Civil war photography

[LincolnHarlan]

Civil War photography was significantly important because it marked the first time in history that a major war was visually documented on a wide scale, profoundly shaping public perception, journalism, and the historical record.It was the first war documented by photography, it revealed the true horror of the war, it transformed journalism and public awareness, created a lasting record, and shaped how people thought of the war. Interestingly, Matthew Brady, aka, the "civil war photographer" didnt take many photographs of the war and his assistants, chiefly Alexander Gardner photographed major conflicts like Antietam, Gettysburg, and others, took many famous photographs of Lincoln (including his last portrait and last known image of him on March 4, 1865 giving the 2nd inaugural) and captured the hanging of the Lincoln assassination conspirators.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

 

[Nathan Stuart]

In recognizing this, can recall only one known photograph ever taken showing combatants engaged in action. (This involved a scene that showed Union artillery battery crews firing their pieces).

Personally found portrait photographs, as well as the landscape and architectural backgrounds seen in pictures, to contain particularly useful information on the conflict.

 

[LincolnHarlan]

In recognizing this, can recall only one known photograph ever taken showing combatants engaged in action. (This involved a scene that showed Union artillery battery crews firing their pieces).

Personally found portrait photographs, as well as the landscape and architectural backgrounds seen in pictures, to contain particularly useful information on the conflict.

Send us this combatant photo- it is literally impossible to do that with the cameras back then since the exposure is so very long

 

[LCYingling3rd]

I have always loved photography. I took my first classes in photography as a young child growing up in Washington DC. By the time I was in college I was a photo lab assistant to the photography professor and even met one of my photographer heroes, Gordon Parks, in New York City. He was one of Life Magazine's photographers. Alas, my life veered in different directions, and I never pursued a career in photography. My interest in it never waned and I did attend the 150th anniversary of photography exhibit at the National Gallery of Art in Washington; "On the Art of Fixing a Shadow" (where I did get to see original prints from Alexander Gardner's famous "sketchbook"), and I also got to attend a wonderful Matthew Brady overview at the National Portrait Gallery.

When my excitement about the American Civil War reignited in the mid 1980's (as I began discovering that I had ancestors from both sides that fought against one another), my interest in Civil War photography exploded as well. William Frassanito's inspiring books on Antietam, Gettysburg, and the overland campaign's photography were some of the first books I acquired. His "Eary Photography at Gettysburg" is still one of my favorites. I had inherited some wonderful, cased photos from my great aunt, including some daguerreotypes and ambrotypes. I have never had enough money to seriously collect Civil War photographs. however, I have collected what I could over the years. While others focused their collections on weapons and other such items, I have always focused on photographs, newspapers, and letters. Fortunately, some of those items can still be picked up fairly reasonably. (I live in north-central Pennsylvania and will never forget attending a Roan Auction in Williamsport, PA that was primarily ACW photography. I was lucky enough to pick up one item there, a combination photograph and letter from a soldier in the 133rd NY which came with a great National Archives packet. It was amazing though. Most images, especially Confederates with weapons, were selling in the thousands of dollars. One, my favorite, was an early war cased full-plate daguerreotype of a young soldier in uniform with his mother. The auction hammer fell at five grand, so it was well beyond my reach! Just being there and seeing those images live and in real life was memorable.) I believe my interest in photographs, newspapers and letters is because they are direct connections to the past - things actual people would have held in their hands - and also because they tend to bring history down from the lofty heights of studying the politics, battles and leaders to the study of the individuals who may not have been famous, yet, never-the-less, actually made the history.

I was slow to pick up on the amazing new technology that was the computer, and I didn't have internet until 2003. That was a revelation though and greatly expanded my ACW photography horizons! I found the Library of Congress website and was lucky because the wonderful "Center for Civil War Photography" website was just beginning and that was an important development. Finding websites like this site, where I can meet people like you and discuss ACW photography with people I would never have known is an even bigger development! And my interest has only continued and expanded to this date.

