Live or Memorex?

[hireddutchcutthroat]

I am going to post a few pictures in this thread that I have copied from various period and recreated images. What ones do you think are real and which are modern, and why?

Sorry mods, I should have combined these into one post. It was a long night :cry_smile

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Image two. Live or Memorex?

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Third image. Reenactor or original?

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Last image. Now or then?

[BigMike]

Period, modern, period, period.

[BorderRuffian]

Howdy,
Just my .02, I would speculate that image #2 and #4 are modern,with the others being original.I may get a fooling,but that's my picks.

Forrest Peterson
Landis Light Artillery

[RN_PAC]

I agree with Big Mikehere; period-modern-period-period.

The first fellow I believe I have seen before in a Confederate POW group image somewhere in the midwest I think; the last I know I have seen before as an example of an ugly hat on an actual, period image.

The 2nd image, which I think is a modern image, is very good and is a tough call but it just gives me the impression that great pains are being taken in it to make it look period. the other images are just so nonchalant and plain that they seem more genuine.

#3 I am less sure about

However, I am at this very moment experimenting to see weather my foot will actually fit into my mouth in the event I am wrong :p

Enjoyable post!!
Tom Scoufalos

[daviswright]

Period. Modern. Modern. Period.

______________
Davis L. Wright

[Tarheel64]

Period, Period (just seems to wild not to be), Period, Modern

[Hank Trent]

I can't tell about the others because I can't find enough clues, but here's my reasoning for voting that number 2 is period.

There are few modern photographers who have a painted backdrop, so if it's modern, I'd expect to have seen similar reenactor photos floating around in the hobby, but I don't recognize the backdrop. And why a mortar? I dunno, if I were going to go to all the trouble to paint a modern backdrop, I just wouldn't choose a mortar. They've got a reputation in reenacting like dismounted cavalry, which wouldn't matter in the period.

Also, note that the photographer even has a jug with his name painted on it, presumably backwards, to advertise. I can't read the name, and I'll kick myself if it says "Bob Szabo" or something, but most reenacting photographers don't include their names in the photos, because the philosophy is they want the photos themselves to look all-period, so they add their name and date in an unobtrusive place to prevent the photo from being sold as an original. But a period photographer, of course, would be glad to include his name as an advertisement.

The one thing that bugs me is the poor set-up. The backdrop looks like it was made to be used in a studio with a standing subject, so it looks jakey with a subject sitting on grass, since the painting doesn't go all the way down so there's a blank spot between it and the grass. But I can't tell if that makes it seem more or less period.

It's more typical for a reenactor photographer to be forced to work outdoors on grass, which tips the balance toward it being modern, taken at a reenactment. But on the other hand, you'd think a reenactor photographer would be more prepared for photographing on grass and would have a better set-up, while a period photographer might have left his studio to take advantage of an encampment of soldiers nearby and not been prepared with a well-planned backdrop.

The only think I wish was that there was a period after the word "photographer" on the jug. That bugs me.

Anyway, I vote period. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. :D

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[ElizabethClark]

Doesn't John Coffer use a jug as an ID prop in his images?

[Charlie]

My vote is Period, Modern, Modern, Period. I think that #2 is trying a little to hard to be period, it feels staged beyond a period staged photo. Of course ... I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.
Just my two cents....

[Company Tailor]

Image #1 - Nice image. Could be either, but I'd lean toward period even though the guy looks a little familiar. Maybe I've seen the image before.
Image #2 - Is he wearing some of my work? Since I have a photo of myself in front of the same backdrop I vote modern. Excellent image though. And good on Mr. Dunnaway for marking it a repro! He's probably saved a collector lots of dough years on down the line.
Image #3 - Too blurry to tell.
Image #4 - Since I don't know of a reenactor with the guts to wear a hat like that at an event I vote period.

Great post!

[Matthew.Rector]

Image #1 - I believe this image is period.
Image #2 - Very nice image...I am leaning towards modern though.
Image #3 - As stated above, "Too blurry to tell." Although, I want to say modern.
Image #4 - That is definitely period. Anyone who has spent considerable time looking at period photos on the LOC site will agree I think.

[CavLt]

I believe #1 is period. This man looks young, thin, and his uniform appears to be a bad fit - to big and long in the arms.
#2 looks modern - as previously stated it looks over staged to give the look of being period.
#3 is to blurry, but I am leaning toward period.
#4 is period - that hat falls under "never say never or always".

