Are these picture taking duds ?

[tsgalloway]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Excellent thread. I love this stuff.

[yeoman]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Ma'am and sir, I am enjoying this wonderful topic and wanted to pass along thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Here are a few images I hope will add to this discussion.
This image at Antietam, Md. has President Lincoln and General McClellan in the Generals tent.
I would point your eye to the flag on the ground and the one on the table with a "sash" on it.
Known colors and how they appear to our eye in the photo.


This is an image of Captain F. Bache, 16th U.S. Infantry. The second image is a close up with a good look at the top stitching of this officers trousers.





This image is at Aquia Creek Va., personnel in front of the Quatermaster's Office. 1863, February.
Some good looks at these gents wear.



The close up shots are in three parts..., do notice the boot scrapper in the middle shot.







These images may be found here.

Thanks for the consideration.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Within the same picture, and the same garment, angle and position can entirely change the way a fabric or detail photographs. So, even using color reference within one single image, it's speculation rather than science.

The line on the trousers (page 6) is in the side-seam... you can follow it up to his hip. I can't see enough detail to be entirely sure, but there doesn't appear to be a texture change along that line. However, a ridge can easily be created if one pressed a run-and-fell seam too hard... that would account for a ridge that's the same color as the trousers, and looks quite pressed and durable. Essentially, such a pressing compacts the wool fibers and makes a very hard impression that can be permanent.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Looks like the side seam because of the angle he's got his leg propped up at.
Fifteen men, eight definite white shirts, two more that might be, only one shirt that either has subdued stripes or a pleated front. The shirts that aren't white, except for the pleated/stripedone, are solid light colors. The man standing behind the officer's right shoulder seems to have a pleated shirt in some color. I count eleven mustaches and five beards. Also note the variety of hairstyles and the one pair of checked pants.

This was my natural and initial inclination as to the side leg trouser seam and you're probably right ...but seams commonly create a valley and as such cast a shadow or dark line...this one seems to my eye and monitor (both of which are pret near useless) to reproduce lighter than the material it consists of, or rests upon. There are extant examples of self-procured (as they all were) officer trousers with thin braided, corded or striped trouser side seams (some gold irrespective of branch of service). To my eye the color based tonal charachteristics of the leg crease, matched to known or high probability color assignments on a grey scale contained wholly within the image itself, seem to match the color of the officer shoulder boards ???????

I think you nailed it on the shirts.

Good times.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Mr R, I took out the images that were pulling from Ashe's site... anyone who'd like to see the comparison chart (photographed by the Lowe's back in the mid-90s, they are copyrighted material, and Ashe has permission to put them on her site, but the AC doesn't have the same permission), please do click on the link on page 6.

The problem with trying to read the color scale, even given a three-wheel comparison chart to play with, is that there are so many, many things that can affect mid-century photography. These include, but are not limited to:

Angle of the light
Strength of the light, and relative warmth or coolness of the light
Age of the chemicals
Strength of chemicals
Temperature of chemicals
Temperature difference between the air, the plate, and the chemicals
How long ago the plate was prepped
The weave of the fabric
The angle of the fabric in comparison to the light source and the camera
Whether or not an element of the clothing is highly reflective
Skill of the photographer
Eye of the beholder
Age changes in the intervening fifteen decades
Color shifts when the image was turned digital
Monitor color shifts

One example: I've a wetplate of myself and my oldest daughter, taken when she was a baby. Our hair was the same color at that time (hers has since darkened from reddish light blonde). My hair, with me holding still, photographs very, very dark, as one would expect from period advice to photographers who have blonde sitters (yellow hair absorbs the light a lot, and should be powdered to prevent it reading very dark). However, my daughter, same hair, same sitting, but in the ever-so-slightly sunnier part of the image, and WIGGLING (dang kid)--her hair photographs almost white, and it may be because she ended up created a reflective surface of herself, hair twisting in a short burst of light. (Other colors in the image: metal wash-tub read grey, chocolate brown dress read medium grey, dark blue trim read nearly white, white collar read white, my bright blue eyes entirely vanished, save for the black pupil.)

