought it here for anyone interested to clean up, reference, and reincorporate where it belongs. GoodnightmushTalk 02:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the name is desertfax / One Wikipedia heading on this article says : "..detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia.." Sometimes details require quantitative research since a problem is not simpler than its difficulty is. 84.80.66.78 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) desertfax Nov 07 .[reply]

No tradition, also wrong

The "tradition" that it was Cerro Muriano is a case of invented traditon, as shown by the more recent "tradition", that is was taken near Espejo. So it also was not Garcia and, as no fighting took place at Espejo, when Capa was there, it is a fake - good intentions or not.--Radh (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a loyalist soldier[edit]

Jeffpw edited the caption of Death of a loyalist soldier to Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death. In his edit summary, Jeffpw said that his change was made to be the "actual title of photograph." Without any documentation of this change, I find the new title to be cumbersome and not as accurate. A quick Google search of the new title finds 186 references. However, a check of the title "Death of a loyalist soldier" find 1,130 references. On this basis, I reverted the change and suggest that it be discussed here. To add to the discussions, I would also point editors to the NY Times article of today that replicated the photo in question. The Times caption?: "The Falling Soldier," a title that garners some 1,390 Google hits. TheMindsEye (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbersome or not, that is the official title of the photograph, according to our own article on the subject of the photo. Seems to me that as an encyclopedia, we have an obligation to use the actual title. Jeffpw (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No my point is not that the title is cumbersome, its that you have no documentation that it is the "official" title. Using Wiki as a reference is a Self-Reference. The article you cite has no documentation, just another unsupported claim. Moreover, the article refers to the photo as "The Falling Soldier" in three references. TheMindsEye (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original title is available at pbs --220.245.152.34 (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is "original" title supposed to mean? ICP? Wheatley likes the name, because he cannot stand the idea - plain fact, since the identification of Espejo as the locale of the picture, that the photo was faked.
The negative has been lost since the war; there still are, it is said, the original contact prints and Capa's notebooks - is the title from there or is it from the first publications in Vu or from Life?--Radh (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mine[edit]

Do we know who laid the mine which accounted for his death? Drutt (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First or Second Assault Wave?[edit]

I have read conflicting articles from different sources. Several saying he went in with the first assault wave and several saying the second. We need to clarify wich stage he went on to the beach with and correct the article. 69.18.107.112 (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that depends on whether Capa was mistaken/lied about another point. He claims to have landed with E Company, 2nd Battalion Landing Team, 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Division, on beach sector Easy Red. If this is true, he would have been scheduled to land in one of the first four increments of units to hit the beach between H-5 and H+8 minutes. These increments included (per the plan) 96 tanks, 16 teams from the Special Engineer Task Force and eight infantry assault companies. These units are informally described as the First Wave in the Army's official history.

H-Hour was 0630 hours on Omaha. Low tide at that beach was at 0525 hours. And therein lies the problem.

At 0630 hours (H-Hour) the beach obstacles were not yet covered by the rising tide - which was a key factor in planning, so that the 16 Engineer teams (arriving H+3 to +8)could access and blow the obstacles. Now, here's (http://www.dptips-central.com/robert-capa.html) a page with some of Capa's photos. Note the third one of D Day. From the camera angle, you can see he's still up on the bow ramp of the landing craft (an odd place to stand erect while taking photos if actually under intense fire). See how the tide has already risen all the way through the obstacles? See how much further it has risen beyond the obstacles - so much so that it has covered the road wheels of Tank #11? That could not possibly have been taken at H-Hour.

Further, Capa claimed he landed on Beach Easy Red. In fact, of E Co.'s 6 boat sections, only one actually landed on Easy Red; the rest ended up on Fox Green. [Also on Easy Red from the first wave were 4 tanks - one disabled, two boat sections from E, 116th Inf Regt and one from F, 16th Regt. Not much for the largest beach sector on Omaha - almost 2000 yards. What should have landed on Easy Red were two full rifle companies - 12 boat sections - and 16 tanks.] Fire on Easy Red was among the lightest of the Omaha sectors, with only the F Co. boat section taking siginficant casualties from the boat to the shingle.

