Sinking Photos There Must Be Some

[Matt Endacott]

Hey,
I know this is a repeated issue but i just wanted to ask something.
With cameras not exactly rare in 1912, and with the great height surrounding Titanic's maiden voyage it surprises me that when the ship hit the iceberg, no one thought to take their camera? My impression is that initially there was little thought the ship was in any real danger among the passengers; thus for any journalists onboard this whole event must have seemed somewhat exciting. Is it possible reporters onboard snapped a few pictures of the emergency. I understand that taking pictures of the actual ship sinking or the boats lowering would have been rather hopeless due to the poor lighting, yet it seems that any pictures taken within the ship after the collision would have developed. Perhaps there were photos snapped of passengers in life belts within the Lounge, or on the Grand Staircase? From reports the period of time following the ship's impact with the iceberg was quite calm. There was no real panic, and to journalists it probably seemed like an embarresing accident that they could write up about. I find it really unlikely not one of the 2200 people onboard took a photograph following the collision. It would be a "highlight" or memorable part of the trip, someone must have thought "i have to get a picture of this", the highest members of society told to get into the lifeboats. However, i understand if any such image survived the wreck it would have been the most publicized picture of the century. It seems more than likely though that perhaps in the confusion and panic that soon followed the camera that might have taken such pictures was dropped or left behind; sending the images to the ocean floor. Are there any recollections of cameras followign the collision?
Best Regards,
Matt Endacott

 

[Bob Godfrey]

Certainly there were lots of cameras onboard and they were easily capable of delivering the goods had they been loaded with modern film, but that's the problem. The films available in 1912 had little sensitivity and it wouldn't have occurred to any casual user to even try to take a picture at night or indoors. Except for pros or really serious enthusiasts, photography was an activity for outdoors on sunny days. A normal 'snap' exposure in a well-lit area like the Lounge, for instance, would have recorded nothing more than the light sources. It's possible there were a few onboard who had the necessary extra equipment for low light levels, but anybody lugging around a heavy tripod or firing off magnesium flashes would have been quickly discouraged, and if they ventured onto the boat deck their equipment would very likely have been consigned as an early arrival in the debris field. They certainly would have attracted attention, and I can't recall any mention of a camera in testimonies or survivor accounts.

There were a few journalists on board, and at least one survived, but I think none who were travelling in the course of their work. Newspapers might have sent staff reporters to cover the maiden voyage of the Olympic, which attracted a lot of public interest because it was something new. Titanic was just more of the same.
.

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

William Harbeck, a prominent documentary film maker from Seattle, was on board at the request of the White Star Line to film the Titanic's departure, its New York arrival and any "eventualities of interest" during the voyage. He was to have been paid $50,000 for his films, which the WSL planned on using for publicity purposes. He had 5 cameras with him on board and was spotted by Lawrence Beesley filming the Titanic's near-collision with the New York.

Harbeck died in the sinking, even though according to his family he was a strong swimmer. Ironically, the British film trade journals - before they learned the worst - presumed that he would have survived as a matter of course and would soon be showing them his dramatic footage of the terrible disaster.

Roy

 

[Daniel Klistorner]

All,

It has been a while since I read Alan Hustak's book, but in his book about the Canadian passengers, he makes mention of a male 2nd class passenger who wanted to take a photo of one of the lifeboats launching. Whether he did or not, I cannot remember. There have been a few threads on this camera issue and there are other interesting facts in those discussions.

Regards,

Daniel.

 

[Matt Endacott]

Might it be possible Harbeck's footage is on the ocean floor somewhere, perhaps a quick film of the emergency onboard? Imagine the publicity if such a film was found. Would it be possible for the film to survive these 90+ years at the bottom of the Atlantic, or would it have quickly deteriorated? I saw somewhere a reel of film was recovered from the Lusitania some time ago and several stills were salvaged. Could this be possible in the Titanic's case?

Matt

 

[Michael H. Standart]

If it existed, it might be possible but I would bet very long odds against it. Remember that this is 1912 we're talking about here, not 2005. The modern films and variable shutter speeds along with all the other whiz bang twidgets we take for granted which make good night photography possible simply did not exist.

To get any decnt photos with the films used then would have required the heavy equipment and the powerful magnesium flash that Bob mentioned. I can gaurantee you that any such would hardly escape notice, and the source of a "brilliant flash" would be unlikely to avoid the hostile reaction of sailors who need their night vision. Especially in a crisis situation. Were it me that was so dazzled when trying to work lifeboat davits, I can assure you that the camera would make it to the bottom long befor the ship did. If the photographer didn't let go of it, he might just go along for the ride.

