Selecting the Monthly Cover...

[Eric Tipton]

Folks:

I have been watching some discussions and have listened to others in the recent past and wonder aloud if it isn't time to change the way we do the cover.

We have been voting on the cover images for going on three years now and I think overall, it has been a good exercise for all of us to see good impressions (and some not as good) put up for consideration/discussion every month.

The aspect that I liked about the contest when I suggested it to Paul a few years back was the idea that a discussion about impressions would develop based on what people saw objectively in the represented photos. Unfortunately, at times, this became personal and the discussions generally vanished and when we tried to revive them, the voting itself continued to take precedent over the discussion.

With that being said, I want to suggest a change for the monthly contest. This isn't my idea. It has been suggested by several individuals at different times and I welcome them to respond to this post in support/dissent of my proposal. Frankly, I think it is time for a change with the way that we do it and it doesn't mean that we couldn't change it again in the future if other ideas come along as well.

I suggest that we continue to have a monthly vote. We still collect ten images every month around the same time. The change would be to vote on our favorite real (original) image from the war. There would be no need to whittle down the ten to a final three, etc. This would simply be based on which image makes an impression on the membership here and carries the day. I think that it would generate a ton of discussion and we don't have to worry about whether or not good/bad/terrrible impressions make the cover, just whether we like them and why. Images of ancestors would also be welcome.

I am putting a poll question attached to this post. Please feel free to contribute your thoughts. What do you think?

This poll closes in eight days.

[Eric Tipton]

Oh, and one last thought, before I get too sleepy tonight... I think the catch should be that if an image is submitted, it must have a source and some form of documentation. Just a thought...

[fedcampaigner]

I like the idea of having original photos for the cover. Although, I did enjoy seeing other members impressions. I can't say which one I like better but I think original photos would be an interesting change. Just my two cents.

[garyjd]

Oh, and one last thought, before I get too sleepy tonight... I think the catch should be that if an image is submitted, it must have a source and some form of documentation. Just a thought...


Eric, This is just a thought. What if an image, similar to the fantastic grouping of Federals that was just auctioned on Ebay shows up, but with no information as to who, what, when, where? It would be a shame to see an image, be it a single figure or grouping turned down due to lack of information. Just a thought.~Gary

[GermanDraftee]

Eric, This is just a thought. What if an image, similar to the fantastic grouping of Federals that was just auctioned on Ebay shows up, but with no information as to who, what, when, where? It would be a shame to see an image, be it a single figure or grouping turned down due to lack of information. Just a thought.~Gary

My humble opinion and no more than that:

Fantastic images without provenance are always viewable in the "photos" forum. For the cover, however, I agree that provenance should be required. The cover is the first thing seen by anyone, general public included, and makes a statement as to what the forum is about. The unique status of the cover requires, I believe, special care as to authenticity. If none of the identifying questions mentioned by Gary (Who? What? When? Where?) can be answered, then I'd rather see it in the appropriate forum, and not on the cover.

Respectfully yours,

[BrianHicks]

Original images can be viewed in many, many sources. Images of reenactors whom are recreating those original soldiers however, are rarely as easily available to be shared.

Using correctly made period style reenactor images is far more in keeping with the original purpose of these forums.

I would prefer that we keep it as it is.

[DougCooper]

We don't learn anything from reenactor images, and learning is what this place is all about. Additionally, the majority of the members on this board do not have routine access to a period photographer. A very small (teeny tiny) of us actually look like period soldiers and civilians. If you required the submission of a period photograph along side the reenactor photo every month, we would all quickly realize just how far from reality our impressions are on average.

In about 1% of the submissions, it is tough to tell (this month is a good example), and we usually can all figure that out. And since we never honestly discuss what is wrong with any of them (too personal), except by voting, it is a useless exercise, unless the point is a popularity contest. We should encourage the use of reenactor images in the photo section, but for the cover, we need original images.

This will jump start discussion on one of our greatest research tools. Its them we honor, and its them we learn from.

It is particularly dangerous if new folks coming on the board somehow look upon these as the ideal impression - the only ideal impressions are the real deal. Let the real soldiers and civilians teach us.

Lastly, I believe we should allow both known provenance and unknown original images in the vote. Lots of smart folks on here and you never know - one of us may figure it out on an image that is unknown. The fact that we are having to use the excellent photo resources will make us all better researchers as well.

Of course knowing the devious pranksters that inhabit the board, I bet at least one image of a reenactor will be submitted every month, so maybe provenance should be required ;)

[Ken]

Why not mix it up a bit. One month original photos, the next good reenactors impressions. Variety ;)

[DougCooper]

Why not mix it up a bit. One month original photos, the next good reenactors impressions. Variety ;)

Ken's idea has merit, esp as a learning tool - you could even have two images every month, one of each. Call it "then and now."

