Up Close & Personal...

[Private Watkins]

It seems most Civil War portrait studio photos were made with either a half or full body view; the close-up on this half-plate tintype strikes me as unusual. The entrancing effect is amplified by the unidentified officer's thousand yard, stoic stare, and his shaggy, weather-worn appearance. I'm curious if anyone else has seen a similar close-up view of a CW soldier?

Also, why were most portrait studio photos made with either the half or full body view... was there some technical reason, or was it just the fashion...?

Thanks in advance to the many experts out there...!

 

[Patrick H]

Well, Watkins, my friend,
I can't speculate on your questions but I certainly see and agree with the point you are making here. I think this is a most unusual portrait.

I'm just guessing on this next bit, but maybe we shouldn't read too much into the conventions of the day. Maybe it's as simple as the photographers thinking: "We've always done it THIS way." And maybe the longer views were composed for that reason.

But here we DO have an unusual close up portrait. Maybe the photographer or the client were unusual, cutting edge artists of the day. (It happened. Check out the French plein air impressionists who came along just after this if any readers don't believe me).

We do have a portrait of a man who I sense would be very handsome under all that hair...and he doesn't look very hardened to me, either. I don't believe he has seen any of the horrors of warfare yet.

Nice post!

 

[jackt62]

Expired Image Removed

I don't know the answer to your questions about the technical aspects of Civil War photography but I thought your comment about the officer's stoic stare was on the mark. Most of the people in the photos I've seen display the same somber look, which is why the photo I posted above is so unique because the soldier is actually smiling in a more "modern" day look. I think the photo was taken in the Petersburg federal fortifications during the last days of the war.

 

[E_just_E]

It was a passport photo

Not that uncommon. Really. Had to do with the camera lens, size of "studio" etc.

Expired Image Removed

Expired Image Removed

 

[AUG]

Got another one here, 1st Lieut. Eli N. Baxter Eli H. Baxter, Jr. of the 1st Texas Infantry. The "MG" stands for "Marshall Guards" - Company E of the 1st Texas Infantry - organized in Marshall, Texas.

 

[Patrick H]

Passport photo...I like that, even if it was a smart aleck remark. I was a GOOD smart axxxx remark!

 

[AUG]

Yeah it was!
Hey Aug.. is there another photo of him that's full torso or full body? Seems I've seen him before. Maybe not though.

Not that I know of, but here is his findagrave page.

Apparently he's actually Eli H. Baxter, Jr. There's some further info on him here:
http://transmississippian.blogspot.com/2011/05/first-lieutenant-eli-n-baxter.html

Looks like he resigned from the the 1st Texas Infantry at some point and later served as a lieutenant colonel in the 28th Texas Cavalry in the Trans-Mississippi.

 

[Mike Serpa]

View attachment 75206
It seems most Civil War portrait photos were made with either a half or full body view; the close-up on this half-plate tintype strikes me as unusual. The entrancing effect is amplified by the unidentified officer's thousand yard, stoic stare, and his shaggy, weather-worn appearance. I'm curious if anyone else has seen a similar close-up view of a CW soldier?

Also, why were most portrait photos made with either the half or full body view... was there some technical reason, or was it just the fashion...?

Thanks in advance to the many experts out there...!

portrait |ˈpôrtrət, -ˌtrāt| noun1 a painting, drawing, photograph, or engraving of a person, especially one depicting only the face or head and shoulders.

 

[Private Watkins]

Thanks for the good comments and examples, guys. I would still contend that the waist-up or more (3/4 or full body) views were far more common, and likely preferred. Also, I don't see how "size of studio" explains that preference... if there's room to take a full body shot, then all one need do is bring the camera and subject closer together if one wanted a close-up. Perhaps, though, a small, travelling studio only allowed for head & shoulder "portraits," and the close-ups were taken of necessity, not by preference...?

What's also striking to me about this photo is the proportion or ratio of the subject to total space; i.e. he really fills-up the frame, leaving very little empty space around him, as compared to most (not all) photos of the period. The fact that this is a half-plate size really highlights that when the image is in-hand.

Anyway, thanks again for the good comments and examples... keep 'em coming if you've got more.

 

[Private Watkins]

Here's another "head-shot"... although this one like many such head-shots is pendant sized.

(Could he be an ancestor of Willem Dafoe...? )

 

[FarawayFriend]

Here's another "head-shot"... although this one like many such head-shots is pendant sized.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/civil-war-look-alikes.88892/#post-708295
(Could he be an ancestor of Willem Dafoe...? )

Aw, this is brilliant !!
Please add it to our "Look alike" thread!
Here:

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/civil-war-look-alikes.88892/

 

[donna]

Great photos. Like this size as can see the person more.

 

[Private Watkins]

Aw, this is brilliant !!
Please add it to our "Look alike" thread!
Here:

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/civil-war-look-alikes.88892/

Lol... will do... that's a great thread...

 

[FarawayFriend]

for some reason, I'm not seeing the last images you posted. Could be my system here at work though.

Al, try it in the look alike thread (link provided above). It's worth it!