"Reenacting photos that may show what it look like" Topic

I wanted to start a thread for ACW reenacting photos that do a pretty good job of creating a 'window' through time. Ones where the reenact ors look pretty good and you can't see a 7-11 in the background. I got the idea after seeing this picture:

[URL=http://s134.photobucket.com/user/Huck1863/media/11411420553_6c8f1950f3_b.jpg.html]

[/URL]

I think it looks pretty close to a unit on the march or maybe waiting to be sent into the fight MIGHT have looked like. Yes the reenactors are better fed and maybe the average age is much higher than Civil War soldier, but, we have to allow some license!

Age and weight are the two things that keep most reenactor photos from suspending disbelief. This one works largely because most of the guys are not facing the camera.

Surely the fact the photo is in colour immediately prevents suspension of disbelief, because our mental image of the Civil War is a b/w one, because of the contemporary photographs.

Reproduce the above photo in b/w and it would have a 'period' look.

Does this work better?

Surely the fact the photo is in colour immediately prevents suspension of disbelief, because our mental image of the Civil War is a b/w one, because of the contemporary photographs.

Dunno. This one is a colorized photo of a siege mortar position. It's one of the better colorized ACW photos I've seen.

Maybe with some creases and black spots! ;)

As a re-enactor I see both sides of the "problem". It can be hard to "suspend disbelief" even at a progressive event. But every once in a while there is that "perfect" moment when you get a small glimpse of what it might have been like.

If you cover the left side of the first picture with your hand (to hide the over fed two fellows in the foreground), then the right hand side of the picture looks like it could have been taken during the ACW. Can you make another version using the sepia option?

The uniforms look a bit too clean, the wagon cover is definitely too clean, and the bit of grass seen in the foreground right looks as if it had only recently been hit by a bush-hog mower. But other than that (and the well-fed participants), it's got a strong period feel.

Sepia Tone might be a good filter.

The wagon should have a team of 4 horses or mules.

It would also look more authentic if they were dropping their weapons and skedaddling away from Marse Robert.

Also, the NSA drones in the background kinda blow it.

I am no photo expert….but here is my amateur attempt:

[URL=http://s134.photobucket.com/user/Huck1863/media/AdjustACWPhoto.jpg.html]

[/URL]

There were fat people in the Civil War. Horsed die and teams get reduced to two rather than four horses. New units particularly or units that have had an easy time in garrison might look better than those on campaign for a couple months. I think the photo looks fine, particularly in sepia.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

No beards and the too clean look throw me off. The soldiers are all too well fed, not that that is their fault. No dust on anyone, No sweat, dirty faces, necks and shoes.

It would be easier to "colorize" period pictures I think.

Respect those that try to reenact the period.

Dan

Dale Dye spoke at Historicon a couple of years back. He was asked why re-enactors were not used in many war films. His comment was very truthful:

"Because most re-enactors are too old and too fat".

It is the young skinny guys that get sent off to fight in a rifle company.

That being said, great photo.

Civil War Units would routinely lose more then a quarter of its strength before even entering combat Disease killed more then battle During the training period young men from relatively clean farms and small towns were exposed to s diseases such as diphtheria , influenza mumps and measles When you added in poor sanitation and bad water typhoid and malaria came in as well.

It is very sad to read the diaries and another accounts to see how many men died for basically no reason.Civil War pictures show skinny and half fed troops because that is what they were.

I have often suggested to re-enactors that they go into an encampment under the following conditions. To reproduce the illness their coffee should be laced with strong laxatives All living should be done in a muddy field with no tents using only groundsheets. During the night a number of men should be secretly taken away from the camp so the next morning no one would know what happened to them.

This would nicely reproduce wartime conditions but I doubt many would accept and local health authorities would be having kittens.

Until the twentieth century, all armies everywhere lost more troops to disease than to fighting.

Unlike people with modern sensibilities,I bet those boys would attack a plate of Scrapple with enthusiasm.

I notice especially the black hats are in perfect condition. Days of foul weather would misshape and discolor them a lot.

I don't think the age thing is as important to the appearance as weight. That mortar crew don't look like youngsters and besides people tended to look older than they were.

What the mortar crew do look like is a group that haven't have a slap up meal in a while.

Except the guy on the right, who has clearly eaten all the pies.

We shouldn't confuse the frames of people who have active, outdoor lives with starvation.

The fact is, you are rarely going to get skinny 19 year old re-enactors (yes I know there are some) as re-enactment requires both money to buy all the stuff and mobility to go to events, both of which tend to be the preserve of older, wealthier and frequently somewhat larger, people.

You can only work with what you've got.

You would also be amazed just how much dirt is required to make uniforms 'look dirty' from a distance. A liberal plastering of wet mud does indeed show up quite well, but once it is dry it just adds a vaguely dusty hue to the underlying colours. Most people try and go for a weathered/front line look, but to actually attain a scarecrow look requires the virtual destruction of very expensive reproduction uniforms and equipment (see 'money' above).

I've got bits of gear I've been working on for years, and which are battered, worn and rusty, yet from five feet still look brand new!

Agree with Martin. I've heard Hollywood costumers say that to get a costume to look ragged and dirty on camera you have to exaggerate it far more than it would be in real life.

If I ever did reenacting I would go for the dirty tattered look in a second. I'm shocked more people don't do that. A soldier looked clean and well dressed for a few weeks and then it was months of filth and rags. I understand the uniforms are expensive and they want to look sharp in their uniforms, but I'd have a campaign uniform that I didn't wash and left the mud and filth on it, including the hat, so I looked like a proper soldier in the field. Boy would it be neat to see a unit of those kinds of reenactors!

And this will probably come of really badly to some, but it bugs me to see so many women, often older and portly, in uniform. I **KNOW** there were some women who dressed up as men and fought during the Civil War, but the key is they blended in and looked like men. The women I see who reenact look like women dressed in a mans uniform and I find it horribly distracting. It bothers me as much as the 10 guys in 15 in a unit who are grossly overweight. I will never stop enjoying going to reenactments to see all the uniforms and equipment but every time I go away feeling let down as the amount of stuff like the above that stands out to me glaringly. I can't imagine what the average joe who knows nothing about the period would think when they see that stuff.