[lambrew]

Hello all....

Just my two cents, I like the idea of an original along side of a reenactor photo. The contrast between the two may help point out the finer details we all strive to get right.


Your ob't servant....
Sean Collicott

[crabby]

I agree with Brian. The purpose of this website is reenactor based. The reenactor pictures can be a learning tool for the new members. By the gleaning of the pictures each month the "newbie" learns some of what is more correct vs. incorrect.

Ken & Doug's suggestions do have merit though.

I still think it should stay as it is.

Crabby

[27thNCdrummer]

I think we should use original images because it would cut back on a lot of the votes that are based on "these are my friends and they look cool:cool:."
Just a thought.......

[dbuckley]

I vote for either original images only, or original next to reenactor images for comparison.

To me, a cover consisting of only reenactor images only says "look how cool we look", or "we found a period photographer". I rarely if ever study a reenactors image to further along my own impression, only period photos. As someone said earlier in this thread, very few people 'look' the part, and it's true, despite everyone's best efforts, a recreated pose by a reenactor can usually be spotted fairly easily.

To be honest, I've never cared that much for any cover, because that's not the page I start looking at first. I start right at the boards to see what's up and navigate around from there if I wish to.

[Eric Tipton]

In terms of doing side-by-side images, that just isn't technically a good idea. Based on the format of the forum, and the column sizes of the front page, I make each cover exactly 350 pixels-wide. If we were using two photos instead of one, it would make each image too small to be significant. As it stands, it is already difficult to format with a landscape image as opposed to a portrait format. Note how I pulled two scenes from the landscape image on this month's cover because of the layout and size of the people in the photo. We need to stick with one image each month.

What if it is as simple as switching them up each month as has been suggested by Ken? As I mentioned in my original post, whatever we do doesn't need to be permanent. At times, change or variety can be a good thing.

[Drygoods]

Ahem, not to sound snooty here, but isn't this a living history reenactors website? If so, then what is the harm in showing the best of what living history has to offer, it's best looking reenactors? I can find plenty of original CW photos online or in books, but I cannot see how these original images are being used in our modern hobby without seeing the living historian in interpretation.

Please keep it as it is, leave the front cover to the living historians.

[mightyreb]

For what it's worth, I agree on the then & now image idea. It could show what we are striving to do & how close (or far) we to attaining it. I also agree that if a good original photo has no provenance it should be able to be shown, someone may just know or it might make us hit the books a bit more...

Steven Hutton..

[Eric Tipton]

I also agree that if a good original photo has no provenance it should be able to be shown, someone may just know or it might make us hit the books a bit more...



Good point. Anything we can do to encourage discussion and gasp, research.

[Dignann]

I agree with Ms. Peebles This board and site is by and for reenactors. There already is a place to post and discuss original photos, in the folder entitled "Civil War Photos (http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=32)." There have been some very good discussions there. Perhaps in that folder, there can be a "Photo of the Month" for dissection and discussion.

Personally, I like to see the images folks are having made of themselves and how far they go to achieve "the look." Having the best one on the front page, voted by the forum members, is a great way of representing this site. I vote for keeping it the way it is.

Eric

[Marc29thGA]

I personally look forward each month to the voting process and what the images will be. It is great to see what people have achieved with their impression and research.

If it’s not broke, don't fix it. :)

[Spinster]

Right around the time Darling Daughter and I branched out from our occassional forays with extended family members in the late 18th century, to spending much more time in the 19th century, we saw an image taken of the Red Ribbon Ladies from the Adventist College in Chattanooga.

It took but one look to figure out we'd been running with the wrong folks.

This is a site to encourage the best in mid-19th century portayals--and the cover as it currently stands shows what can be done, and how close some folks come. Reward that behavior.

The only change I'd make is to require the 'who, what, when' information with the image submittal--not after the top three are chosen. Too many times that information is never submitted.

[Johnny Lloyd]

I like the reenactor photos... If they can fool me on accuracy, I think it's cool. Bear in mind, though, they shouldn't be used for research. Go with the period photos and 1st person descriptions instead.

Thanks- Johnny Reb

[confederal]

Everyone,

You wouldn't need to have two pictures at the same time and like Mr. Tipton said, it isnt possible with available space on the home page. I've made a website, it's hard changing all of that and getting things to fit. One picture a month. Whether it's an original or reenactor image I think it shouldn't be one or the other. I think most of the images should be reenactor images because that's what this website is about, but every once in awhile when you come across a great original image we should put it up for everyone to see. A different picture now and then isn't going to hurt anything and it's always good to see a change now and then, but I don't believe the front page image should be limited to one type. Maybe if we correspond the images with up-coming events or something like that. Like a picture of troops at Vicksburg posted would have been cool to see around the time of the LH, or reenactors at Vicksburg. I don't know if that's going to help in making a decision, but I gave my point of view on the matter.

