Fire!

[binsurf]

I tried to time this photo the best I could. I did some heavy PP on it, so I apologize if that takes away from the photo. Thank you for any critisizm.

Exif data: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jwmanni...in/photostream

[Soozie B]

Hi Jim

I can see the appeal that this shot would have had. One can almost hear the call to take aim and fire, and smell the expended gunpowder by looking at the shot.

Its a pity that the rifles are obscuring the face of the soldier who calls the commands (have no idea what this role is called and am busy looking at google for the answer - so if someone knows the answer please enlighten me)

[acsky]

Hi Jim

I agree with Soozie in it would be nice to see the soldier's face. Definitely nicer than seeing the face of the guy in front of the execution platoon

It is a shame that the image cuts the smoke cloud and on the other hand, there is some "empty" space on the right side of the image. But I know that with moving targets it is sometimes difficult to anticipate the whole scene precisely.

Other than that I think the image works fine.

Toño

[binsurf]

I agree about the head. In retro-spect, I think I could have maybe lowered my point of view so that he was visible. Cropping the smoke was intentional since the subject of the image was more important to me. But, I do understand that maybe I should have included more of it.

I was quite disappointed that the photo didn't really capture the light as well as I had hoped, as it was quite spectacular. I think maybe I should have opened the aperture a bit more or slowed the shutter down a bit more to get more action. I do like how the packing shows in the cloud, though.

[Geoff F]

I'm wondering about a slight crop from the right side. Not sure how to keep the same size ratio though. Assuming you don't want to change that. I don't think 3 x 2 would quite fit.

Possibly lose a little from both top and bottom to fit I suppose.

[FrankMi]

I find it odd that they don't appear to be aiming their rifles. Makes me wonder what they would miss, or worst, unintentionally hit!

[binsurf]

I find it odd that they don't appear to be aiming their rifles. Makes me wonder what they would miss, or worst, unintentionally hit!

It was just a dead shot exhibition of the guns, so there was nothing to aim at, and they were blank (GP and gause).

[Polar01]

Frank if it was 1812, they would have aimed their muskets, down range 40 yds could be off by as much as 2 feet, reason not aiming, is the flash back from the pan, hitting their faces, (now we have health and safety).

Cheers:

Alllan

[binsurf]

Frank if it was 1812, they would have aimed their muskets, down range 40 yds could be off by as much as 2 feet, reason not aiming, is the flash back from the pan, hitting their faces, (now we have health and safety).

Cheers:

Alllan

Hence why they are not firing them downsight, but rather point blank.

[rpcrowe]

Frank if it was 1812, they would have aimed their muskets, down range 40 yds could be off by as much as 2 feet, reason not aiming, is the flash back from the pan, hitting their faces, (now we have health and safety).

Cheers:

Alllan

The manual of arms for the Brown Bess musket did not even include the command "aim". That was a superfluous command for weapons which literally did not have the capability to "hit the side of a barn".

Rifles were far more accurate but took much longer to load and generally did not have the capability to mount a bayonet.

Dispite the fact that American history tells us that the Patriot Troops of the American Revolution won the Revolutionary War by hiding behind trees and sniping at their enemies using their "squirrel rifles"; the majority of the soldiers of the Continental Line, used muskets and fought shoulder to shoulder as did the Redcoats...

When the relatively new rifled musket using the Minie Ball was introduced to combat during the American Civil War, the accurate range was increased dramatically - often up to 500 or more yards. However, military tactics did not evolve along with the greater range and accuracy of the new weapon. Defending troops could slaughter attacking troops who advanced in the same lines abreast as had been done during the Revolutionary War and the Napoleanic Wars.

Unfortunately, tactics often are slower to evolve than weapons which accounts for the slaughter of troops in World War One as they were advancing in frontal charges against emplaced machine guns.

[FrankMi]

A very interesting history lesson Jim, Allan and Richard, and all quite logical as well.

[rpcrowe]

http://www.11thpa.org/Bess.html

[groovesection]

Hi Jim

I can see the appeal that this shot would have had. One can almost hear the call to take aim and fire, and smell the expended gunpowder by looking at the shot.

Its a pity that the rifles are obscuring the face of the soldier who calls the commands (have no idea what this role is called and am busy looking at google for the answer - so if someone knows the answer please enlighten me)

He is merely know as the squad leader, i do not think he has any other specific title but i may be wrong

[binsurf]

I always thought the command to fire came from the lead officer.