WW1 Soldier Studio Photograph strange pose?

[andymr1]

My query is regarding WW1 soldier studio shots. The picture below shows my rellie Harry Hackett of the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards.

The picture shows him in uniform against a painted 'standard' background, complete with precariously balanced out of context 'Khaki cap', however his stance is somewhat befuddling. I'm guessing here but ... does anyone think that maybe his photo was originally taken with him maybe holding something like a cap or bearksin, but they '1914-Photoshopped' it out? I may be way off the mark and his stance may have just been a popular 1914 pose.

One other observation is that he was made Sgt in Oct 1914, a few days after landing in Belgium and later killed in 1918, so during that period would Grenadiers have ever worn the red uniforms? I thought they switched to Khaki even when guarding the Palaces etc during war-time.

Were photographers in the habit of doctoring photos to pass on to relatives and loved ones perhaps when they were promoted, by which I mean they also added the Sergeants stripes? It must have been a huge industry back then taking all these individual shots of our lads etc.

Anyone any ideas or info regarding studio shots would be much appreciated?

Apols if this is a bit rambling.

Andy

[keithmroberts]

Sorry Andy

We can't see your photo

Keith

[centurion]

In fact it causes my machine to hang up in a loop, suggest you delete it as it may do this to others

[Stoppage Drill]

King's Guard and other public duties were carried out wearing khaki from the beginning of the War, but the bands continued to wear Home Service Dress (scarlet tunics, bearskins etc).

[andymr1]

Apologies. It looked outstanding when I posted it. Ho hum..

Link to photograph is here https://sites.google.com/site/andyr46/home/harry-hackett-photos

...I'll get my coat.

In fact it causes my machine to hang up in a loop, suggest you delete it as it may do this to others

Any idea how I delete or even edit a topic?

[Guest]

Definitely something odd, and looks to have been 'modified'? The green paint, between the arm and body looks different to the rest of the background. It's almost like the whole arm, if not the whole body, except the head, is a painting.

Mike

[Wendy Macpherson]

Andy, I think your site is just marvellous.

Harry does look slightly superimposed onto the backdrop. Perhaps he was standing with his hat under his arm and the photographer removed it and did a wee cut and paste job.

Love the photo of Harry with Olive, he looks absolutely chuffed with himself, and what a doll Olive is. What happened to her after Harry's death and the war had ended?

Wendy

[andymr1]

Andy, I think your site is just marvellous.

Harry does look slightly superimposed onto the backdrop. Perhaps he was standing with his hat under his arm and the photographer removed it and did a wee cut and paste job.

Love the photo of Harry with Olive, he looks absolutely chuffed with himself, and what a doll Olive is. What happened to her after Harry's death and the war had ended?

Wendy

Thanks Wendy that's very kind of you to say so. Really glad you took time to have a look around the site and spotted Harry and his beloved 'O'.

Olive and their son [who was born only a few months before Harry was killed] moved from the Black Country to a beautiful Cornish fishing village on the south coast called Fowey. She never re-married and stayed in a her little house called 'Hazebrouck' [named after the place Harry died in France]. Their son [also named Harry] married and had three lovely grand daughters. Two of them still live in Fowey with their families.

Kind regards

Andy

Edited 2 December , 2013 by Andy R

[seaforths]

I have what I thought were two separate photographs of my granddad. One is taken in the street when he was in training and standing next to his best friend, in the format of a postcard and the other looks like a studio portrait with a plain background. However, on closer examination (and it took me some time to notice) his stance in both is exactly the same and so is the look on his face (which you can see in my avatar). Everything has somehow been removed by a photographer to produce a single full body photograph. I also have some post war family photographs that were colour tinted after the original photograph was produced. All of which leads me to the conclusion that there was some manipulation of images going on at the time and afterwards.

[NigelS]

Unlike babies at least soldiers were able to stand still for the length of the shot. Some bizarre examples of manipulation, editing & disguise can be seen in some examples of early baby photography here ; although crude, they do illustrate that attempts were being made to make the camera 'lie' - a bit earlier than the Great War admittedly - fairly early on in the history of photography.

NigelS

[seaforths]

Unlike babies at least soldiers were able to stand still for the length of the shot. Some bizarre examples of manipulation, editing & disguise can be seen in some examples of early baby photography here ; although crude, they do illustrate that attempts were being made to make the camera 'lie' - a bit earlier than the Great War admittedly - fairly early on in the history of photography.

NigelS

Excellent find to illustrate both manipulation (even if it was done badly) and tinting. I noticed a couple of the babies had rosy cheeks and that seemed to be the only application of colour. One can only surmise that by the time of the war, photographic manipulation had advanced a little more.