Interesting Photo

[bushy chops]

Re: Interesting Photo

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the hiarcuts and styles of the men in the "gettysburg" picture are not common for the period. They look far too modern IMHO. I cannot definitly say whether this is a period image or not, but i'd be willing to wager it is not Gettysburg in july 1863. To many issues with this pic to believe it is period.

[Enfilade]

staged images

The Library Of Congress has many staged images. Here is another. It is "History" and they(photographers) were the CNN of the day.

Mark Berrier
North State Rifles
northstaterifles.com

[HistoryGeek]

Re: Interesting Photo

Here's a strange twist.....what if it's spring? How many of us have slept on or under our greatcoat at night and/or put it on when you get up to cook breakfast in April? Could be soldier or reenactor. I'm still thinking about the guy in the background....sort of strange that he shows up in a period photo if he is indeed running as it looks. That much motion...he would look ghostly.

Why is it in the Library of Congress if it's not preiod? Or if it is nobody knows if it isn't? I don't think it's ghostly. But who would wear a great coat in Spring?

HistoryGeek
Evan Hunsberger

[ContinentalMorganGuard]

Re: Interesting Photo

I'm not sure why many people have to be so suspecious? It's been established over and over its a period image. The guy in the great coat and bloused socks is the "dead" guy in the picture "Dead at Manassas", which is in many books, and is atributed to the appropriate artist. I do believe the that the pictures is staged, and the men it more then likley aren't soldiers, look at how they wear thier gear, etc etc. But, I find it funny that there are other pictures on other threads that people are saying are faked, etc, because they can't see a wound on the dead guy, etc etc, or they looked staged. Many of the period after the battle kind of pictures were at least partially staged, you can see it in the way gear is laid out or how perfect the soldiers body position is. It's what the photographgers did back then, for artisitic effect. That's just my .02.

[Mike Willey]

Re: Interesting Photo

I copied this photo to Larry Strayer to get his opinion, as my instincts were suspicious about the origins. For those that don't know, he is a prominent collector of Ohio CW images and memoralbilia, and is a lifelong collector. Some of his images are prominent in various Blue Acorn Press books; he co-wrote the Ohio issue of Military Images magazine a couple of years ago, etc.

He is of the opinion that this is from the centenial/1960's, and was somehow not catalogued properly by the LOC. He had never seen the photo before.

I concur with his opinion. It's a neat image, but just doesn't quite have the right look.

Mike Willey
late of the 49th Ohio and Coffee-coolers

[Dignann]

Re: Interesting Photo

Any speculation why? Why not just dress them in summer uniforms, or have them wear what they'd already be wearing, rather than go find greatcoats for them to put on?

First, how common was it for artists to use photographs instead of live models in the glass-plate period?

First, I'm guessing that these men are not soldiers, but are instead models. Not being associated with the army in any capacity, Bierstadt may well have outfitted them in whatever he get his hands on. A greatcoat may well have been all he had available for that fellow, thrown over the model's civilian clothes.

Some years ago, one of Bierstadt's other stereoscopic views was auctioned by Cowan's or HCA Auctions. It was discussed here on the A-C, but that thread disappeared in the crash. The stereo was nearly identical to Bierstadt's painting entitled Guerrilla Warfare (Picket Duty in Virginia), which was painted in 1862. It strongly suggested that the photo was the basis for his artwork.

Jason Wickersty, in the previous thread entitled Civil War photos plus more..., stated that this image is reproduced in its original wartime stereoscopic form on page 29 in Bob Zeller's The Civil War in Depth, Volume 2. The image was labeled as pickets cooking their rations near Fredericksburg, December 8, 1862. Could it be that Bierstadt was staging vignettes, some of which were not necessarily intended to represent Bull Run, and later labeled them as such for commercial gain?

Regardless, I'm convinced that this is a wartime image, as the documentary evidence certainly points in that direction.

I have a copy of Zeller's book at work, and will check it, but I won't be back in the office for a couple weeks.

Eric

[JLHurst]

Re: Interesting Photo

Mr. Reid,

I'm with you on most of that. But the having time, and traps on while cooking is a possability. "A Fighting Withdrawl" it was done. Mr. Yearby, Mr. Landrum, Mr. Mobley, Mr. Tilley, Myself and others were on picket all night. It was arranged in such a way that Sgt. Landrum allowed us to travel down in a gulley and have a small fire enough to prepair some type of food. While rotating pickets on post.

Aparently it worked, after discussing with the Feds (which captured our position thanks to Mr. Acker) The only thing reported seen was the light from that of a smoking pipe. :o

After recieving the riot act from Sgt. Landrum I decided not to retrive my pipe from my knapsack before picket!

Either way, I think we can all agree that there are things that just don't click in this photo. Hence the title of the thread, no doubt.

[Dreamer42]

Re: Interesting Photo

My take is that this is a stagged or modern image. A few questions I have are 1) No fire, as has already been pointed out. 2) Also, they are far enough to the rear to pitch a shelter, but a picket is just at the edge of the bivouac area? We have all cooked over a fire - how many of you keep on your gear while bending, kneeling, etc?
3) They have time to cook rations, but still have their accoutrements on? If orders are given to stay accoutred in case of a need to respond to a threat, then why are they cooking? Some of the clothing looks too clean or new, even the tent fly. My reenactor gear and uniforms look dirtier that what they are wearing. It looks too suspicious to me.

- Jay Reid
Dreamer42
9th Texas

[lukegilly13]

Re: Interesting Photo

Here's a strange twist.....what if it's spring? How many of us have slept on or under our greatcoat at night and/or put it on when you get up to cook breakfast in April? Could be soldier or reenactor. I'm still thinking about the guy in the background....sort of strange that he shows up in a period photo if he is indeed running as it looks. That much motion...he would look ghostly.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Interesting Photo

Not sure if this has been addressed in any of the several threads on these photos, both the men cooking and the "dead" men supposedly from Bull Run, but...

It's been pointed out they're wearing greatcoats in the summer, which seems unrealistic for real soldiers. True. But, they're still wearing greatcoats in the summer! Reenactors, period soldiers used to pose, photographers' models, whatever, that's still strange!

Any speculation why? Why not just dress them in summer uniforms, or have them wear what they'd already be wearing, rather than go find greatcoats for them to put on?

I can think of a couple speculative reasons, probably neither very likely, and there are probably more and better ones.

First, how common was it for artists to use photographs instead of live models in the glass-plate period? I'm guessing not very common, but today, an artist might ask for a picture of someone dressed in winter clothes for a winter painting, even though it happened to be summer, and he'd use the model while ignoring the background. I don't think that's nearly as likely, though, for a glass plate.

So here's another thought. If a photographer in the period wanted to pose civilian men as soldiers, would it be easier to find greatcoats in the summer than uniform blouses? More blouses would be in use, but greatcoats would be stored away. If the photographer was short of blouses for his models to wear, could he have found some unused greatcoats easier?

Or, similarly, would soldiers post-war who were "reenacting" their wartime poses for a photographer, have been more apt to have greatcoats? Greatcoats were practical garments for warmth, and were probably worn out less than blouses--would some soldiers have chosen to keep a greatcoat as a practical garment while turning most of the rest of their stuff back in? And thus when asked to pose, it might be the closest they had to a uniform?

Or, possibly, the weather was much colder than it appeared from the foliage, so greatcoats really were appropriate. But it sure looks warm, full summer, not even fall or spring.

Don't know. But even if they weren't real soldiers, models and civilians get too hot in greatcoats in the leafy green summertime, so there had to have been some explanation.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Dignann]

Re: Interesting Photo

Could it be possible that some of the centennial reenactors, some how got the photo into the LOC? All the search said was Civil War, not original Civil War pics.

Very doubtful, since the image apparently appeared on a wartime produced stereoscopic view. See Jason Wickersty's post in the thread entitled Civil War photos plus more.. Photo historian William Frasanito discussed these photos in his 1978 book Antietam: The Photographic Legacy of America's Bloodiest Day. As much as we may want them to be 20th century photos, they just don't seem to be. Wartime? Yes.

Eric

[thad gallagher]

Re: Interesting Photo

Could it be possible that some of the centennial reenactors, some how got the photo into the LOC? All the search said was Civil War, not original Civil War pics.

[JLHurst]

Re: Interesting Photo

Look close enough. . .
There is a fellow in that tent leaning on his right elbow. You can spot his face in the crook of the elbow of the fellow standing. Also I'd be willing to bet it's the same bunch that staged this photo. http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...ighlight=photo

Socks give it away, as the fellow kneeling in the current thread. Terrain and great coats.

Call me crazy but I wouldn't date this as a period photo. Could even be current. . .

[Mike Willey]

Re: Interesting Photo

Interesting photo, Thad.

It looks like a staged post to me. quick-rigged shelter, a coffee fire, 4 guys taking turns on duty.


Mike Willey
late of the 49th Ohio and Coffee-coolers

[Bushrod Carter]

Re: Interesting Photo

Fire is impossible to capture with period photography. Several conversations I've had with Collodian artists suggest that if a fire was lit all you get is the blur of smoke, and sometimes evergreens were lit (to smolder) to simply produce make for an otherwise fireless scene, and (like this photo) may staged scenes are just a set stage to capture the "image" the photographer wanted.

So, from what I gather, the lack of "seeing" the fire is from our perception of 21st century living and the "lack" of a viewable fire was not suspect from the mid-nineteenth century.