As an indication of how light the fire was on Easy Red, consider the Engineer plan. They were supposed to initially blow two gaps through the obstacles in each of 8 beach sectors (total, 16 gaps). In fact, only 6 gaps were initially blown, and fully 4 of them were on Easy Red, where only two had been planned. This was a lot of work accomplished, given that only one third the infantry and one fourth of the tanks made it there to cover the engineers. These facts so clearly contradict Capa's dramatic description of the hell he encountered on the beach that it is obvious something is not right. Given that by his own admission, he bugged out on the first landing craft he could catch, one is tempted to suspect he exaggerated the intensity of the fire to make his hasty exit seem more understandable. Even his own photos tend to support this. Half of his few surviving shots show his boat section moving fairly well through the last of the obstacles. Capa himself apparently went down and stayed down immediately with those who wouldn't advance beyond the cover offered by the obstacles - all the rest of his surviving shots are from the vantage point of behind an obstacle, pointing back towards the water. The emphasis on these few last photos has distorted completely what happened on Easy Red and leaves a decidedly incorrect impression of troops pinned down in the water.

Further, the lone boat section of E Co. 16th Regt that did land on Easy Red was none other than the famed boat section of Lt Robert Spalding - one of the first units to reach the top of the bluffs within about 30 minutes of H-Hour (about 0700 hrs). That boat section lost only 6 men getting to the bluff top. Clearly this couldn't have been the unit Capa landed with - as far more than six men are pictured huddled behind the obstacles - but it is the one he claims he landed with. Something is seriously wrong here.

I think there is no doubt Capa did not land with whom he claimed and. From the tide in his photos, we can conclude he was not in the first wave. From Coast Guard photos of the 16th Regt support BLT's landing (the 1st BLT, landed between 0740-0800) on the very same section of beach, it's clear the tide was further in than when Capa landed. So it's a good guess he landed about 0700 hours with the reserve company or HQs section of an assault BLT - which would have put him in the second 'wave.' Where he landed seems clear - Easy Red, a conclusion supported by tank #9 in Capa's photo and tank #11 in the Coast Guard photo. Both belonged to A Co., 741st Tank Bn and came in on adjacent LCTs. As fire on this sector was so light for the first wave, I again believe it supports a second wave conclusion. Fire was much greater on Easy Red when G Co. landed at about 0700 hours, and they lost most of their 63 casualties crossing to the shingle. Co G's experience seems much closer to that described by Capa, so I'd be comfortable to conclude he came in about the same time G did - which again puts him in the second 'wave.'

