Civil war photography

[Nathan Stuart]

Could you post the photograph you mentioned of the union battery crews firing their pieces?

Sure. Below is photo by O'Sullivan/Gardner showing Battery D, 2nd US Artillery in action at Fredericksburg on Jun 4, '63. (Link
https://loc.getarchive.net/media/ba...ing-into-action-on-south-side-of-rappahannock ).

 

[Nathan Stuart]

were there any other battle scenes photogaphed during the civil war?

Not to my knowledge.

 

[G Low]

Sure. Below is photo by O'Sullivan/Gardner showing Battery D, 2nd US Artillery in action at Fredericksburg on Jun 4, '63. (Link
https://loc.getarchive.net/media/ba...ing-into-action-on-south-side-of-rappahannock ).


View attachment 576873

That's some serious fire power !!

 

[Old Soldier]

Just to emphasise the point - there are few battle photos because there was not the technology available to carry a camera into battle. Cameras were the size of a large shoebox, made of wood and quite heavy. They also required a tripod to support them, not just due to the weight, but to support them and keep them still for a long exposure. The immediate development process also required a mobile lab wagon nearby. Since it was stationary for a long period, it would have presented a good target for sharpshooters or artillery.

Samuel Abbot Cooley, Union photographer. c 1864

Samuel Abbott Cooley: The Civil War Photographer Who Captured History

Samuel Abbott Cooley, born on November 3, 1821, in Hartford, Connecticut, was a pioneering figure in Civil War photography. As the eldest child of Dr. Abiel

www.teachthecivilwar.com

Action/battle photos did not appear until the middle of WW1 - c 1916. A few british officers took the new Eastman coated celluloid roll (hence 'film') cameras to the front, but few have survived - or been published. Once again opportunity, exposure times and sensitivity limited their use. About 1916 we also get the first moving pictures from the front - and subject to the same limitations as the civil war cameramen - they were hand operated - no electric cameras yet!

BTW - Brady is often titled 'the first war photographer' which is not true. There was, however a photographer present during the Mexican-Amerocan War of 1847 who isn't named. He took daguerrotype photos (coated, polished metal sheet (silver plated copper) - positive mirror image) which are mostly post action or portraits. This is one of General Wool and staff in the Calle Real, Saltillo, Mexico, ca. 1847

Time has not been kind to it.

The distinction of 'first war photographer usually goes to Roger Fenton who accompanied British and French troops to the Crimean War (1854-56). Once again, the photos are post battle or posed portraits for the same reasons.

 

[G Low]

Just to emphasise the point - there are few battle photos because there was not the technology available to carry a camera into battle. Cameras were the size of a large shoebox, made of wood and quite heavy. They also required a tripod to support them, not just due to the weight, but to support them and keep them still for a long exposure. The immediate development process also required a mobile lab wagon nearby. Since it was stationary for a long period, it would have presented a good target for sharpshooters or artillery.
View attachment 576918 Samuel Abbot Cooley, Union photographer. c 1864

Samuel Abbott Cooley: The Civil War Photographer Who Captured History

Samuel Abbott Cooley, born on November 3, 1821, in Hartford, Connecticut, was a pioneering figure in Civil War photography. As the eldest child of Dr. Abiel

www.teachthecivilwar.com

Action/battle photos did not appear until the middle of WW1 - c 1916. A few british officers took the new Eastman coated celluloid roll (hence 'film') cameras to the front, but few have survived - or been published. Once again opportunity, exposure times and sensitivity limited their use. About 1916 we also get the first moving pictures from the front - and subject to the same limitations as the civil war cameramen - they were hand operated - no electric cameras yet!

BTW - Brady is often titled 'the first war photographer' which is not true. There was, however a photographer present during the Mexican-Amerocan War of 1847 who isn't named. He took daguerrotype photos (coated, polished metal sheet (silver plated copper) - positive mirror image) which are mostly post action or portraits. This is one of General Wool and staff in the Calle Real, Saltillo, Mexico, ca. 1847
View attachment 576919
Time has not been kind to it.

The distinction of 'first war photographer usually goes to Roger Fenton who accompanied British and French troops to the Crimean War (1854-56). Once again, the photos are post battle or posed portraits for the same reasons.

It would be nice to see a cleaned up version of this photo… the one in Mexico.

 

[Library Lady]

These might be of interest to you.

https://www.chicagocwrt.org/newsletters/CWRT202410.pdf

 

[Old Soldier]

It would be nice to see a cleaned up version of this photo… the one in Mexico.

Ther are a few around, some better than others - about 50 apparently, but the big problem is that they are daguerrotype which are direct prints and rely on the polished metal plate to refect light in order to become visible - which does not copy or photograph well. You can change the appearance just by moving your head! In any case - it isn't 'civil war', is it?

 

[chubachus]

Action/battle photos did not appear until the middle of WW1 - c 1916. A few british officers took the new Eastman coated celluloid roll (hence 'film') cameras to the front, but few have survived - or been published. Once again opportunity, exposure times and sensitivity limited their use. About 1916 we also get the first moving pictures from the front - and subject to the same limitations as the civil war cameramen - they were hand operated - no electric cameras yet!

What exactly is your definition of a action/battle or combat photo here? Do you consider photos of smoke from artillery fire, photos of artillery pieces firing, or photos of exploding shells not to be combat photos?

 

[Old Soldier]

What exactly is your definition of a action/battle or combat photo here? Do you consider photos of smoke from artillery fire, photos of artillery pieces firing, or photos of exploding shells not to be combat photos?

An 'action photo' will be taken at the time of combat or performance of an action (like juggling). As already stated, this was just not possible at the time due to length of exposure - ALL photos were posed. Any movement was a blurr on the photo. Notice that few even show clouds in the sky - all a blurr - as smoke would appear. Same applies to explosions. I have not found any early photos of explosions before the turn of the century.

An artillery unit firing on the enemy is about as close as they could get and needed a fast emulsion - which was something that few possessed - and bright sunlight. The few that are, are of artillery positions and tend to show loading, or a lull in firing, not setting up (too much movement) or firing (too much smoke). They may have tried it a few times, but few will have have been presentable.

Civil War Photographs

Enlarge Engineers of the 8th New York State Militia in front of a tent, 1861. Local Identifier: 111-B-499. National Archives Identifier: 524918. View in National Archives Catalog Introduction The Civil War was the first large and prolonged conflict recorded by photography. During the war, dozens...

www.archives.gov

In many cases I suspect any photographer would be either way behind the lines or told to go there by the unit commander. The lab wagon would be a good target for sharpshooters or artillery. Nothing in photography at this time was man portable and the process of development was almost immediate and required complete absence of light and liquid chemicals. The photographers tended to turn up after battlefield clearance. The Civil War was the first to show bodies on the battlefield as most considered this rather too gruesome for the folk back home. Most bodies are of Confederate dead and most show they had been searched, disarmed and de-kitted and many show signs of rigor mortis and swelling = 12-36 hours after death. Any rifles seen near them will have been placed there by the photographer's crew as most were removed soon after the taking of that position.

In any case, photos could not be reproduced for newspapers and any action scenes were engravings of drawings/sketches by 'war artists'. Some were redone as large artwork, but most of these were 'sanitized' for public display. They tend to look rather parade-like - and little smoke, of course.

The Battle on the James River 1864.