I probably have few original thoughts about ACW photography, yet I certainly agree with the experts like Bob Zeller, William Frassanito, and Garry Adelman that photography is key to studying the American Civil War. As you point out, the Civil War was the first time a war was documented on a wide scale. We get to see the solders; what they wore, what their weapons looked like, what their camps were like and so much more. We cannot do that with the Revolution or other older wars. We also see the home front and the burned-out towns and cities. Most importantly for me is that we see the humanity of the period in vivid detail like never before.

Yes, we now know that some of the battlefield images were modified by the photographers for "artistic" reasons. Sure, we can debate that - was it disrespectful to the dead? Or was it a tribute that honors them by raising them from a mere twisted mass of flesh to near mythic status? Clearly, drawn or painted artworks reflect the artists creativity. Should photographers be denied that? I don't know the answer. I do know that this photography does document history like paintings cannot. We see the Camp Letterman hospital at Gettysburg and horses piled in front of the Trostle farm. We see the Capitol dome being built. We see Lincoln's funeral train and his assassins being executed. We see how modern Park Managers can use period photographs to cut trees or plant them so that the battle landscapes can look the way they did over 160 years ago. I could go on and on with this topic. So, I will stop...lol

Thanks for posting this thread. I think studying ACW photography is not only fascinating and enhances our knowledge of history, but is also great fun as well!

The Center for Civil War Photography

History In Focus

www.civilwarphotography.org

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

In recognizing this, can recall only one known photograph ever taken showing combatants engaged in action. (This involved a scene that showed Union artillery battery crews firing their pieces).

Personally found portrait photographs, as well as the landscape and architectural backgrounds seen in pictures, to contain particularly useful information on the conflict.

I think I know which photo you are talking about and as I recall there were a couple of them. There are some Union soldiers sitting in the foreground watching the batteries on the hills behind them fire on the Confederates on the opposite hills. I think this was possibly at Frederickburg but I'm not sure. A great photo!

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

Also the photo in this old thread could be considered. Not sure if it qualifies…

Batteries in Action : Description says in combat | Period Photos & Examinations

Thanks to JPK Huson 1863's thread http://civilwartalk.com/threads/seven-pines-photo-real.87866/ and some other researching this past week I have stumbled upon these photographs & descriptions of what is said to be artillery batteries in action: And this one I posted in the Seven Pines...

civilwartalk.com

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Send us this combatant photo- it is literally impossible to do that with the cameras back then since the exposure is so very long

The photo by Alexander Gardner can be viewed at the below link:-

https://loc.getarchive.net/media/battery-d-2d-ie-5th-us-artillery-going-into-action-on-south-side-of-rappahannock?zoom=true

It shows Battery D, 2nd US Artillery in action on the south side of the Rappahannock River below Fredericksburg, VA, Jun. 4, '63.

 

[Reconstructed Rebel]

A photo of taken of soldiers watching the fight between Hood and Thomas at Nashville:

https://www.loc.gov/resource/cwpb.02085/?st=image

 

[chubachus]

Here is my Civil War combat photo compilation video (I really need a new update for it):

If you want to read more on Civil War combat photography and the business of photography during the war, I would highly recommend Bob Zeller's The Blue and Gray in Black and White: A History of Civil War Photography.

 

[chubachus]

Civil War photography was significantly important because it marked the first time in history that a major war was visually documented on a wide scale, profoundly shaping public perception, journalism, and the historical record.It was the first war documented by photography, it revealed the true horror of the war, it transformed journalism and public awareness, created a lasting record, and shaped how people thought of the war. Interestingly, Matthew Brady, aka, the "civil war photographer" didnt take many photographs of the war and his assistants, chiefly Alexander Gardner photographed major conflicts like Antietam, Gettysburg, and others, took many famous photographs of Lincoln (including his last portrait and last known image of him on March 4, 1865 giving the 2nd inaugural) and captured the hanging of the Lincoln assassination conspirators.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

Don't forget that the Crimean War was heavily photographed at the Siege of Sevastopol during the mid-1850s. The Mexican-American War and a few other smaller conflicts were photographed during the 1840s.