For further deatils, see The War Department's "Omaha Beachhead" (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-A-Omaha/index.html) 67.181.72.173 (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article already says "second assault wave." I trust that's what the reliable sources say. If not, it has to be changed. If sources conflict, the article can reflect that. I've always wondered about this myself, and the points you raise in your analysis are well taken. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been incorrectly reverted to "first wave", now in fact in two places, as well as another Wikipedia article now ("the Magnificent Eleven) even though it has become even more clear in the eight years since this discussion that Capa was in the second wave. moreover the citations being used to state first wave are citations like decidedly non-expert blurbs in Time Magazine pieces just repeating Capa's incorrect claim.
We know exactly what landing craft he was on, what bech he landed on and what time. It was second wave:
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/d-day-june-6-1944.html (just search text "Robert capa")Explainador (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current wording, which eliminates reference to a specific wave is the best way to address the matter. Not only is there still some argument over exactly which wave (per the Landings Tables) he was in, but there is further confusion caused by the popular habit of lumping all the initial waves together (for example, Waves 1-9) and informally rechristening them as the 'First Wave' or lumping waves 10-15 together and calling them the 'Second Wave'.
The following corrections apply to the entry that began this section and are offered merely for the sake of accuracy. First. Capa arrived on the transport USS Samuel Chase, APA-26. It's first landing craft did not land until H+70 (0740 Hours). Companies E and G arrived on the assault transport USS Henrico, APA-45, at, roughly, H-Hour and H+30 respectively. Therefore Capa could not have landed in either of those two waves as his ship had no boats carrying those troops and did not land until later. Further, the 16th RCT Landing Tables show correspondent photographers slotted in only two positions: with the 16 RCT commander in Wave 13 (scheduled for H+95/0805 hours) and Wave 15 with the assistant division commander (scheduled for H+110/0820 hours). Both of those beached 15-20 minutes late. Capa's boarding time for his landing craft was "just before 6 o'clock"; landing craft were loaded just a bit more than two hours before beaching time, so that fits with either Wave 13 or 15. The Chase's last landing craft was loaded by 6 o'clock, so that puts Capa at the end of the Chase's initial waves - i.e., Wave 13 or 15. Correspondent Jack Thompson, who landed in Wave 13 (though in later years he claimed it was earlier) saw Capa in the surf after he landed. Capa said when he reached the shelter of the shingle, he met the regimental chaplain and doctor. Both of these men were in Wave 13. Finally, Coast Guard photographer Sargent took photos of Wave 10 (from the Chase) landing at H+70/0740 hours. His LCVP clearly landed a good distance seaward of the last row of hedgehogs and much farther from the shingle. Capa's photos show his LCVP beached right at the last row of hedgehogs and the shingle appears twice as high in his photos. Clearly he landed closer in, meaning he landed well after Sargent (at 0740) and much, much later than Co G at 0700. The tide is 3-5 feet higher in Capa's photos, indicating he landed 30-40 minutes after Sargent's 0740 beaching time. All evidence points to Capa landing in Wave 13 with the regimental commander (and Jack Thompson) in Wave 13 at 0815-0820 hours, or, less likely, with the assistant division commander (and another correspondent) in Wave 15 at 0840 hours.
Finally, Sargent's and Capa's photos were confused for one another. It is Sargent's photo (Wave 10, 0740 hours) that shows tank dozer number 9. Capa's photos show tank dozer number 10.
I apologize if any of this duplicates the information in Explainador's link, but I have not been able to find the information that he references.
Also, a note of caution regarding CO. G's casualties. The number cited does come from the regimental casualty report, however that reported period covered 53 1/2 hours, from 060630 June to 081200 June, a point most historians overlook. And those figures include stragglers, many of whom showed up a day or two later. John Hopkins University Operation Research Department, under contract with the US Army after WWII, relooked the 16th RCT's casualties. The corrected figures for Co. G on just D-Day show 49 casualties. Roughly 20 of these were suffered in fighting after the company climbed the bluffs or when US naval fire hit the unit when it was in Colleville. So 'only' 29 men were casualties on the beach, and an unknown number of these were suffered when one LCVP capsized off shore - not due to enemy fire. The company had about 186-192 men in its first six assault LCVPs, but a further 40 men in its 'overstrength' echelon that landed later that day. 73.235.236.46 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustment to Historical Accuracy of the Number of Frames Saved from D-Day.[edit]

The references cited 11 frames, and pointed to Capa's own book "Slightly Out of Focus" on Page 151. On this page he references 8 saved frames, not 11. There has been some conjecture on this, as other sources have reported 10 or 11 frames. These sources could be added, and the section could be revised. Peter Howe writes on page 21 in "Shooting Under Fire" (ISBN 1579652158) 10 frames were saved, this is one source that could be used to update the total.

Sean Leslie (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent article[edit]

Has some, but very few facts, interesting, but does not have 1 thing to say about the question of the fake-death-picture. Left-wingers obviously simply cannot believe, that they have been played for suckers to further Capa's career.--Radh (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worth anything[edit]

Cillian Murphys character in Danny Boyle's Sunshine was named Robert Capa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.23.165 (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RobertCapabyGerdaTaro.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:RobertCapabyGerdaTaro.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the "Falling soldier"[edit]

In the section Spanish Civil War and Chinese resistance to Japan, second paragraph it is stated that In 1936, Capa became known across the globe for the "Falling Soldier" photo, and later Capa remained conspicuously unwilling to discuss The Falling Soldier, which was published shortly after Taro's death. The article about Gerda Taro states that she died on July 26th, 1937. It should probably say In 1937, Capa became known..., or was the picture really published in 1936 when Taro was still alive? --Fpainke (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Career" chapter[edit]

Parts of this seems to be at odds with the Wikipedia entry on Gerda Taro, which goes into some detail about how "Robert Capa" was a fictional American character, invented to sell both of their photos. It also describes which "Capa"-photos she took, and which were Friedman's. Either the sources for this article on Friedman are not trustworthy, or the sources on Taro, as these two versions can't both be true. --Ronja R (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the suicide of Dr. Lisso, Leipzig, April 1945[edit]

It's funny, the only photo shown in this article on Robert Capa is NOT a photo by Robert Capa! Indeed, the picture of the suicide of Dr. Lisso and his family shown here was shot by J. Malan Heslop, from the United States Army Signal Corps. Read the caption of the photo here: http://worldwar2database.com/gallery/wwii1003

It's also funny that in the References of the photo it's written: "Author: United States Army Signal Corps", which is only half the truth, since the name of the photographer is not revealed in the References.

Other well known photos of this suicide scene were taken by Margaret Bourke-White, for LIFE Magazine, and by Lee Miller. The photographer David Edward Scherman, from LIFE Magazine, also took pictures of the scene, but they are not known. Robert Capa simply didn't photograph this scene. And, by the way, Capa didn't work for the U.S. Army Signal Corps!

So please somebody delete this picture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBarreto (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the recent work shows he was in Second D-Day wave[edit]

The article has been incorrectly reverted to "first wave", now in fact in two places, as well as another Wikipedia article now ("the Magnificent Eleven) even though it has become even more clear in the eight years since this discussion that Capa was in the second wave. moreover the citations being used to state first wave are citations like decidedly non-expert blurbs in Time Magazine pieces just repeating Capa's incorrect claim. We know exactly what landing craft he was on, what bech he landed on and what time. It was second wave: http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/d-day-june-6-1944.html (just search text "Robert capa")Explainador (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the other source stated "first wave," I just eliminated mention of which wave he was with. Both sources are given. --Light show (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the D Day narrative is now reasonably questioned, and looks as dubious as the Spanish Civil War staging. The article probably needs to reflect that research, at the least to say there is doubt about the integrity of the D Day Narrative, specifically that Capa is known to have arrived later than implied, probably spent only 15-30 minutes ashore, and it is likely there were never any lost photographs, the 11 were the only photos taken ashore. See https://medium.com/exposure-magazine/alternate-history-robert-capa-on-d-day-2657f9af914?fbclid=IwAR1C7LWFdBBM1dDPuye2m0n1__VuB-nua_JXqZg5RrDtsh6FbmK1cV1HBP4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.27.206 (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1947 President of USA[edit]

Eisenhower wasn't President in 1947 as this article states. Tlazarewicz (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, of course. Capa was presented (not awarded) the Medal of Freedom by Eisenhower in his capacity as Chief of Staff of the Army at that time. Capa was awarded the Medal of Freedom by the Secretary of War, who was one of the officials authorized to approve its award. 73.235.236.46 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Photographer Landing on Omaha Beach On D-Day[edit]

This is clearly a point of view issue as it merely repeats marketing hype generated by LIFE and Capa. There were a good number of other photographers on Omaha Beach on D-Day, it's just that they were in the military.

Eighteen men of the 165th Signal Photo Company landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day, primarily from Detachments L, D and P (the last attached from the 290th Signal Photo Company). Det L covered the 16th Regimental Combat Team; Det P covered the 5th Engineer Special Brigade and Det L covered V Corps troops - all landed on Omaha Beach on D-Day. Most carried both still and motion picture cameras. In fact, the first photographer that landed on Omaha Beach on 6 June was in Detachment L, 165th Signal Photo Company. He landed roughly an hour before Capa did, though both were covering the 16th Regimental Combat Team. SGT Taylor, another member of Det L landed on Fox Green and several of his films are online. Though military policy did not permit military photographers to get byline credit, Taylor's raw products can be identified by his slate board at the beginning of his clips. Two other members of Det L landed 15 minutes after Capa on the same stretch of beach.

In addition, the company commander, CPT Herman Wall also landed that morning, about 2 hours after Capa and a bit farther west, and his (uncredited) photos are quite common. Wall had two distinctions. Using carrier pigeons, he dispatched film from the approach to the beach, which arrived in the UK before any other film. Later that morning, he was severely wounded on Omaha Beach, and was evacuated with his camera gear. After undergoing amputation of part of his leg, he arrived in Weymouth with the film he shot on the beach. His was the first film back to London from Omaha Beach, beating both Brandt (who never set foot ashore) and Capa. Source: Technical Services, US Army in WWII

SGT Peter Paris, a correspondent for Yank Magazine, was standing next to Wall when he was hit. Paris was killed. He was both a writer and photographer.

The claim that Capa was the only photographer on Omaha Beach was Life's marketing angle and referred only to civilian correspondent photographers. It was marketing hype to increase sales of Life's magazine, since all the D-Day photo coverage was turned over to a pool and available to all news services. It's a shame that the men of the 165th Signal Photo Company have been written out of history by the marketing machine of a weekly magazine. Elsewhere on D-Day, other members of the 165th jumped in with the airborne forces, landed at Point du Hoc with the Rangers and some were killed, wounded and captured. 73.235.236.46 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks. I have added "only *civilian* photographer" to the intro section. The "D-Day, Omaha beach, 1944" section does not mention that he was the first anything, which it should if it is mentioned in the intro section. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lab Accident Fable[edit]

I see this article continues to repeat the lab accident story which claimed most of Capa's D-Day film was ruined during development. This omits mention of several revelations over the past couple of years. It has been conclusively proven that the so-called 'lab accident' story is false. Experiments have shown that the emulsion could not have melted as Morris claimed. Faced with this, Morris finally admitted that Capa may have actually taken only the few pictures we see in the 'Magnificent Eleven' during his short stay on the beach on D-Day. In trying to walk back the lab accident excuse that he had originated then pushed for seven decades, Morris then claimed he never actually saw the ruined film - a rather absurd claim from the bureau photo editor! The separate Wiki article on the Magnificent Eleven does note Morris' retraction (though it fails to go into detail on the debunking of the lab accident or Morris' attempts to resist the debunking). 73.235.236.46 (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See The Magnificent Eleven. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Robert Capa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life - questionable detail[edit]

This article states that Elaine Justin with whom he had relationship during second half of WWII was married at time to actor John Justin. However the latter's wikipedia article appears to omit any reference to a marriage prior to 1946 and so far response in question I posted in its talk page indicates that three newspaper biographies also do not recognise Elaine as one of the three wives they maintain John Justin had. I have therefore placed a citation need against the phrase linking Elaine to this John.Cloptonson (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

The notes section reads "The authenticity of the photograph is today in doubt, with some questioning its location, the identity of its subject, and the discovery of staged photographs taken at the same time and place"

Two links are provided, one is dead. The PBS article suggests the photo is authentic and not staged. The notes imply it is believed to be staged. The authenticity is not in doubt for many people, so saying it is in doubt is not supported by the active source. We might consider rewording it to be more neutral so Wikipedia is not taking a side.

I realize this might seem nitpicky but claiming Robert Capa staged a photo like that should require something more than a broken link. 2603:8081:8700:687D:F82A:B79B:3287:DFF8 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Capa&oldid=1194883132"