xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
peterm1
Veteran
I do not think it is the least bit mysterious. Photographer sees a scene and makes a photo. A few hours later he sees an even more compelling version of the same scene after more cannon are fired. I do it all the time (well, not with cannon balls but you know what I mean). So does every photographer. I do not understand why they concluded though that the one with cannon balls on the middle of the road was the second exposure, but then concluded that those cannon balls were moved not additional cannon balls. A more logical explanation seems to me to be that more cannon balls were fired in the intervening period. This could easily also account for some rocks also changing position.
And even if they were moved by the hand of man there seems to me to be a pretty obvious explanation - someone said to the photographer something like, " boy you should have seen this yesterday! Those cannon balls on the side of the road were all over the road but they were moved so as not to impede traffic". If someone said that to me I might have been inclined to say, "well lets put them back, make another photo then move them back again to the side of the road...................................... " Maybe it is not kosher to do this to a hard core documentarian but many war photographers do this kind of thing even now. Frank Hurley a famous Australian WW1 photographer was notorious for posing shots to better convey the feeling of being there to a home audience. He got into trouble many times over it with the iconoclasts.
And even if they were moved by the hand of man there seems to me to be a pretty obvious explanation - someone said to the photographer something like, " boy you should have seen this yesterday! Those cannon balls on the side of the road were all over the road but they were moved so as not to impede traffic". If someone said that to me I might have been inclined to say, "well lets put them back, make another photo then move them back again to the side of the road...................................... " Maybe it is not kosher to do this to a hard core documentarian but many war photographers do this kind of thing even now. Frank Hurley a famous Australian WW1 photographer was notorious for posing shots to better convey the feeling of being there to a home audience. He got into trouble many times over it with the iconoclasts.
jarski
Veteran
early or first example of visual story telling through photography.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
It has been proven to be a staged photograph.
A very detailed 3-part story about that photograph is in this New York Times article. I've posted about this before on another photo forum.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-part-one/
It is a very well researched and written article. Long, but worth reading. It will answer the question about why the photo of the clear road ("off") is the first photo and the road with cannonballs ("on") is the second photo. Keep in mind both photos were made on the same day, at most a few hours apart, and the camera position did not move at all.
I agree with the analysis that Fenton had come across a previously shelled area, made a photo, he or his crew rearranged the scene, and he made a second photo. The second photo is a result of rearrangement - not shelling - and that was proved. Also, there was no reason for that area to come under cannon fire a second time when no troops were there - doing so would've been a serious case of negligence and waste.
A very detailed 3-part story about that photograph is in this New York Times article. I've posted about this before on another photo forum.
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-part-one/
It is a very well researched and written article. Long, but worth reading. It will answer the question about why the photo of the clear road ("off") is the first photo and the road with cannonballs ("on") is the second photo. Keep in mind both photos were made on the same day, at most a few hours apart, and the camera position did not move at all.
I agree with the analysis that Fenton had come across a previously shelled area, made a photo, he or his crew rearranged the scene, and he made a second photo. The second photo is a result of rearrangement - not shelling - and that was proved. Also, there was no reason for that area to come under cannon fire a second time when no troops were there - doing so would've been a serious case of negligence and waste.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Here's what might be a better, arguably more 'famous' example of a 'staged' war photo: https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2013/06/20/the-true-story-behind-the-gettysburg-sharpshooter/
For those of you who haven't been, Devil's Den is still at Gettysburg and you can visit the spot where this photo was taken.
For those of you who haven't been, Devil's Den is still at Gettysburg and you can visit the spot where this photo was taken.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Fasten your seatbelts: here we go...
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Detailed by the very detail-oriented Errol Morris. The NYT piece was agonizingly detailed.
Paul T.
Veteran
thanks for that reference...
telenous
Well-known
The solution to the puzzle on which photo came first and which second is truly astute. I think the neat arrangement of the canonballs in the 'ON' photo (no superimposition or complete overlap of spherical forms) also suggests that some kind of meddling took place. BTW the NYT article detailing Morris' fascinating research and conclusion on the two photos by Fenton is reprinted in his "Believing is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography". Great book with a few other essays similarly oriented on questions of truth in photography.