Jay Johnson

[huntdaw]

#1 is period. It is a detail from a photo of a group of POW's.

I'm going to say #2 is period and #3 and #4 are modern. The main reason is because when my cursor is held over the thumbnail, the id for #3 is shissandgiggles and #4 is fat dork.

#1 and 2 have more serious id's as if they were being saved for a more scholarly reason.

Hey, it might be a screwed up logic but it works for me.

[Fod]

#1 period - just feels right
#2 modern - my thoughts were that if it were period, the bullseye canteen would date it to beyond the early war "first weeks in camp" set-up that the image is going for. Also the blackened coffee cup/can. I've yet to see one in a period photo.
#3 modern only because it look pixelated and glass/tin plates aren't.
#4 period only because it was posted here recently.

My 2 cents.

[SCSecesh]

1 - Period. Isn't this part of a larger image of ANV veterans, that has been used to show what appears to be a CD jacket in Virginia?

2 - Modern. Gut Feeling. A little to crisp and clear in the details to be 140 years old.

3 - Modern. Assuming the pixelation is due to an extreme enlargement of the image.

4 - Modern. Hat looks too much like ones we always deride!!

[SGulley]

#1-Period
#2-Modern
#3-Too blurry
#4-Definitely period. I agree with Rector on this one. Check the LOC.

I do like #2 even though I know it's modern.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Well here are the answers:

1. Is period, from a group of AoT prisoners in Chicago

2. Is modern, it is an old pard Tim Mulvahill, the image was taken by William Dunaway

3. Is also modern, and this was also taken by Willam Dunaway (and it is pixilated due to it being enlarged, not because I was trying to hide anything.)

4. Is period.

Should I post another?

[RN_PAC]

[QUOTE=
Should I post another?[/QUOTE]

Whew, I was wondering when we would get the answers!

I, personally, would enjoy another thread such as this; however, I am by my own admission easily amused :D .

Thanks for starting it.

Sincerely,
Tom

[Chuck A Luck]

...Should I post another?

Yes -- though I, too, am easily amused. Mainly, though, I was just fixin' to reply when I noticed the answers were posted (and, admittedly, my answers were only going to be 50% accurate).

[justthemiller]

I am guessing...

(1) Period, I remember that fellow from an Military Images issue titled "back from Dixie" showing Confederate POW's at Camp Douglas.

(2) Modern, the lighting seems off & the fellow is showing a lot of stuff which most of the original photos do not.

(3) Period, It is way out of focus for me but from the lighting it looks period

(4) Period, the lighting of the photo makes it look original.

Oh well, I should've looked at the answers on Page 2!!! :tounge_sm

[billwatson]

AS noted in another thread, I think it would be really cool for some of the fellows who are the right age and "look" to get together from time to time with period photography and try to create real "fooled you" setups. Just another way to have fun and hone our impressions.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Take two. Live or Memorex?

[BorderRuffian]

Sir,
I'd say #1,#4,#5 period;#2,#3,#6 modern...............


Forrest Peterson
Landis Light Artillery

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Sir,
I'd say #1,#4,#5 period;#2,#3,#6 modern...............


Forrest Peterson
Landis Light Artillery


Dont forget WHY.

[billwatson]

Take two. Live or Memorex?

1 Period. I originally thought this was a backdrop in an outdoor shot, then realized that maybe it was a backdrop in a studio that used some props rather than just a painted backdrop to make an allusion to the outdoors, including canvas that might be meant to be seen as a tent. It's pretty rare to see any kind of backdrop in a period outdoor shot. The photo has all the imperfections of a period shot. If this is a modern shot, it's very, very well done.

2. Modern I don't recall seeing this much mix and match between wearing a hat and not wearing a hat in period photos. It tends to be all one way or the other.

3. Modern. Something about his collar disturbs me. Maybe it's that you don't often see clothing that is disarranged at all in period photos? Perhaps because the rarity of having an image struck made people keenly aware of how they were trimmed out?

4. Period. Those are period haircuts and it looks like the photos have been tinted. Unless someone has gotten very good, I haven't seen tinting done these days that looks like this.

5. Modern, it's some kid who's going to get a talking to about where his hands are if I catch up to him, and his jacket is not hanging right -- cloth is too bunched up. It's also much to casually posed to be a period photo -- people in period photos were posed to be aware of the camera. "candid" photos are a later development. The only way this is period is if it is someone caught at the edge of the main topic that was being photographed -- almost a bystander.