The Meschers have a very good article with great images on wet plate color:

http://www.raggedsoldier.com/color_article.html

That page will get you to the download page for the article and image gallery; they're PDF.

There are dozens of great articles on their site, full of common mid-century knowledge stuff, so reading the archives in the Virginia's Veranda is highly recommended.

Frankly, even with a few known variables in the equation, period photography is *not* as trusty as modern (20th c) black and white technology. We can make some educated guesses as to colors and textiles, but beyond that, it's speculation.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I would bet there are some known color assignments in this one.......anyone know Pa Zouave uniform color details ? In particular the headwear base and banding colors and the color of cuffs on the blue roundabout.

self-EDIT: Here is what I dug up on this image.....

Captain Alfred Newlin’s Company G, 114th Pennsylvania, in 1864, known as “Collis’ Zouaves.” (LOC)

A number of Pennsylvania regiments adopted the traditional uniform of the French-Algerian light infantry, the Zouaves. They wore dark blue jackets, trimmed in red with light blue cuffs. Red pantaloons, white leggings, a light blue sash, a red fez and a white turban completed the unique ensemble. Although gaudy, these uniforms proved highly popular among young recruits.




CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I don't know if this is at all helpful, but I ran across this a couple of years ago. It is a link to "Color in Period Photography."

I have read and accepted this before..but I am a simple hayseed and when I apply the color wheel below to images with known or high probability color assignments, It doesn't seem to reconcile... Scouts and Spies as an example. HT states perhaps it is more subtle. The Virginia Veranda link on this site is dead but purports to do a analysis demonstrating this photo-chemical phenonmenon. I would like to have a chance to review this. Perhaps the subtlety lies in the inconsistency in the quality and makeup of the reactive agents, the level of technical mastery and as always when exposing an image, available light ? For example did the photograpers which followed the Federal armies and created the majority of the images we rely on today, many well known, masters in their field hailing from major metropolitan areas with the greatest access to technology, superior materials and a larger client base and thus image processing time from which to perfect techniques produce, as a rule, clearer, more focused images ?

Are the images (Southern in particular) which appear to have been taken in the field, small town studio portraits and traveling image makers inferior as a rule ? Perhaps due to chemical, equipment and and processing technique disparities ?

I also think the effects when speaking of originial images of fading / degradation, yellowing of cellulose based protective coatings and just the plain ole' time can alter their modern appearance in addition to the fact that many of the images LOC...etc... are B&W film images reproduced from the orginal which adds its own degree of color and hue influence.

For the record I do not promote a suggestion in this thread nor believe you can predict colors in these images...save for known and high probability color assignments.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

In other words, you could say, "We know he was wearing either his blue suit or his brown suit, and his red tie. By comparing the shade of his suit to the shade of his tie in the film, we can tell it was his blue suit." Or you could say, "Most men in the 1930s wore either brown, blue or black suits, so of those three colors, he most likely was wearing blue." But you could not say, "We know he was wearing his red tie, so therefore we can tell his suit was blue, and not brown, orange, green or purple."
Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

That's reasonable to me. The very brief explanation I heard from a photographer--and I can't remember his name--who was doing some of the colorization was that he needed at least two known color values in consistent light to start the process, which seemed to e very involved. He showed a clip and pointed out a red dress still in the studio's collection and a jacket that had been preserved somewhere else and explained that he had colorized that clip with those and later color photos of the actors' skin tones as a starting point. He didn't mention how much guesswork is involved, and I'm suspicious of that. One color wouldn't do much good, or else any picture with a Federal uniform in it would be easy. I doubt even a jacket and the brass buttons would be enough.

Barring some amazing bit of technology, I don't think we'll be seeing full-color imagery any time soon...but it sure would be interesting.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Yes, that's what I meant. In the cases I'm aware of, some items that was actually in the black and white picture still exist and were, by some Hollywood sleight of hand, used to determine what color everything else was.