 

[G Low]

Stonewall in Mexico cool hat….

 

[Old Soldier]

The main technical problem was the rather slow exposure time - hence the 'smoky' figures. An outside exposure could take up to 10 seconds depending on the amount of light, direction of the sun, the emulsion used, etc. If you held the position for, say 5 seconds it would likely show you as 'see-through' although reasonably detailed, otherwise it blurred any image. The longer a pose was held, the darker it would be. The main problems were natural - horses moving limbs but mainly tails, sneezing/coughing, smoke and wind, or any form of movement, etc. Most would have been posed.

Check out the horse on the left!

This was always apparent up to WW1 photos when faster and dry emulsions were brought into use. Cloud shadow could change that as well as brighter sunlight. ALL color photos would be tinted prints, especially the small ambro/tintype ones.

 

[LCYingling3rd]

I agree that the exposure times were too long for any unposed "action" photographs during the war. I have seen the Battery D photos and do not doubt that Gardner labeled them as being batteries in action, however, I have always considered them as posed.

First, the rammers on all five guns are in the exact same position. If this was truly a live action scene, I would expect the gunners to be in at least slightly differing stages of loading - and arms and legs would certainly be blurred. What are the odds that all five gunners randomly froze in that exact position at the same time - for roughly ten seconds? Second, the camera position would be a bit too dangerous out in front of the guns. Even off to the side as it is would be dangerous and certainly from incoming fire? Looking at the various images I am guessing that the photographer has both his stereo camera and his 8X10 view camera set up and aimed at the image. Gardener often did that, having Timothy O'Sullivan, or other photographers like his brother, James, or James Gibson manning the second camera. Third, look to the soldiers in the far upper right corner of the image. They are all blurred as you would expect people in live action to be. (You can see them better on the "old thread" images that is linked.)

I am not saying that I am certain about this, it just seems obvious to me that they are posed?

 

[LincolnHarlan]

I have always loved photography. I took my first classes in photography as a young child growing up in Washington DC. By the time I was in college I was a photo lab assistant to the photography professor and even met one of my photographer heroes, Gordon Parks, in New York City. He was one of Life Magazine's photographers. Alas, my life veered in different directions, and I never pursued a career in photography. My interest in it never waned and I did attend the 150th anniversary of photography exhibit at the National Gallery of Art in Washington; "On the Art of Fixing a Shadow" (where I did get to see original prints from Alexander Gardner's famous "sketchbook"), and I also got to attend a wonderful Matthew Brady overview at the National Portrait Gallery.

When my excitement about the American Civil War reignited in the mid 1980's (as I began discovering that I had ancestors from both sides that fought against one another), my interest in Civil War photography exploded as well. William Frassanito's inspiring books on Antietam, Gettysburg, and the overland campaign's photography were some of the first books I acquired. His "Eary Photography at Gettysburg" is still one of my favorites. I had inherited some wonderful, cased photos from my great aunt, including some daguerreotypes and ambrotypes. I have never had enough money to seriously collect Civil War photographs. however, I have collected what I could over the years. While others focused their collections on weapons and other such items, I have always focused on photographs, newspapers, and letters. Fortunately, some of those items can still be picked up fairly reasonably. (I live in north-central Pennsylvania and will never forget attending a Roan Auction in Williamsport, PA that was primarily ACW photography. I was lucky enough to pick up one item there, a combination photograph and letter from a soldier in the 133rd NY which came with a great National Archives packet. It was amazing though. Most images, especially Confederates with weapons, were selling in the thousands of dollars. One, my favorite, was an early war cased full-plate daguerreotype of a young soldier in uniform with his mother. The auction hammer fell at five grand, so it was well beyond my reach! Just being there and seeing those images live and in real life was memorable.) I believe my interest in photographs, newspapers and letters is because they are direct connections to the past - things actual people would have held in their hands - and also because they tend to bring history down from the lofty heights of studying the politics, battles and leaders to the study of the individuals who may not have been famous, yet, never-the-less, actually made the history.

