Waterloo or not...

[David]

Originally Posted by Via Dixiane

When it come to journalists, due to my experience in former Yugoslavia i know that they like to show things according a certain "angle".

Hi folks. Photojournalist here. I have also spend years teaching on the subject in college level programs. So please allow my (hopefully) informed perspective.
Firstly i must hotly debate that journalists "like to show things according a certain "angle"". We "like" nothing of the kind. I would never argue that journalists do not from time to time get caught cheating. People are people and some just don't think the rules apply to them in any field. But it is the aim and goal of the profession on a whole to present straightforward and unadulterated news always. The fact that journalists are summarily dismissed when they are caught misrepresenting their images should be evidence of that.
This said, the ethics of journalism developed and evolved over a long period of time. What was considered allowable in the 19th century was not necessarily the same as the early 20th. By the time of the great days of publications like Life magazine stronger ethics were employed. By the end of the 20th century they were even more strict. Then digital photography came along and the game changed again.
So when we look at Roger Fenton's work we need to understand it's place in the history of photojournalism as the very first extensive photographic coverage of war to be published in newspapers. We also need to consider the equipment used. Large format view cameras with glass plates using a collodion wet plate process. This required that the emulsion placed on the plates be done in the field and that the images be processed immediately after, meaning that besides the large camera, tripod and numerous glass plates he also travelled with a light-tight wagon filled with chemistry. These plates required vey long exposure times of up to a minute so capturing action was out of the question.
I have little doubt the Fenton set up the cannon balls in his "Valley of Death" image (which btw, was not taken in the same location as the classic charge of the Light Brigade despite its name). He began his career as a painter so was quite used to adding or subtracting content from his images at will and back then there really were no rules about what was acceptable to do in the field of journalism. It is therefore very likely that Fenton, who was already hampered by his equipment and process from producing engaging images that illustrated the war, felt that more cannon balls in the frame would indeed help convey the horrors of the battlefield better.
This kind of questionable ethic continued into the Civil War. Some may be aware of the now infamous image by Alexander Gardner known as "Sharpshooter in the Devil's Den". In this image Gardner actually dragged the body into place and placed the rifle at a prominent angle for the final image. Times were different then.
But again, to be clear, none of these practices are acceptable in the today's world of journalism. When they do happen they are the exception and they are quickly called out by the journalistic community and those photographer's careers are generally left in ruins, dependent, of course, on the severity of the offense.

[Jim McDougall]

Im with Wayne, in post #33, the 'swiss cheese' lamppost, that is incredible shot grouping!
As a complete novice in artillery dynamics and photography (especially) I am really curious and would ask the experts here in those fields.
What kind of 'shot' would have the velocity to pierce through what I assume are metal lampposts (though they were probably hollow and formed) in such a clean penetration?
In such a group of almost strategically placed shots, how this post did not collapse is amazing.

Also amazing is that they must have been aiming at the post and not firing in any sort of barrage as there does not appear to be collateral damage in the architecture behind the crowd.

Could such a photo be 'photoshopped' or whatever they in the manner of the innovative things done by renegade photo 'creators' in tabloids etc. these days? I know there were some weird things done with WWI aviation scenes and of course the Conan Doyle hyperbole on 'fairies' etc. ….but could this have been 'created' similarly...….or do we believe it is authentically represented of actual damage?

[fernando]

Great input, David.
In this subject of photo setup scenes, i will force a comparison between placing elements on the ground in a manner to obtain a shocking image and have someone to put up a striking number for a photo, with equivalent intentions. The only difference is that, in the first case you are composing a scene that, although plausible, never took place, while in the other, a similar scene could (could) in fact have happened, only that the photographer hasn't caught it life. In both cases, the journal editor is waiting for something to thrill readers.
Technically both are forgeries, no matter their relative caliber.
If i may repeat myself (per post #9), i was in the presence of that American photojournalist when he asked the youngster (student?) to break the kiosk window, for a photo in a famous (guess which) magazine.
… And mind you, this took place in 1968 = mid XX century.

