Civil War Photography

[LincolnHarlan]

During the war, photographers had to use wet-plate collodion process, producing glass negatives that had to be coated, exposed, and developed within minutes. Alexander Gardner, Timothy O'Sullivan, and James F. Gibson were among Brady's principal field photographers who later worked independently. Battle aftermaths (particularly Gettysburg and Antietam) were recorded along with encampments, fortifications, portraits of soldiers/officers. Gardner essentially captured Antietam but his boss at the time, Mathew Brady, used his photographs and labeled them as his own ("The Dead of Antietam" by Brady). The original image they made is very famous. I found one great painting recreation of Gardner and Gibson as they photographed the field near Dunkard Church following the September 17th (1862) battle that shows what it might have been like...they are shown dressed up in suits and coats and hat, which must have been very hot and using the large camera to capture the scene. The portable darkroom would have been close by so they could get the print made soon after the negative was exposed.

Curious if others have images like this. It's fascinating to look at the famous images and find where they were taken, particularly those of Gettysburg.

 

[LincolnHarlan]

Gardner and Gibson photographing Antietam

 

[gbeardsley]

You might be interested in William Frassanito's book on Antietam

Amazon.com

 

[LincolnHarlan]

You might be interested in William Frassanito's book on Antietam

Amazon.com

great find. did not know that existed!

 

[gbeardsley]

great find. did not know that existed!

It's a great book! I'd recommend checking out his Gettysburg books as well!

 

[Old Soldier]

The thing to remember about these old civil war photgraphs is that few are 'action' photos. Exposure times varied between 5 minutes and 10 secconds, depending on the coatings and chemicals used. Any 'action' was seen as a blur, hence the blurred flags, especially the downwind edge - and horses tails and legs! Many group or area photos show 'phantom figures' who stayed still for a few seconds and then moved away.

Consequently most were posed and in some cases of after-battle photos, arranged and rearranged to suit. Most arms were 'studio props' since the original weapons were removed soon after the battle and the bodies' coats opened to remove ID and check for signs of life - and the boots removed for reissue. Most were taken the day or even two days after since rigor mortis has set in:

Ambro and tintype were a cheaper contact print (no negative) often used for portraits the main disadvantage being that they were 'mirror image' and much smaller than the larger standard negative plate.

Grain size was small and formats large giving quite detailed images - unless there was movement. Many portraits were studio photos with poor light and long exposure time hence the number who were seated. For all, the subject was posed and held in that pose by a 'posing stand'. 'Light' was always natural light as there was no strong artificial light available. 'Flash' COULD be used, but was very rare. The first patents were from Britain in 1862 but it was rather dangerous, since magnesium ribbon was burned, still requiring a relatively long exposure.

 

[Library Lady]

great find. did not know that existed!

If you're still interested in the Frassanito book on Antietam, @LincolnHarlan , there is a copy currently available on "Sutlers Row" on this site. It is also readily available on most used book venues at modest prices if you would prefer to deal with them.

 

[Hannover]

A superb book is 'Antietam Farmsteads' that contains many photographs (and plans of the farms themselves) in its 140 pages and at a very modest price (around $10).

 

[LincolnHarlan]

The thing to remember about these old civil war photgraphs is that few are 'action' photos. Exposure times varied between 5 minutes and 10 secconds, depending on the coatings and chemicals used. Any 'action' was seen as a blur, hence the blurred flags, especially the downwind edge - and horses tails and legs! Many group or area photos show 'phantom figures' who stayed still for a few seconds and then moved away.

View attachment 570074


Consequently most were posed and in some cases of after-battle photos, arranged and rearranged to suit. Most arms were 'studio props' since the original weapons were removed soon after the battle and the bodies' coats opened to remove ID and check for signs of life - and the boots removed for reissue. Most were taken the day or even two days after since rigor mortis has set in:

View attachment 570075

Ambro and tintype were a cheaper contact print (no negative) often used for portraits the main disadvantage being that they were 'mirror image' and much smaller than the larger standard negative plate.

View attachment 570076

Grain size was small and formats large giving quite detailed images - unless there was movement. Many portraits were studio photos with poor light and long exposure time hence the number who were seated. For all, the subject was posed and held in that pose by a 'posing stand'. 'Light' was always natural light as there was no strong artificial light available. 'Flash' COULD be used, but was very rare. The first patents were from Britain in 1862 but it was rather dangerous, since magnesium ribbon was burned, still requiring a relatively long exposure.

This is not exactly true. While there were some posed shots (eg, Gardner actually had some of his assistants lie on the ground next to dead men), they moved bodies around, turning heads, grouping corpses (eg, Rebel Sharpshooter image). However, this was not true across all images. And "most arms were 'studio props'" is incorrect. For example, weapons were often removed from the battlefield after fighting: collected for reissue, salvaged by troops, civilians, and quartermasters, and thus photographers sometimes encountered bodies without weapons nearby. Photographers did not carry crates of prop rifles and they did not routinely stage weapons for most images. Some weapons were repositioned or reused—but "most arms were studio props" is inaccurate.

 

[LincolnHarlan]

What is interesting about Civil War photographs is that you see missing gear, open coats, bare feet—why?

• Weapons removed for reuse
• Boots taken (extremely common) for those living soldiers who needed them
• Coats opened for:
  • Identification
  • Letters to notify families
• Bodies scavenged by soldiers and civilians
• Burial details worked quickly and unevenly

What photographers captured was often the aftermath of human handling, not pristine death. Civil War photography was a technically constrained, morally unregulated, and historically transformative medium that forced Americans—then and now—to confront the physical reality of war for the first time.