One could certainly make an educated guess, or identify existing garments among a choice of several, but there is simply not enough information in a black-and-white image, no matter how many frames, to tell for sure what color one thing was, out of all possibilities.

In other words, you could say, "We know he was wearing either his blue suit or his brown suit, and his red tie. By comparing the shade of his suit to the shade of his tie in the film, we can tell it was his blue suit." Or you could say, "Most men in the 1930s wore either brown, blue or black suits, so of those three colors, he most likely was wearing blue." But you could not say, "We know he was wearing his red tie, so therefore we can tell his suit was blue, and not brown, orange, green or purple."

If it's possible to tell actual colors from black-and-white images, when only one color is known, I'd like to read a detailed explanation of how it's done.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[NYCivilWar]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I don't know if this is at all helpful, but I ran across this a couple of years ago. It is a link to "Color in Period Photography."

http://www.1skinnygirl.com/sewingbird/gallery/colorwheel.htm

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

On the officer ....another note....is that a stripe I see on those trousers or one hell of a modern ironed in crease ?CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

Looks like the side seam because of the angle he's got his leg propped up at.
Fifteen men, eight definite white shirts, two more that might be, only one shirt that either has subdued stripes or a pleated front. The shirts that aren't white, except for the pleated/stripedone, are solid light colors. The man standing behind the officer's right shoulder seems to have a pleated shirt in some color. I count eleven mustaches and five beards. Also note the variety of hairstyles and the one pair of checked pants.

As for the poses, no one is doing a Napoleon, but several of the other poses are sort of trademarks of the era (I don't know where the one arm behind the back came from, but it does show up, and this gentleman doesn't appear to be missing an arm on that side.) Some of the men appear to be sitting or standing naturally, but others...you're right about the yearbook photographers!

Does anyone know of the photo of the large group of Union generals--I believe it's a LOC image--in which they're all striking various heroic poses, or at least poses that used to be heroic? Because there are so many of them and they're not looking at the photographer, but off into the cornersof the room or to the side or wherever the heroic bent sent their gaze, the effect is inadvertently funny to modern eyes.

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

But there's no way to tell if a light-colored item is pale green, pale yellow or pale blue, for example, and I thought that's what Beck Morgan was talking about--a way to figure out which colors were which, and not just what was lighter or darker, from black and white images.

Yes, that's what I meant. In the cases I'm aware of, some items that was actually in the black and white picture still exist and were, by some Hollywood sleight of hand, used to determine what color everything else was. One thing I thought of later was that, unlike CW images, movies included numerous frames and the details of lighting and exposure were usually recorded, so there would be some indication of which tone reacted in what way. The early attempts at colorization seemed to read red very well and everything else not so successfully.

The shirts in the Chattanooga picture caught my attention because several of them look to be some solid color. I don't see fancy checks or stripes, but they're definitely not all white; it looks to be about three-quarters white to a quarter some other color, mostly light to medium except for the man in the dark shirt and/or vest.

There's one other practical matter about white cotton or canvas items: yes, they're harder to dye initially, and they also fade and wear quickly, especially when washed with period soaps. Wool will put up with a lot more, provided you don't accidentally felt it while you're getting it clean. White or unbleached cotton would be more practical for aprons and such that were changed often, and as someone else said, a butcher in a clean white apron gave a good impression. When it stained--as it always did--it could be sun-bleached in season. The heavy wear, not usually laundered with each use items like pants were much less apt to be white, no matter how wealthy the wearer, unless there was some really special occasion at hand. I've always wondered about the white flannel base ball (two words at the time) outfits that cropped up immediately postwar; Mr. Doubleday remarked that they were meant to reinforce the impression that it was a gentleman's game.

