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