Evan Isaacs

[CC sewing]

Original images can be viewed in many, many sources. Images of reenactors whom are recreating those original soldiers however, are rarely as easily available to be shared.

Using correctly made period style reenactor images is far more in keeping with the original purpose of these forums.

I would prefer that we keep it as it is.

Me too! I really enjoy the reenactor photos, because they inspire me and are almost always so good that they look like the real deal (showing the authentic look to aim for - wow, can one look that close to the original?), and occasionally if I am familiar with one of the people in the photos, it's fun to see them looking so much like "back then".

Please do keep it the way it is!

[HOG.EYE.MAN]

Original images can be viewed in many, many sources. Images of reenactors whom are recreating those original soldiers however, are rarely as easily available to be shared.

Using correctly made period style reenactor images is far more in keeping with the original purpose of these forums.

I would prefer that we keep it as it is.

Doug,

I understand your point, but I'm going to have to agree with Brian on this one.

Keep it the same.

[majdoc]

I like the Cover.
It is something a little different. Keep up the good work.

[DougCooper]

Using correctly made period style reenactor images is far more in keeping with the original purpose of these forums.

And that purpose would be?

Last word (from me anyway) - I guarantee you that everyone would immediately be able to pick out a real photo if included with 9 reenactor photos....every single month.

I don't want anyone in this hobby to aspire to look like a good reenactor - we ought to aspire to look like the real soldiers. But if that is not the point (some folks apparently think it is), then so be it.

How about we can the idea of using original cameras and go with modern cameras? Its a bit silly to insist on period photography if we say the goal is education to help us look like the best reenactors. In fact, its a bit silly since 99% of the period reenactor photos don't look real anyway. If we are trying to celebrate reenactors and the AC - why not use modern photography, ala CW Historian or whatever? That would at least get more than 8.4% of the forum involved who happen to be close to a period photographer...

[Hank Trent]

How about we can the idea of using original cameras and go with modern cameras?

I go straight to the forums, so I rarely see the monthly image, and it's not a big deal to me. The whole concept seems to place too much emphasis on appearance, rather than function, and I'd like to see the hobby place more emphasis on doing rather than appearing. It takes more than clothes to make the man.

However, I'd argue that if a wet-plate camera is used, the subjects were at least going through something that mimicked what a subject went through to get his or her picture taken in the 1860s.

If we switch to modern cameras, all remnants of an 1860s experience are cast aside, and it becomes purely about the other kind of posing. :) Plus, it'll be just more reason to sneak modern cameras into events where they're discouraged, to get that really kewl shot that'll make the AC cover.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Spinster]

That would at least get more than 8.4% of the forum involved who happen to be close to a period photographer...

Doug, I know everything is few and far between in Idaho, but now I'm curious--exactly how much of a reach is this for folks in most parts of the country?

Seriously, I go to good events and funnel cake festivals, as long as they are in my weekend driving range and I have no other obligations. This for me means east of the Mississippi, west of the Appalachians and south of the Ohio.

Most of the time, my problem is "Whoops, there's a wetplate feller, and I don't have any money". Still, I make sure to get one made at least once a year.

The only times I haven't seen a wetplate man in the last two years was because we were just too remote, and too few in numbers to make it worth a trip---either that or too cold for the chemicals to work--and my best image was made at 27 degrees and a stout breeze blowing, so that doesn't happen much down here.

[toptimlrd]

I too like the then and now idea but understand the limitations of the pixel count. Perhaps the alternating cover idea would work as long as we somhow point out which is which for the viewing public.

[GWHall]

I don't want anyone in this hobby to aspire to look like a good reenactor - we ought to aspire to look like the real soldiers. But if that is not the point (some folks apparently think it is), then so be it.

And I believe Doug has hit upon my feelings with this statement.

We always tell people to judge reproduction items to the originals, not other reproductions. Why would we do differently with photographs?

[JimConley]

Doug makes a good point in supporting the idea of original images. We strive to recreate those appearances, and why stop at another chance to study original photos and learn from them?

But, others make good points as well. This is a site for the more authentic-minded folks, so why not display some of the better impressions out there? And, as Eric mentioned, there is already a spot on the boards to post and discuss original photos. And, I like to think that there have been a few productive threads based on originals.