Etiquette books' rigid rules about who could or should wear what and when account for the amusement about the country folk. I stand by my hat comments, though the observation may hold better in postwar years. One of the best examples you'll find is a railroad work gang or a crowd of coal miners in pre-helmet days; elderly members of both groups pointed this out to me by the mid-1960s while we were looking at my grandfather's and great-grandfather's old pictures. Rank and file miners or track laborers wore caps. (There was a specialized miner's cap with a padded crown, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.) The foreman will be wearing either a bowler or a fedora as his badge of rank. Sometimes it looks completely out of place, because he's in clothing as grubby as his men's and, in the case of a mine foreman, he's covered with the same layer of coal dust, but his hat signals his job. The standard didn't apply if the men cleaned up and went to town--out of their shop, away from the track or beyond the mine they were dressed as badly or as well as anyone else with roughly the same amount of money, dress hats and all. The exact nature of the hat, and of their other clothing, likely spoke of their social status. I'd especially like to know when railroad men in T&E service started wearing light blue, aka "thousand-mile" shirts, often adding a white collar and cuffs when they left the train. The blue dye on cotton faded, but was not unpleasing even in that state, and it showed less soot staining than white. (I can look up the citation as soon as I find that particular book, but it's no help with the beginning of the tradition; I see an awful lot of white, or at least very light, shirts on wartime engineers.)

Think of all the social cues that we're losing: the art of when to put on and take off hats for men, when to don and doff gloves (for both sexes), the times when leather gloves are appropriate and when they must be thread...some forty-five years ago, a ninety-something lady tried to explain to six-year-old me why her father (Confederate, post Vicksburg) looked awkward in a picture because of details of his clothing, this not matching that properly or some small thing missing that had embarrassed him when he showed her the tintype. She finally said "I know you don't understand; it was quite a different time."

[Hank Trent]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Is it my screen and/or my eyes.... but the officer seated in the middle of the Scouts and Spies with his National officers jacket on, what I assume w/ high probability are "sky blue" trousers and the yellow / gold of his shoulder straps not representative of this photo-chemical phenomenon you describe ?

I don't know that the effect is really all that dramatic or obvious. But one example where it might be working is the comparison of the seated officer's presumably sky-blue trousers with the light-colored trousers of the man standing behind him. In real life, our eyes might not see both as equally light, but there's no way to know without knowing what color the standing man's trousers are.

Several years ago, someone (the Meschers?) published several pictures comparing modern reenactors in wet-plate photographs and color photos, to show the difference in how the colors looked. I think it was in the old Citizens' Companion under Susan Hughes, maybe. Anyone remember that? It showed that there was an effect, but not necessarily a huge one always.

A good example of the "orange is darker" phenomenon shows up in this picture, where the man's tanned hands and face, with more red and orange tones in them, show up noticeably darker than his untanned arms and chest. The top image, reproduced with higher contrast, magnifies it even more than the lower image with less contrast.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

On the officer ....another note....is that a stripe I see on those trousers or one hell of a modern ironed in crease ?

If so...Scouts......Spies......cavalry officer with his boys perhaps.....yeller stra'ps ?

and furthermore I dont see one glaringly obvious print shirt and a preponderance (the word hasnt been used in this thread in few days) of white shirts.

and you dont see men standin round with their hands on their hips down at the Tractor Supply like that too much anymore do ya ? (lest not the TS round my parts) or are those posed for the shot and period equivalence to being force posed into resting your chin on your proudly displayed, class ring bedecked booger hook in your senior pics ?

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Yes, blue shows up lighter and orange/yellow shows up darker than how our eyes see them. That's what I was referring to when I said "allowing for the fact that blue-sensitive emulsion won't 'see' things exactly like the human eye."

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Is it my screen and/or my eyes.... but the officer seated in the middle of the Scouts and Spies with his National officers jacket on, what I assume w/ high probability are "sky blue" trousers and the yellow / gold of his shoulder straps not representative of this photo-chemical phenomenon you describe ? (Though the metal braided wire if present may impact the straps but correct me if I am wrong lacking a "flash" it isn't reflecting back to the lens or adding any additional light or brightness as we see in later image technology.)



CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida