[gregj1967]

Outstanding job Rubinski, and very interesting. After reviewing the photos side-by-side and reading the articles, several things are now clear to me:

1-These are NOT the same photographs. The posing of Colleen and Lynda, while similar, is not exact, and I'm not sure that even high-quality professional airbrushing could be responsible for all of the minute but significant differences in body style, posture and lighting.

2-Although the jacket appears to be the same in each photo, the jeans are not. Look closely at the belt loops and trimming and you'll see what I mean.

3-These two photos seem to have been taken in the same studio. Look at the bottom right of each photo and you'll notice the same chair. At first glance it looks like peg-board or the cover to an old 1970's style stereo speaker, but my family used to have a set of chairs back in the early-mid 1970s (same time frame as these photos) with woven rattan-style backs inside slightly curving wood frames. Look at the bottom extreme right of the Lynda photo and you can see that the top of the chair back is curving upward slightly to its left as it would meet the other side of the frame at a high point in the middle (out of the picture frame). Also you can see the top right corner of the chair back contrasted against the lighter color of the photog backdrop, just to left of where the left-hand side of Lynda's jacket hangs behind the chair back. Look at the Colleen photo carefully and you can just make out the exact same top right corner of the chair back; there isn't as much of the chair in the colleen photo so it's not quite as visible, but it's the same chair.

Conclusion: The two photos were taken in the same studio and probably within 6 months of each other. Assuming the Lynda photo is real for the moment, why would they want the exact same style of centerfold shot using the same jacket top, background, and pose style for the Camp photo? The answer might be as simple as the head of the art department on Apocalypse Now telling the photographer that he wanted the "same type" of photo for Colleen as he had previously done with Lynda. The photog obliges, perhaps not knowing how close to the original the new one should be therefore making it extremely similar.

But there's another, and much more plausible reason why the two photos were done almost exactly the same. Recall that in Apocalypse Now Redux, Chef (Frederic Forrest) eventually gets together with Colleen Camp's Playmate character and tries to pose her in the same manner as she appears in the centerfold which is his favorite of all time. With this scene still in the script it would be necessary to have the "new" Colleen Camp mock centerfold (which is seen in much more detail on camera in Redux than in the theatrical release version of the film) look as much like the previous one with Lynda because of that scene. Whoever played the Playmate had to have been wearing the same kind of clothes, posing in the same way and shot in the same light because Chef's attempt to pose her in that centerfold pose is in the script; it's easier to keep the same look of a prop than re-write the script to suit a different looking mock centerfold. It might sound silly or far-fetched but it's the most plausible reason I can think of as to why the photo styles are almost identical. Any changes, no matter how minute, can cost big $$ when shooting a major motion picture. Had the Colleen Camp canterfold shot been done differently with different clothes, etc., all of those changes would had to have been written into the script and new wardrobe--requiring new fittings, etc.--would had to have been purchased. Colleen was probably selected in part because she fit into the clothes they already had or at least they could be altered easily since she is physically similar to Lynda.

It's also possible that these mock centerfolds were shot in the Phillipines where most of the film was shot which might also explain why the photog has never been identified; he--or she--may have been some "hack" who didn't retain any rights or authorship to the photo which would also save the filmmakers money since I believe the credited author of a photo would receive royalties or residuals for its repeated use. Laws regarding the credit and use of such material were probably different in the Phillipines than the USA (which may have something to do with the photo's limited distribution) and the cost of the photoshoots were probably lower as well. It's also possible that the two photos were simply shot by the art department on the film and therefore no individual credit for the photos were assigned since the photo was never intended for publication; it may have simply been one of numerous tasks performed by the art department--always named in a film's closing credits anyway--as part of their regular job.

There's more to say, but I think I've made my point. I'm now more convinced than ever before that the photo is possibly genuine (and remember that I'm the guy who's been arguing the other way all this time). All that remains now is for some truly "hard" evidence to surface such as the identity of the photog (unlikely) or some other confirmation from Lynda or members of the Apocalypse Now production team.