![\"A.](\"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/ADC_selfie_with_clear_TriX-6-3-16.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
[Exactly a decade ago at this blog I published the first half of a two-part Guest Post by photojournalist J. Ross Baughman<\/a>. That day marked the 70th anniversary of D-Day, in advance of which various media platforms had published commemorative paeans. A number of these had referenced Robert Capa’s iconic photos of the Normandy landing, and several had concentrated on those familiar images.<\/em><\/p>\n Spending time with two of these \u2014 Marie Brenner’s profile <\/a>of <\/em>LIFE assistant picture editor John Morris in <\/em>Vanity Fair, and a Time, Inc. video featuring Morris<\/a> recounting the standard story of Capa’s D-Day adventures and the fate of his films \u2014 led Baughman to believe that the pictures themselves contradicted the narrative.<\/em><\/p>\n He contacted me to inquire as to whether I’d consider publishing his analysis. When I expressed interest, he drafted it; I read it and agreed to publish it here. We then worked on it for the next week or so, Baughman making some revisions at my suggestion while I developed online sources to which to link as a form of footnoting. When we’d finalized it to our mutual satisfaction I scheduled part one for the morning of June 6, 2014, with part two slated to drop<\/a> a few days later.<\/em><\/p>\n I didn’t realize that in doing so I’d begun a project that would occupy much of my attention for the next ten years.<\/em><\/p>\n \u2022<\/em><\/p>\n I had no idea what I’d let myself in for. Of course I’d anticipated some pushback. Capa had, and has, not just a legion of fans but a cluster of powerful professionals (most of them with institutional platforms) deeply invested in his name recognition and reputation. That this initial publication, and those that followed, could and in fact did upset them came as no surprise.<\/em><\/p>\n What I didn’t foresee was the sheer size of the can of worms I’d decided to open \u2014 the number of questions that would arise and need answering, the range of issues that would have to get addressed. Some called on my existing skill sets, or required knowledge I found myself able to acquire. Others fell far outside my bailiwick and\/or well above my pay grade.<\/em><\/p>\n This project has had the good fortune to attract a set of volunteers whom I have dubbed, collectively, the Capa D-Day Irregulars (in honor of that gang of crafty street urchins who served Sherlock Holmes). In order of their appearance here, and excluding myself, they include J. Ross Baughman<\/a>, photojournalist, combat photographer, picture editor, and author; Rob McElroy<\/a>, photographer and photo historian; Charles Herrick<\/a>, combat veteran and military historian; and Tristan da Cunha<\/a>, photographer and darkroom\/post-production technician. Each of them appeared at exactly the right moment to solve major problems confronting the project, and each made major contributions to its progress. \u2022<\/p>\n What appears in the media addressing Capa’s D-Day photos on and around this 80th anniversary will serve as a gauge of how effective our revisionist efforts have proved \u2014 and to what extent the myth rolls merrily along regardless of our best efforts. I’ll provide a roundup of those instances, and an analysis thereof, sometime this summer.<\/em><\/p>\n In any case, here we are, ten years down the road. To mark this occasion, I offer a new installment of our investigation. Part 1 appears below; click here for part 2<\/a>, and here for part 3<\/a>. \u2014 A.D.C.]<\/em><\/p>\n \u2022<\/p>\n LIFE<\/em> Magazine’s Protocols for D-Day Photos (a) Recent research has uncovered a treasure: the protocols for annotating and processing incoming films from the photographers assigned by LIFE<\/em> magazine to cover the D-Day invasion.<\/p>\n Dated May 8, 1944, less than a month before the event, this is a three-page typescript. I have reason to believe that copies thereof exist in numerous archives, not just those of LIFE<\/em> magazine (held by the New-York Historical Society<\/a> in Manhattan).<\/p>\n Only Time, Inc., the parent corporation that commissioned this memorandum \u2014 now 80 years old \u2014 could have copyrighted this work product generated by several full-time employees of LIFE<\/em> for internal distribution. Apparently they never did. Indeed, it would have been unusual if they had; few if any corporations have ever copyrighted their papers, though they often have restricted access thereto for a variety of reasons.<\/p>\n The transcription below (my own) replicates the formatting, spelling, and punctuation of the original insofar as possible.<\/p>\n \u2022<\/p>\n To LIFE STAFF<\/p>\n From JOHN MORRIS<\/p>\n The following system of identification of negatives sent in from the field by staff photographers has been suggested for handling invasion pictures. Let’s put it into effect now and get all the kinks ironed out ahead of time.<\/p>\n Accurate captioning is of the utmost importance, both for editorial and censorship reasons.<\/em> [Emphasis added.] Improper identification, for example, of a wounded man might have serious consequences. Beginning with the invasion we will work more on the basis of individual shipments than on the basis of stories, though naturally rolls will frequently be grouped into stories. Each roll will, however, come in from the photographer with a distinct caption sheet, and this will be transcribed here in quadruplicate on a separate sheet of paper, with one copy for the censor, one for the Pool, one for New York and one for our file.<\/p>\n While the following instructions are intended primarily for the photographers and the darkroom, I hope that the whole staff will become familiar with the system, as we will all get involved in it.