I was slow to pick up on the amazing new technology that was the computer, and I didn't have internet until 2003. That was a revelation though and greatly expanded my ACW photography horizons! I found the Library of Congress website and was lucky because the wonderful "Center for Civil War Photography" website was just beginning and that was an important development. Finding websites like this site, where I can meet people like you and discuss ACW photography with people I would never have known is an even bigger development! And my interest has only continued and expanded to this date.

I probably have few original thoughts about ACW photography, yet I certainly agree with the experts like Bob Zeller, William Frassanito, and Garry Adelman that photography is key to studying the American Civil War. As you point out, the Civil War was the first time a war was documented on a wide scale. We get to see the solders; what they wore, what their weapons looked like, what their camps were like and so much more. We cannot do that with the Revolution or other older wars. We also see the home front and the burned-out towns and cities. Most importantly for me is that we see the humanity of the period in vivid detail like never before.

Yes, we now know that some of the battlefield images were modified by the photographers for "artistic" reasons. Sure, we can debate that - was it disrespectful to the dead? Or was it a tribute that honors them by raising them from a mere twisted mass of flesh to near mythic status? Clearly, drawn or painted artworks reflect the artists creativity. Should photographers be denied that? I don't know the answer. I do know that this photography does document history like paintings cannot. We see the Camp Letterman hospital at Gettysburg and horses piled in front of the Trostle farm. We see the Capitol dome being built. We see Lincoln's funeral train and his assassins being executed. We see how modern Park Managers can use period photographs to cut trees or plant them so that the battle landscapes can look the way they did over 160 years ago. I could go on and on with this topic. So, I will stop...lol

Thanks for posting this thread. I think studying ACW photography is not only fascinating and enhances our knowledge of history, but is also great fun as well!

The Center for Civil War Photography

History In Focus

www.civilwarphotography.org

Good summary. Actually, photographers like the Scot Alexander Gardner was hired by McClellan and others to photograph the building of pontoon bridges, fortifications, and other engineering feats to document their construction and use. Of course, he also took famous shots of the battlefields like Antietam and Gettsyburg, especially the dead but also of Mr. Lincoln and Mr. McClellan shortly before Lincoln replaced him with General Ambrose Burnside. Gardner also notably took the last portrait of Lincoln (the famous "cracked portrait"), the last known image of him on March 4, 1865 when he gave his famous 2nd Innagural Address, and then, of course, the hanging of the Lincoln conspirators at the Washington Arsenal. But of course, many other photographers worked with Gardner, namely Tim O'Sullivan (notable for his Gettysburg shots), James Gibson, John Reekie, William Pywell and his son, Lawrence Gardner. Gardner was a master of the collodian wet plate process and produced I think the best portraits of Lincoln. I always say Mathew Brady was not the "civil war photographer" since he took few of just the first battle of Bull Run. Most of the most dramatic shots of Antietam were those of Gardner's. And, as you point out, some were staged, as the famous shot of the supposed "sharp shooter" at Devils Den.

Gardner and his assistant, Timothy O'Sullivan, discovered the body of a Confederate soldier near Devil's Den. They then moved the corpse roughly 40 yards to a more "picturesque sharpshooter's den" and posed it for the photograph, according to historian William A. Frassanito. A rifle, likely a prop brought by the photographer and not belonging to a sharpshooter, was placed beside the body, according to the Library of Congress. A knapsack was placed under the soldier's head to serve as a pillow, creating a more dramatic tableau. Gardner's caption accompanying the photograph in his Photographic Sketch Book of the Civil War claimed the soldier was a sharpshooter who died a slow death while thinking of his family!

