Unidentified artilleryman.

[Robert Gray]

A beautiful tintype of an unidentified Federal soldier. His branch of service is artillery and the presence of infantry accouterments and a musket would probably indicate Heavy Artillery. Hopefully, someone will recognize this image and provide us with more information. (Pinterest)

 

[JOHN42768]

That is quite the toothpick he has on the rifle

 

[captaindrew]

Nice image, I wish these images could talk

 

[drezac]

I am certainly not an expert on period photos, but I think this one may have been taken in a studio.

1. the black item on the right side of the photo looks like it may be the leg of one of the head braces frequently used in studio work due to the lower light levels and long exposure times.

2. The men on the right and the background is too out of focus and soft, even for the limited depth of field for cameras of that time. I suspect the background may be painted canvas, which was quite frequently used in studio work.

4. If it is a studio photo, you may see studio props used that don't always go together, like the artillery hat and infantry equipment. an individual would go to the studio, and be posed with whatever the studio had for props. not unlike the small booths you see for old time photos at county fairs.

Of course, I may be completely wrong, and welcome any corrections from someone that has more knowledge - that is the only way to learn.

 

[Legion Para]

I am certainly not an expert on period photos, but I think this one may have been taken in a studio.

1. the black item on the right side of the photo looks like it may be the leg of one of the head braces frequently used in studio work due to the lower light levels and long exposure times.

2. The men on the right and the background is too out of focus and soft, even for the limited depth of field for cameras of that time. I suspect the background may be painted canvas, which was quite frequently used in studio work.

4. If it is a studio photo, you may see studio props used that don't always go together, like the artillery hat and infantry equipment. an individual would go to the studio, and be posed with whatever the studio had for props. not unlike the small booths you see for old time photos at county fairs.

Of course, I may be completely wrong, and welcome any corrections from someone that has more knowledge - that is the only way to learn.

With all due respect @drezac, this image was taken outdoors. You can clearly see the trees.

The black object which you call part of a brace is the soldiers bayonet scabbard.

Using canvas as a backdrop was commonplace in outdoor images like this.

The accoutrements and weapons might have been borrowed for the photo.

 

[drezac]

With all due respect @drezac, this image was taken outdoors. You can clearly see the trees.

The black object which you call part of a brace is the soldiers bayonet scabbard.

Using canvas as a backdrop was commonplace in outdoor images like this.

The accoutrements and weapons might have been borrowed for the photo.

thanks - I admit I had not thought about a bayonet scabbard, it did look similar to a few photos I had seen where parts of a head brace were visible. Good points that I will think about when looking at photos. was not aware that canvas backdrops were common for outdoor images, I had thought they were mainly used in the studios.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I'd say there is something decidedly "off" about this image, although I admit I am very much an amateur at CW photo analysis.

It looks an awful lot like a modern re-enactor having some fun with the camera. Anybody out there agree?

 

[James N.]

I'd say there is something decidedly "off" about this image, although I admit I am very much an amateur at CW photo analysis.

It looks an awful lot like a modern re-enactor having some fun with the camera. Anybody out there agree?

I agree it somehow looks odd; however, there's absolutely nothing wrong or essentially incorrect about either the subject or, more importantly, the weapon and equipment to make me think it's a fake.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I agree it somehow looks odd; however, there's absolutely nothing wrong or essentially incorrect about either the subject or, more importantly, the weapon and equipment to make me think it's a fake.

The arrangement of the (facsimile) weapons and equipment in the foreground looks staged for show. The "tell" is the intentionally muddied background.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Mud would have been the inevitable background for most camp portraits. I don't know. Surely a reenactor trying to replicate an era image would do things differently- the way this man's equipment is displayed is certainly typical of how era photographers set up shots. See the canteen? Don't ask me why but they did that kind of thing. And it's funny. Must have seen dozens of shots where the subject is just wonderful and no one seems to have noticed the backdrop sheet is wrinkled and crooked.

Maybe it looks off because it's a tintype? We're used to seeing cased daguerreotypes- there's a different feeling to those.

 

[Seduzal]

An interesting story and photo. Thanks for sharing.

 

[James N.]

The arrangement of the (facsimile) weapons and equipment in the foreground looks staged for show. The "tell" is the intentionally muddied background.

… Surely a reenactor trying to replicate an era image would do things differently- the way this man's equipment is displayed is certainly typical of how era photographers set up shots. See the canteen? Don't ask me why but they did that kind of thing. And it's funny. Must have seen dozens of shots where the subject is just wonderful and no one seems to have noticed the backdrop sheet is wrinkled and crooked...

Staged/displayed, yes; a modern facsimile or fake, I think not.

 

[chubachus]

I don't think it is a painted backdrop. The foliage in the background looks authentic to how real foliage was captured in tintypes (a cool blurry effect) and they wouldn't have painted backdrops to look like how tintypes captured foliage.

Also think that the man in the background on the right is a real person. People painted onto backdrops were always very, very, crude.

The tent also looks like it has a 3D quality to it. The dirt floor also has no uniform stopping point to where a backdrop would begin, a feature of all studio backdrop portraits where the bottom of the backdrop is visible.

Makes me believe that the background is really outside. Could have been taken under a shelter in the photographer's tent studio though.

Whether it is a reenactor, I doubt it, but I am not knowledgeable enough about uniforms.

IIRC this tintype was in or posted by Military Images at some point.