Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

[YankeeTiger]

Forgive me if this has been discussed as the search function provided me with a wealth of musket and lockplate threads, none of which were related to this subject.

Also forgive me if this is something I "should already know.." But I don't.


copying from my fb acct:

Who wants to educate me on why ALMOST every single image of a soldier with a rifle has the lockplate facing in? There are rare exceptions I am finding (especially CS) but most of the Federal images I am seeing on the LOC site have the guys with their lockplates facing towards them while posing...
Please Educate me my knowledgable bretheren...

Could it have to do with the camera/reflection or perhaps they were trained to protect the cone? Maybe to keep everything "lined" up correctly since the everything else would be reversed? I just don't know..

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

Check out thsi guy:
I hope this link works!!!

[YankeeTiger]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

Yes John, I've seen exceptions for sure..but the rule seems to absolutely be (at least with the 700+ LOC images) facing inward, especially when seated.. Perhapes posers preference?

[Archie R. Lib]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

Just throwing it out there, but could it perhaps be because of the "rest" position in the manual of arms? Maybe they were just used to standing or placing their weapon that way during drill to "relax".

That's an easier position to wait for the camera shutter as opposed to attention and still presents a soldierly appearance?

R

[CompanyWag]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

Maybe I'm missing something in the question here, but "hard" images like tintypes and ambrotypes are all reversed mirror images of reality and the sitters tried all kinds of tricks to make it look like they are holding the rifle in the correct direction...therefore the lockplate faces inward. In the link John shared the image looks to be a CDV, which being a paper print from a negative is not reversed like a mirror. Therefore the photographer or sitter didn't feel compelled to resort to tricks like holding a rifle backwards etc.

In some instances of hard images, I suspect the soldier merely sat for his image and couldn't give a rip whether the end result would be a backwards mirror image.

[Michael Comer]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

I would also like to draw attention to John's photo that the fellow has his little finger on his rammer - not the side of his hand, not the hand flat on it, but the little finger. Remember that boys. Many do not know how to properly replace the rammer.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

Hallo!

I am a bit muddled on the question.

If I am reading it and understanidng it correctly.... the question is a statement about the number of sittings where a longarm is held with its lock facing the camera and the viewer, versus the lock facing away form the camera towards the rear or the subject's chest.

My drivers are dead and I cannot pull up saved images. Perhaps other lads can post some "lock forward" and "lock rearward" images?

My "bias" in thinking about it is that the lockplate toward the camera/viewer is the more "NUG" and that the lock facing toward the subject or the rear is the exception(s). But without a survey or at least a decent sampling... I don't want to say or assert that obviously.


But yes, defiitely, (vanely) trying to reverse arms and kit to undo the "mirrior image" of the camera lens is also midly/fairly common.

Curt

[YankeeTiger]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

Here are a few..I plan on actually going through the 737 Union ambros on the LOC website and counting outward v. inward...in the grand scheme of things, I suppose it isn't important..but in my quest to be omniscient, it helps.

Here goes.. (aside from this first one being Lewis Robinson's Doppleganger)























And it goes on and on and on....

[YankeeTiger]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

Now for the other side of the 'equation' which seems to be the minority in this database of images...

[Hank Trent]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

Here's a thought. What about a survey of reenactor photos in similar poses of men holding rifles? Yeah, I know, reenactor photos are typically irrelevant, but in this case, if there's the same majority of men holding the lockplates in, it might show that there's a natural tendency to do so, that's not dependent on some odd period quirk.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[CompanyWag]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

Aron,

Your attachments in post 9 do not work.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

Hallo!

An interesting and challenging question.

What did a photographer do to set up or pose an image taking? How much was the photographer's creative art, versus how much was the customer's druthers?

In looking at period images, there seems to be either a "martial" infuence versus the "casual" influence. Meaning, one sometimes finds men posing or posed seemingly in accordance with a manual of arms position depending on what manual they were schooled in. Oh, say one of the two versions of "parade rest."

Obviously, there is no command for the position of "port arms/arms port" for a seated man. Yet, images often show what appears to be that being done
(or sometimes what appears to be a "left-handed' version being done).

Or another, the holding of a revolver sideways to best show it off to the camera and the viewer.

Maybe it was just part of the "custom." Meaning, such as not NUG smiling wheer today we NUG have such nice teeth and such fast exposure speeds we are almost "forced" to smile...

Cheese.

:) :)

Curt

[CompanyWag]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

From the hard images in Post 8 all showing lockplates facing in, I'd like to comment on two of them:

Incredible image! This guy is afraid of nothing: Two Whitneys revolvers, one Remington revolver, an unusual view of a cocked Enfield, and two knives mysteriously attached to his cartridge box sling. How'd he do that?
His accoutrements are all reversed to appear correct in the photo, but he also reversed his belt plate. Why? Even in the mirror image, the US will still be upside down:


This image may seem a little perplexing as it is not a mirror image (note the direction his frock coat buttons close and which side of the musket the lockplate is on). Not being a mirror image, one might think this soldier wouldn't have to hold his rifle backwards. The most probable explanation is that this is a duplicate tintype...a tintype of a tintype. A period way of making copies when CDVs weren't available. The original tintype this was made from would have been reversed and would explain why he is holding his rifle-musket backwards. Notice also that the bayonet is on the wrong side...evidence of a conscious attempt to make the original tintype look correct.


Some of the other images you note in Post 8 also show reversed accoutrements, showing a definite attempt to appear correct in the mirror-image tintype or ambrotype.

[YankeeTiger]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

Aron,

Your attachments in post 9 do not work.

Apologies. They were a few images of "lockplate facing toward camera"

I'll try to get them fixed when I can get back to a 'puter

[Hank Trent]

Re: Why are the Majority of lockplates in posed Images facing inward?

and two knives mysteriously attached to his cartridge box sling. How'd he do that?

Off-topic on lockplates, but I wondered that. Barring some trick with magnets :) I'm wondering if the knives are actually sheathed in light-colored tight-fitting sheaths. They're hanging in such a position, that the bosses on the back of the sheaths, which would be about an inch or so from the top of the blade, would be just right to hook over the edge of the sling. They wouldn't stay in that position long-term, but would hook there easily long enough to stay for the photo.

Edited to add: it's odd to see two sheaths that light in color and I can't see any line where you'd expect to see the metal tip and throat of the sheath, so I'm not sure they're actually in sheaths, but it's the only explanation I can think of, other than they're unsheathed and just carefully balanced delicately there, which is of course another possibility.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com