Let's see how everyone does.
[www.parade.com]

that was fun. nineteen out of twenty. number 6...well, children have a unique way of looking more 19th century than ANY reenactor.

good choice of pictures but to the civil war buff who can spot joe hooker or edmund ruffin......

20 for 20 For the most part, these weren't too hard to tell apart. The Civil War era images are generally much more haphazard in composition, the contrast is higher (whether through reproduction or plate quality), and the environments are generally more complex--oh yeah, the hair is usually wilder.

The reenactment shots have a better technical quality, the poses and compositions are neater, a little "artiness" creeps in, the soldiers a little less ragged, and the scope of the environments is more controlled and self-contained.

There's also something about the facial expressions--maybe a bit of self-consciousness in reenactors.

I could also tell because Bob is using a tight petzval on a lot of his shots, which were not used much on the originals. No vignetting, etc.

reenactment shots with a better technical quality?

I disagree. (present company included)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2011 03:56PM by Ray Morgenweck.

20 out of 20... oh yeah.

My wife got 13 right....

OK, I'm the new kid on the block so I was only able to get 18 out of twenty. I do not get much exposure to wet plate out here in California though! Nice work Bob! I wish that I could have spent more time with you at the Yosemite with Will last year, hopefully I'll have another opportunity someday.

Vote for the skinny people - works every time!