Photography on the battlefields

[iblackman16@aol.com]

I have recently been studying photographs of groups of soldiers 'at rest' during the conflict. In many, the soldiers are either laughing, posing or very curious about the camera. Would these photo's have been taken by an official photographer? Would a war photographer been appointed to certain regiments? Would any soldier have his own camera? I would imagine that many soldiers would never have had their photograph taken prior to the war.

[WhiteStarLine]

Hi Michele, cameras were quite common at the time but out of reach to most soldiers as they were very expensive. The Kodak Vest Pocket Autographic was marketed to soldiers as the Soldier's Kodak for 30 /-, which was 30 days pay for a British soldier. Kodak advertisements told soldiers to to take Snapshots of the War -- pictures that later on will be of immense value. At Gallipoli, they were very common with Australian forces, who were paid 5 shillings a day and could afford them.

The armed forces quickly realised the intelligence value to the enemy from looking at photographs taken from captured soldiers and it became a serious offence to either take photographs, or to post them, punishable by Field General Court Martial. Soldiers either disposed of their cameras, or took photographs when no-one else was looking. Of my grandfather's 100 or so photos from France, only a handful show another person.

So, as a generalisation, most of the photos you see were taken by official photographers. Clearly there was considerable tolerance in some units, particularly earlier in the war.

Most soldiers would have been familiar with photography as studios existed in all major towns and tens of thousands of formal portraits were taken. You may have heard of Vignacourt, were soldiers would go into the studio for their pictures to be taken. I am sure there were many other similar studios in France.

When the guns fell silent, the restrictions were lifted and some units formed camera clubs, taught soldiers photography, toured the old battlefields and developed pictures for the men for a small fee. Here is my grandfather's camera, his name and regimental number scratched on the back:

[iblackman16@aol.com]

Thank you so much for a very informative reply. You answered another question for me as well. I have just been reading some letters from a Son to a Mother dated 1917. In twelve letters home he keeps saying to his Mother how sorry he is that he has not got round to having his photograph taken for her. In the thirteenth letter he is overjoyed that he has managed to get it done! Thank you again for your very interesting response.

Michele

[centurion]

Most "official" photographs were taken with quarter or half plate cameras, these were bulkier than the little vest pocket Kodaks but produced a much better quality photograph. Film emulstion available in those days was much less sensitive and grainier than is available today (so whilst today it is still possible to obtain film to fit a vest pocket camera the quality of the photo taken will be much better). To obtain a good photo a larger film or plate size was needed so that the negative produced was larger and enlargement (which could make the final photo look very grainy) was needed less. I believe that the quality of the glass plates was better than that of the film used in the little cameras also. The half plate cameras were big and heavy and needed to be used with a tripod and so not the sort of thing that could be used to take a quick surreptitious photo. They were not the sort of thing you could take action shots with either (unless the photographer was bullet proof). Which is why so many "action" photos prove to have been staged. Some of the folding quarter plate cameras could be used without a tripod, still produced a reasonable image and could be carried in a jacket pocket when folded (but not easily concealed). They usually had a better lens than the vest pocket types and a range of speed and aperture settings however they were quite expensive and probably only used in general by better off officers.

[WhiteStarLine]

Absolutely no argument with #4, but to put the resolution in perspective, here is a single photo with the Vest Pocket of a firestep on the Hindenburg Line. Remembering that the negatives have been lost for all time, an enlargement of the dugout entrance, scanned from the paper contact print, reveals the text SAFE 11th F Coy written above the dugout entrance. This indicates that the dugout had been checked for booby traps by the 11th Field Company. An enlargement of the officer's face was used to identify him by his nephew as LT Donald Lovat Fraser.

[centurion]

Thank you so much for a very informative reply. You answered another question for me as well. I have just been reading some letters from a Son to a Mother dated 1917. In twelve letters home he keeps saying to his Mother how sorry he is that he has not got round to having his photograph taken for her. In the thirteenth letter he is overjoyed that he has managed to get it done! Thank you again for your very interesting response.

Michele

He may be referring to photos taken in uniform in a photographer's studio. There were lots of these and most French towns of any size would have one and a great many soldiers had their photos taken and sent home. Photos actually in the field are much rarer, I am fortunate in having one of my Great Uncle as a Lt. taken in 1917 in the Western Desert which he sent to his sister (my Grandmother) with a note on the back. I'd love to know where he had it developed and printed.