<\/p>\n SIZE 120 rolls<\/u>: The rolls will arrive in the darkroom with each roll bearing a number – such as roll No. 1 from Bob Landry. This number may or may not be distinct. Care should be taken in locating the proper number on each roll. BEFORE any roll is developed the respective number must be written with, preferably, an indelible pencil on the emulsion itself. The photographers’ initial or name must follow the roll number: such as “1 – L” – meaning, of course, Roll 1 from Bob Landry. Initials of last names will be used except that Scherschel will be known as “X” to avoid duplication with Scherman.<\/p>\n As a suggestion: the rolls to be developed should be lined up in front of the person who is responsible for development, in the proper order .. roll 1 .. roll 2 .. etc. Then, with lights out, the darkroom person should tear the tape from each roll in turn, unwinding until the emulsion is felt. Then the name and number of the roll should be written on the narrow margin between the first exposure and the end of the roll. Care should be taken so the writing does not overlap on to the exposed part of the negative.<\/p>\n After the 120 rolls are dry they must not be cut, until<\/u> each separate negative – from 1 to 12 is also numbered. These numbers will be inscribed with pen and ink alongside of each negative on the small border. Great care should be used in writing on the film. If India Ink is available it should be used with the proper fine pointed pen. This is the way each negative should look before cutting.<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n 1-L-1<\/p>\n (Roll 1 from Bob Landry – negative No. 1)<\/p>\n 35 m.m. rolls<\/u>: These will also be numbered consecutively by the photographers and will arrive at the darkroom marked “1 – L” etc. as in the case of 120 rolls (each size will be numbered independently of the other). Prior to developing the end of each roll should be numbered, fol(l)owing the s(a)me procedure as with 120 rolls.<\/p>\n Most 35 m.m. rolls are numbered from 1 to 36 by the manufacturer. With these rolls it will not be necessary to mark each frame individually but it will be necessary to key the numbers on the caption sheet to the numbers on the film. This will be done later by the typist who types the caption sheet. However, when each roll is cut into strips for contacting each strip must be given the roll number and photographer’s initial, as follows :-<\/p>\n 1-L<\/p>\n Since in wartime some 35 m.m. rolls come without frame numbers, they will have to be numbered individually, following the same procedure as with 120 rolls:<\/p>\n 1-L-1<\/p>\n Some rolls may have only a few exposures, but must be carefully numbered nevertheless.<\/p>\n The censors are now deciding whether or not they can work from 35 m.m. contact prints. In the event that they demand enlargements, the above system will have to be modified.<\/em> [Emphasis added.]<\/p>\n NOTE: The photographers will probably put their own roll number on each 35 m.m. negative roll when they take it from the camera. Photographers will be asked to leave the starting portion of the roll outside the film spool. If this is wound all the way into the cassette, then the darkroom developer should look for a number on the metal container, and see that it is properly inscribed on the emulsion. DO NOT cut off the [beg]inning of the roll as this is the only place the photographer will be able to write the roll number. IMPORTANT: the photographer will probably write his number with (ord)inary lead pencil or pen on the film .. this will come off in the developer or along the processing line… if this is so, the darkroom man must see that the number is rewritten with indelible or suitable marking that will not wash off.<\/p>\n DIRECTIONS FOR DEVELOPING NEGATIVES:<\/p>\n IF FILMS ARE NOT MARKED OTHERWISE they should be developed normally. The photographer will stipulate it on his rolls or captions if over or under development is required.<\/p>\n ALL DEVELOPER SHOULD BE KEPT UP TO STANDARD – either by a re-plenisher<\/p>\n 3.<\/p>\n or by substituting fresh. Keep track of the number of the rolls put through each batch of developer. Mr. Bradshaw will check the list and when he feels that new soup is to be mixed it MUST be mixed. DO NOT try and stretch the developer and DO NOT try and develop too many rolls at one time .. NO MATTER how busy you may be .. ANY ONE of the individual exposures on a roll may be terribly important.<\/p>\n IF there is any doubt about any roll- \u00a0either not being marked clearly or somehow being mixed up – first discuss it with me before developing, or keep it separate from the others. Also, every envelope containing the dried rolls must have the date of the shipment’s arrival.<\/p>\n Please treat each roll as if you yourself had taken it.<\/p>\n Photographers whose rolls you may expect and their initials :-<\/p>\n Capa Bob\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 C<\/p>\n Morse Ralph M<\/p>\n Landry Bob\u00a0\u00a0 L<\/p>\n Scherschel Frank\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 X<\/p>\n Scherman Dave\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S<\/p>\n Wild Hans\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 W<\/p>\n Rodger George\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 R<\/p>\n If more than one shipment arrives from a photographer on a single day the second shipment will be known as 7. 11. 44 A etc.<\/p>\n 8th May 1944.<\/p>\n \u2022<\/p>\n Life magazine, D-Day photographers, 6-26-44, p. 13 (detail). Photo by Herbert Bregstein.<\/p><\/div>\n \u2022<\/p>\n This is Part 1 of a 3-part series. …<\/p>\n (Part 1 I 2<\/a> I 3<\/a>)<\/p>\n \u2022<\/p>\n
\n<\/em><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"Life](\"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Life_magazine_D-Day_photographers_6-26-44_p13_detail.jpg\")
![\"Allan](\"https:\/\/www.nearbycafe.com\/artandphoto\/photocritic\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/AllanDouglassColeman-poeticlicensepoeticjustice_2020_cover.jpg\")
<\/p>\n