6 Modern, based mainly on the tone of the image itself rather than the guys.

[BorderRuffian]

Dont forget WHY.


Sorry,too quickly posted earlier.On #1 the background looks period,#4 has hand coloring on the belt buckles that I have seen on period images,#5 was a tough one but I thought the background looked like a period image.With #2 the fellows just look modern to me.With #3 and #6 they both have the same photographer's backdrop that was used in a photo in your last post.
Great images,thanks for posting!

Forrest Peterson
Landis Light Artillery

[Matthew.Rector]

This is kinda fun....

No. 1 Looks like a period image to me based on the props. Not to say they couldn’t or haven’t been used with today’s photographers but I believe it to be rare for one to take the time to set something like this up.
No. 2 Modern. I recognize the top left figure from the last set. Aside from that, I’d have to say there is something about these figures that makes me believe this is modern. Don’t get me wrong though-great “looks” by all in this pic! maybe in 150 years it will be harder to tell.
No. 3 Modern. I believe his shoes give him away on this. Too dusty or worn I think.
No. 4 Period. I believe the aged look of the image is one indication. Other than that, as Bill said there is nice tinting you don’t commonly see today.
No. 5 Period. Detail from one of my favorite images. Again, this is one from the LOC site. Bill, not sure you’ll have a chance to give this boy a talkin’!
No. 6 Quality image although I see the same recurring backdrop as seen in the other modern pics that have been posted. I believe this one to be modern.

Great set Robert!

[RN_PAC]

Hmmm, these are getting tougher-

#1 - period. Call it a gut feeling. The contrast of darks and whites have a soft feeling about them. Plus, it appears the fellow is holding a rifle vs. a musket which is something of a rariety in modern images and events.

#2 - modern. It is a very good image; the contrasts are very crisp and the individuals just have a modern look about them that is difficult to quantify or articulately characterize (another gut feeling I guess)

#3 - modern. I agree with Matthew Rector on the backdrop, which seems to present on this as well as #6 and resembles those seen on other modern images. However, I am taking a chance here, because I would not doubt that the modern backdrop was inspired by one seen on period images!

#4 - period. Again I am swayed by soft blurred edges; the two fellows pictures, in an antithesis of those pictured in #2, have a look about them that I find difficult to characterize but leads me to believe the image is period. Plus, rifles again...not one, but two!

#5 - too small for me to tell. I will have to take everyone else's word on this!

#6 - modern. Recurring backdrop. The fellow on the right appears somewhat older than most individuals in similar, period images.

If nothing else, this exercise is providing me with good ideas in what to do/not to do next time I have an image struck :cool: !

Tom

[Chuck A Luck]

Take two. Live or Memorex?
Period: 1, 2, 4
Modern: 3, 5, 6

[HOG.EYE.MAN]

Bob,

1. Authentic: Everything about this image looks real.

2. Modern: This image appears darker than originals I've seen, and
it has a modern look to it. (Wendell Decker's images
come out dark like this. Not saying it's his
though.) They also look like reenactors and some of
the faces look familiar to me.

3. Modern: This image appears very real to me, but the backdrop
looks the same as the second picture in your first set.
Very convincing, but not real. BTW, is this you Bob?

4. Authentic: The belt buckles are painted in, and you don't usually
see that too often with repro images. The clothing
and basic appearance of these two fellas look very
period as well.

5. Authentic: This Federal soldier is cropped from a larger image
taken during the Atlanta campaign.

6. Modern: A good image, but it appears modern. Once again, the
backdrop looks the same as other pictures you've
provided. The older gentleman on the right looks like
a modern reenactor. This might sound weird to most
of you, but his trousers don't "settle" correctly like
original Federal trousers do. :wink_smil

Bob, Posting these images for us to critique was a very good idea. Thank you.

Hog-Eye Aaron

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Ok maybe the last one was to easy, that danged backdrop gave it away.

1.Original

2. Modern (the guy on the top left is the same guy that was in the last set.)

3. Modern (...Me at 19. The colar and shoes bugged me at the time aswell.)

4.Original

5.Original

6.Modern (Randy Pierson and his Dad. Both are very accomplished musicians.)

One of the my favorite things about recreated photography is the abillity to critique our impressions in comparison to the people we are trying to emulate.