[centurion]

Absolutely no argument with #4, but to put the resolution in perspective, here is a single photo with the Vest Pocket of a firestep on the Hindenburg Line. Remembering that the negatives have been lost for all time, an enlargement of the dugout entrance, scanned from the paper contact print, reveals the text SAFE 11th F Coy written above the dugout entrance. This indicates that the dugout had been checked for booby traps by the 11th Field Company. An enlargement of the officer's face was used to identify him by his nephew as LT Donald Lovat Fraser.

Hindenburg Line firestep.jpg Hindenburg Line firestep text.jpg Hindenburg Line Fire Step with LT Donald Fraser.jpg

Are you sure it was taken with a vest pocket? The proportions of the photograph appear not quite right for this.

[WhiteStarLine]

Centurion, at the risk of hijacking Michele's thread, your question intrigues me. We have a mixture of enlargement sizes in my grandfather's album and we have two cameras. One is the Vest Pocket Autographic and the other is a larger Kodak bellows unit, that until recently I could freely open up and extend the bellows. The chance that a Sapper in the AIF carried two cameras is unlikely, so I have assumed the Vest took all the pictures and the enlarging process was responsible for the differing sizes. Possibly my use of GIMP is responsible for the different aspect ratios.

Another possibility is that some of the photographs were purchased overseas.

The reason I suspect he is the original author is this intriguing entry from the unit war diary in January 1919:

The Camera Club which is developing satisfactorily at No. 4 Section has already a large membership. Lectures on the art of

developing prints, etc. are delivered regularly. One of the members is at present on the Somme battlefields taking photographs for the Club.

Earlier, in December 1918, the Brigade intelligence officer toured the Hindenburg Line to collect information and take photos of battle grounds between Hamel (near

Marquaix) and Bony which were of direct interest to the Brigade and he is the recently identified officer in the photo.

So, a bit of a ramble with no firm conclusions but interesting conjecture! A sample album full page is shown below the cameras.

,

[centurion]

It does look more like the format I'd expect from a Folding Pocket Kodak and the size of the middle photo in the album is right for a contact print taken from a negative from one. Making enlargements was much less usual then and most people used contact prints so perhaps he did have access to two cameras. I have both a Vest Pocket from 1914 and a Folding Pocket from about 1919 the latter was a much more sophisticated camera and made for a number of years starting in 1909. It could take both roll film and a quarter plate (using a converter) and was much favoured by serious amateur photographers rather than simple snappers. Possibly he used an "official" Folding Pocket but also owned his own very unofficial Vest Pocket?

[WhiteStarLine]

Michele, I thought I would add one snippet that I saw by chance when searching for something else. In 1918 the AIF Divisional Canteens Officer visited England to make a large purchase of cameras and films for Australian troops. These were then on-sold to troops. Not sure what 'large' meant, but other large purchases were 10,000 tins of boot polish, so it must have been a sizeable order!

The VPK camera is shown in post #2 (Vest Pocket Kodak).

[John-B-Rooks]

One suspects the rules were relaxed away from the front or nurses (QAIMNS in the instance) had a lesser level of regulation. Obviously two cameras available for use on occasion (see below).

Apart from the potentially negative intelligence aspect of battlefield photography, I think that the 'official'(ish) battlefield photography of Brady, Gardner et al fifty years earlier during the American Civil War probably coloured the memories of officialdom who, for propaganda reasons, didn't want 'warts and all' coverage of the front. There are many hospital pictures around (see a small selection in this thread http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=184130).

John.

[iblackman16@aol.com]

To centurion - WhiteStarLine and ScorpioUnbound - Thank you so much for your replies, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading all. The photographs were an unexpected treat!

Very best wishes to you all.

Michele

[centurion]

Michele, I thought I would add one snippet that I saw by chance when searching for something else. In 1918 the AIF Divisional Canteens Officer visited England to make a large purchase of cameras and films for Australian troops. These were then on-sold to troops. Not sure what 'large' meant, but other large purchases were 10,000 tins of boot polish, so it must have been a sizeable order!

The VPK camera is shown in post #2 (Vest Pocket Kodak).

Capture.JPG

The Ensign series were made by Houghton of London Two types were available in the WW1 period the British Ensign (also known as the Flat Back Ensign) from 1908 and the Folding Ensign which appears to have been a more mass market cheaper version, The Kodak Folding Pocket (see post 9) was in fact copied from this design. I would suspect that the order would be for the Folding Ensign. These were made for over 2 decades 1910s and 20s and were very popular all over the globe also seemingly being one of the first cameras to be made in India

[centurion]

Folding Pocket Kodak http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/kodak/3fpk.jpg

[EastSurrey]

The Germans had a much more relaxed attitude to photography and many German soldiers took their own photos in and out of the line.

Michael