 

[Bob Godfrey]

If Harbeck stored his exposed reels in airtight non-ferrous cans it's not totally impossible that there might be a recoverable image of sorts among the debris, but it's a very slim chance. And there's no way that could include anything exposed on the night of the sinking. Time exposures and momentary flashes are no use at all to a cinematographer. Harbeck could have filmed on deck in daylight, or in interior locations which were well lit by direct sunlight coming through large windows, but when the sun went down he had no options either inside or out. To our eyes the public rooms were brightly lit, but to the camera's eye they were in darkness.
.

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

Michael, I *loved* your comments on miscreant shutterbugs.

Hi, Daniel!

>>It has been a while since I read Alan Hustak's book, but . . . he makes mention of a male 2nd class passenger who wanted to take a photo of one of the lifeboats launching.

It's been a while since I read it too. Be a little wary of whatever Alan wrote. I've noticed he tends to print hearsay and old wives' tales as fact; and doesn't bother to correct himself when his errors are pointed out. Most of what he wrote about Harbeck, for instance, is just dead wrong, or very distorted, and can't be supported by any of the available evidence.

Hi, Matt!

>>Might it be possible Harbeck's footage is on the ocean floor somewhere, perhaps a quick film of the emergency onboard?

Anything is possible, I suppose, but don't hold your breath. Any thoughts Harbeck may have had of filming that morning were probably knocked out of his head really fast by the enormity of the situation developing around him. Also, the available lighting, even inside, wouldn't have been sufficient for him to film. Here's an example: In 1911, he tried to film President Taft and party on the slopes of Mount Rainier, but even though it was daylight, it was too cloudy for him to get any pictures.

As far as finding any of Harbeck's film on the ocean floor, remember, Harbeck was traveling in second-class, one of the areas that was hit hardest by the break-up. Even if his on board Titanic films were in a protective canister, it would have been like trying to save an egg from a steamroller.

Roy

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Hi Daniel and Roy,

"Most of what he wrote about Harbeck, for instance, is just dead wrong, or very distorted, and can't be supported by any of the available evidence."

The same rings true for Arthur Peuchen. I've double checked and re-checked the information that Alan provides, but most of it just can't be supported anywhere else.

I've met Alan and he's a great guy to talk to, but he needs to get his facts straight.

Best regards,

Jason

 

[Brandon Whited]

Thanks for the warnings about that book guys. I've had it several years but hadn't checked out the information for myself. Harbeck's and Peuchen's stories were two of my favorites, pity they're not entirely accurate.

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

Hi, Brandon!

>>Harbeck's and Peuchen's stories were two of my favorites, pity they're not entirely accurate.

"Not entirely" is an understatement. I'll leave it to Jason to speak for the good Major, but Brandon, if I were Will Harbeck, I could sue Alan and probably win.

Roy

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

Brandon, if you'd like to read a good account of Harbeck's life, see if you can get hold of a copy of Stephen Bottomore's "The Titanic and Silent Cinema." It's printed in the UK by The Projection Box (check their website), but you can probably request a copy through interlibrary loan.

Since Stephen published, I've found information that leads me to different conclusions on a couple of matters - for instance, L'Affaire Yvois, and the reason for why Harbeck went to Europe in 1912 in the first place.

Other than that, Stephen did very, very solid work.

Roy

 

[Brandon Whited]

I generally take things with a grain of salt (not a bad habit), but for some reason I must have let my shields down for that book.

I've heard of that book, Roy. It sounds really good. I'll have to try to check that out. Harbeck seems to have been quite interesting, but I'd never even heard of him until Hustak's book (which means I'm yet to hear the real story).

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

>>I generally take things with a grain of salt (not a bad habit)...

Salt's a great preservative - in more ways than one, evidently.

>>but for some reason I must have let my shields down for that book.

Brandon, it's not as if Harbeck's an easy guy to research. He didn't do many interviews and, for a guy who spent so much of his life behind a camera, he spent precious little of it in front of one. You can write pretty much anything you want about him and get away with it because checking the facts is difficult. Pity, because I personally find his *true* story far more interesting than many of the Titanic Icons who seem to generate all the curiosity.

>>I've heard of that book, Roy. It sounds really good.

Oh yeah, I recommend it! It deals with everyone on the Titanic who was in some way connected with film. One thing I've learned researching Harbeck is that film making and its exhibition were far more advanced by 1912 than we can even imagine.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Oops, it appears that I exaggerated a bit in my last post. When I said most of the information on Peuchen is incorrect in Hustak's book, I actually meant only some of it.

Although, in one paragraph Hustak does leave out important information on what Peuchen was doing during the sinking.