My biggest fear with the idea of posting original images as the cover would be the voting process. Say there were ten original images to choose from in the voting. What would be the basis for one original to win over the other nine? Would it be because the winner was found to be the most interesting based on clarity or unique uniform pieces? Or would folks just be picking originals because they look "cool"? Yes, the same argument can be made against the current process, but we're not studying reproduction images to learn from them. And, ultimately, choosing one original image over nine other options might take away from the study of and learning aspects of those not chosen. The idea as a whole losing validity because it is a contest and originals should be compared in a studious manner, not what the membership thinks would make a pretty cover.

My advice would be to leave the cover contest the way it is. And, as others have said, there are a lot of online sources for original images. Why not walk away from this thread and take this momentum to actually post originals on the boards in the proper folder and encourage more and better discussions?

[Drygoods]

Using correctly made period style reenactor images is far more in keeping with the original purpose of these forums.

And that purpose would be?

Last word (from me anyway) - I guarantee you that everyone would immediately be able to pick out a real photo if included with 9 reenactor photos....every single month.

I don't want anyone in this hobby to aspire to look like a good reenactor - we ought to aspire to look like the real soldiers. But if that is not the point (some folks apparently think it is), then so be it.

How about we can the idea of using original cameras


Dear Mr. Cooper,
In response to your above comments, I'd have to agree with you that the purpose of this forum is to educate, however, it is a forum not only for public readers, but mostly intended for the living history interpreter. Yes, I could agree that 9 of 10 photos taken of reenactors are easily discovered, but not always. As for using original cameras, why would anyone want to use something modern? If you want to look like the period individual in a photograph, than you must get an image struck, and this is generally done by all living history folks at some point in their 'historic' life. (As for myself, I'm 22+hours from the nearest collodian artist so do this fairly seldom).


However, not to be argumentative with you, but doesn't it mean something that we show images of living historians here to show what can and is being done? How wonderful modern people do a fine job of their interpretation, and presenting themselves to the public as being period correct? One thing I notice most when I look at truly fine modern 'period' images is how far the hobby has come. Looking into those images also give us a rear view mirror of what we were, yet how we look at ourselves today. Yes, I like seeing original images, I collect them, but I also take pleasure at looking at modern folks who pride themselves in doing a super impression. Naturally, I'd never copy anything that I found in a modern image, that makes no sense, but it is a delight to see someone today 'does it right' and has picture proof.

Consequently, [/I] "and the purpose would be?"[/I] to show the new living historian what they can do once they have gleaned a wealth of knowledge from this extraordinary, fine, and instructive website.:rolleyes:

I'm no soldier, but I do aspire to look 'real'

[roi rex]

in my humble opinion, we should use both reenactor and original photos, obviously, identifying each as such after they are selected. we should retain voting on the monthly image.

go well.

[garyjd]

I say please BOTH camps. Why can there not be the usual monthly cover accompanied by a "period image of the month"?~Gary

[paulcalloway]

I think you've done a marvelous job over the last couple of years with this Eric. I understand where people are coming from on the objections but I know your intent was never to start a fashion contest.

I personally would appreciate alternating covers (authentic images one month and reenactor images the next) and I'd appreciate more involvement from the actual collodian artists who our cover contests no doubt benefit to some degree. I know they have their own forum but sometimes it'd be interesting to hear their perspectives on the image making process relative to the images we're featuring.

[Stef5735]

The directions for the monthly image submissions ask for background, but it's not always provided, thus reducing the material available for discussion.

Perhaps the submitter could provide discussion material by highlighting an authentic feature, such as hair style or jacket fit, that he or she has sought to achieve, along with applicable research. The highlighted aspects then provide a ready list of topics on which others can comment in a positive, informative manner.

Also, it would be interesting to rotate reenactor with original images . This way, someone could begin a discussion or communicate information by pointing out how some interesting feature in his ancestor's image can be recreated.

[roi rex]

after my original post, i thought it might be interesting to follow my suggestion, but make it a sort of contest. members could guess whether the photo is historical or contemporary.

just a thought.

go well.

[HOG.EYE.MAN]

after my original post, i thought it might be interesting to follow my suggestion, but make it a sort of contest. members could guess whether the photo is historical or contemporary.

just a thought.

go well.


That would be way too easy and silly.........

[mightyreb]

I also believe it would be to easy to "pick out" the original picture, not saying anything bad about either our present day period photographers or any re-enactors, but after close to 11 years in the hobby I have yet to see a photo done in our time that does'nt give itself away..But the idea of discussing the photo's finer points (Thank you Miss Shaffer) sounds actually very intresting if done with tact..
Meant respectfully, Steve Hutton