[fernando]

Jim, in a way i am glad that you are no expert in both artillery dynamics and photography ... for obvious reasons .
If you cared for the details narrated here on the effects of (solid shot) artillery, you wouldn't be surprised that a mid size cannon ball can penetrate a lamp post ... naturally a hollow one, as they all used to be. Neither would we be surprised that the post did not collapse because, being made of some sort of cast iron, would not bend.
Two reasons would explain the impressive quantity of holes in the post. Considering that the rioters had been equipped with nine cannons, after a few hours the number of volleys shot in the same direction would be fairly numerous, those shots on the post not being so implausible. Besides, this was an encounter between nationals; they would either avoid to aim at their keen with precision or, as untrained civilians, didn't have the ability to aim correctly at the target ... adding that the avenue where they were firing from (Liberdade) is rather inclined, a good reason to explain the high aiming.
One last reason to rely on the veracity of this photo is that, in a tiny country like Portugal, there is no Times magazine with their bucks or enough audience to justify a photographer to make up such a fantasy.
And by the way, i don't discern in the picture any background behind the crowd to check for collateral damage in the architecture.
To say that, the only unnatural fact i would admit, is that the (unknown) photographer invited those people to gather behind the post for an historic portrait.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Jim, in a way i am glad that you are no expert in both artillery dynamics and photography ... for obvious reasons.
If you cared for the details narrated here on the effects of (solid shot) artillery, you wouldn't be surprised that a mid size cannon ball can penetrate a lamp post ... naturally a hollow one, as they all used to be. Neither would we be surprised that the post did not collapse because, being made of some sort of cast iron, would not bend.
Two reasons would explain the impressive quantity of holes in the post. Considering that the rioters had been equipped with nine cannons, after a few hours the number of volleys shot in the same direction would be fairly numerous, those shots on the post not being so implausible. Besides, this was an encounter between nationals; they would either avoid to aim at their keen with precision or, as untrained civilians, didn't have the ability to aim correctly at the target ... adding that the avenue where they were firing from (Liberdade) is rather inclined, a good reason to explain the high aiming.
One last reason to rely on the veracity of this photo is that, in a tiny country like Portugal, there is no Times magazine with their bucks or enough audience to justify a photographer to make up such a fantasy.
And by the way, i don't discern in the picture any background behind the crowd to check for collateral damage in the architecture.
To say that, the only unnatural fact i would admit, is that the (unknown) photographer invited those people to gather behind the post for an historic portrait.


.

I do appreciate this thorough elucidation as well as Davids keen and experienced insight into photojournalism. In studying the historic aspects of arms and armor, in many cases we do have to rely on photographic evidence obviously in more recent (1850s +) instances. In this the skills used in 'historical detection' are used in evaluating images as you guys have described. Most interesting.

I think, in a way, what is most notable or memorable in the well riddled lamp post photo, is as I have mentioned, the extremely well placed penetrations. These hollow steel fluted posts would not, as mentioned, be terribly thick, so the holes do seem logical.
What I meant by 'collateral damage' is the building walls behind the post, which do not seem (to me) to reflect any damage from these solid shots, while the targeted lamp post has seemingly the entire brunt of the barrage. In most cases with photo images of streets where gunfire or especially heavy rounds in any size of ordnance I have seen, there are chunks of walls and sculptured trim or figures blown off.
Just sayin' 'good shootin'.....fire for effect!

What is impressive is that I had always thought there was a modicum of specialized skill in firing artillery, so having such persons among a crowd of rioting people is remarkable. That indeed makes the outcome here 'historic' and the 'target' pole good evidence of such proficiency .

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... What I meant by 'collateral damage' is the building walls behind the post, which do not seem (to me) to reflect any damage from these solid shots, while the targeted lamp post has seemingly the entire brunt of the barrage...

Jim, i understood you in the first place; just wouldn't figure our what you meant by building walls, as all we can see in the picture is he massive base of the monument. Besides, we must take into account that, the shooting came from the back where the crowd & lamp were pictured. Most probably the back of monument was hit and damaged by the shooting coming from up the avenue, something we couldn't see in the picture and, in any case, must have been repaired.


.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Fernando.
Only seeing the corner of some sort of architecture I mistook it for part of a building. I also could not tell which direction the firing came from. This is the hard part of evaluating from photos, especially if there is only a single image without additional detail etc.
With this we can see how images can be misperceived and 'staging' possible without advantage of different vantage points.