While staging photographs like this would be considered unethical by modern journalistic standards, it wasn't uncommon in 19th-century photography. Photographers like Gardner often viewed their work as artistic endeavors and composed scenes to convey particular narratives or emotions. I read that he even had one of his assistants lie on the battlefied with the dead to make it more dramatic!

 

[LincolnHarlan]

Don't forget that the Crimean War was heavily photographed at the Siege of Sevastopol during the mid-1850s. The Mexican-American War and a few other smaller conflicts were photographed during the 1840s.

true to some extent but it wasnt until the CW that true photojournalism came to be...

 

[LincolnHarlan]

I agree that the exposure times were too long for any unposed "action" photographs during the war. I have seen the Battery D photos and do not doubt that Gardner labeled them as being batteries in action, however, I have always considered them as posed.

First, the rammers on all five guns are in the exact same position. If this was truly a live action scene, I would expect the gunners to be in at least slightly differing stages of loading - and arms and legs would certainly be blurred. What are the odds that all five gunners randomly froze in that exact position at the same time - for roughly ten seconds? Second, the camera position would be a bit too dangerous out in front of the guns. Even off to the side as it is would be dangerous and certainly from incoming fire? Looking at the various images I am guessing that the photographer has both his stereo camera and his 8X10 view camera set up and aimed at the image. Gardener often did that, having Timothy O'Sullivan, or other photographers like his brother, James, or James Gibson manning the second camera. Third, look to the soldiers in the far upper right corner of the image. They are all blurred as you would expect people in live action to be. (You can see them better on the "old thread" images that is linked.)

I am not saying that I am certain about this, it just seems obvious to me that they are posed?

most definately posed

 

[LincolnHarlan]

In recognizing this, can recall only one known photograph ever taken showing combatants engaged in action. (This involved a scene that showed Union artillery battery crews firing their pieces).

Personally found portrait photographs, as well as the landscape and architectural backgrounds seen in pictures, to contain particularly useful information on the conflict.

Could you post the photograph you mentioned of the union battery crews firing their pieces? were there any other battle scenes photogaphed during the civil war?

 

[Library Lady]

Another photographer you all might want to consider is Andrew Joseph Russell. He primarily photographed the U.S. Military Railroad. Because he apparently liked trains so much, he went on to become what I would consider to be the "staff photographer" of the Union Pacific and documented the construction of that road. In particular, he documented the completion of the Transcon. You all know this photo: It's his.

I had the pleasure of working with his great-great niece. She is a part-time librarian at my library.

 

[Old Soldier]

This is the nearest I could find. The camera is well down and out of sight from the enemy. (Sensible guy!) It must have been a fast emulsion/fast shutter as there is hardly any blurring. The smoke of discharge is visible. The caption reads:
"Union forces of Benson's Battery in the Battle of Seven Pines stand guard in the fighting against Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's Confederate troops at Fair Oaks, near Richmond, Virginia. The battle, also called Fair Oaks, took place on May 31 and June 1, 1862."
And another from Brady - "Battery in action at Fredericksburg, VA" :

Yes blurry as, but emphasises the need for posing. You do not 'pose' in action.

 

[Library Lady]

Here's a book you might like:

Yes, the title is rather sensational, but it gets your attention which is its job. The book is primarily about William Mumler, the famous (at that time, at least) spirit photographer. I was pleased to find that the book was really quite serious and informative while still being engaging. You can learn a lot about the state of photographic art at the time and its main practitioners, including Brady and Gardner. You also come to understand why belief in spirit photography wasn't seen as being all that weird at the time. Some people heartily disapproved, but it wasn't "weird." The following is a spoiler, but I think it's better to mention it than not: If all you want to know is how Mumler did it, you won't find out as that issue is still open to debate.

THE APPARITIONISTS | Kirkus Reviews

The tale of a provocative controversy and court trial from the formative era of photography.

www.kirkusreviews.com