Originally Posted by
DaveReidUK
I think Parrot's point was that in spite of the bright light, which would have normally implied using a small aperture, the photographer clearly didn't.
Sorry, wasn't clear. Bright light, so probably did use a small aperture (f/11, maybe, probably not wider than f/8). On a smallish camera (Rollei down), that would mean a big depth of field. But these pictures have a shallow depth of field, so they must have been taken on a large camera (5x4, probably), with which size you'd get a shallow depth of field even with a small aperture. Hence, professional (in the '40s, they'd still be using such big cameras). Alternatively, someone using an aerial camera: they made big negatives, and did have fast lenses (though I don't know what speed film they used).