First episode - Why did he want a drawing of the body?
They had cameras back in the Civil War, so they definitely had them in the late 1800s. You would think a photograph would be better than someone's interpretation through drawing.
shareHe couldn't get a photographer there.
And since photographers couldn't easily take multiple photos, an artist could actually show him more of the scene and details.
He couldn't get an illustrator up there either, but he figured out a way.
As for multiple photos, the series takes place in 1896. By then, George Eastman was already producing hand-held cameras for the masses that used rolled film. It went on to the market in 1888 with the slogan "You press the button, we do the rest."
Source: https://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/a-history-of-photography-part-1-the-beginning--photo-1908
Archeological expeditions of the era brought along both photographers and artists. The photographs of the day were primitive, expensive, and required string light, an artist could actually show the viewer more of what they wanted to see than the camera could.
Besides, just because portable cameras existed in that era didn't mean that Dr. K. knew someone who could take one out to a midnight crime scene with impunity. Part if the reason theater Moore went was because as an employee of the NY Times, the police knew him and would allow him into sealed crime scenes. And he was willing to do Kreizler favors on short notice
"The photographs of the day were primitive, expensive, and required string light,"
Simply not true. Eastman's camera was none of those.
"an artist could actually show the viewer more of what they wanted to see than the camera could."
Again, simply not true.
"Part if the reason theater Moore went was because as an employee of the NY Times"
The scene was written in such a way to allow an illustrator up there. It could've just as easily be written to allow a photographer up there.
That's a point you should have belabored while Carr was writing the book, no point to it now!
And BTW, did newspapers even employ photographers then? Could they easily mass-reproduce photographs onto newsprint in 1896, or were they still using etchings?
The question is the same for either the book or TV show.
Whether or not newspapers used photographs isn't relevant to this question. He wanted the drawings to study them, not publish them.
Ah, but if newspapers couldn't print photographs then they wouldn't employ photographers, would they! And Moore's job with the NYT is what gives him entree into the crime scene, and for all I know no photographer could hold such a job. You seem to know more about the history of photography than I do, don't you know?
Again, he was sent because he was the one person Kreizler knew who could both get into a midnight crime scene, and bring a visual reproduction of it back.
Not sure why this is so hard to understand. It's a work of fiction. The scenario devised by the author of either the book or the TV show was created to get an illustrator up to the crime scene. If you wanted to get a photograph instead of a drawing, you would create a different scenario to make it happen. That scenario doesn't have to involve a newspaper.
My original question was about why a character in 1896 would prefer a drawing of a dead body over a photograph (or several) of a dead body. You can't say it's because his best friend happened to be an illustrator, because his best friend could have just as easily be written as a photographer.
What if it were set in modern day? Would he be asking his friend to draw the body? No. He would take advantage of the technology available to him, and ask his friend to take a few pictures with his phone. Photography was a technology available in 1896.
[deleted]
"Because Dr. Kreizler knew Moore was capable of drawing a deeply detailed forensic-minded illustration of the crime scene that a then-camera could not capture."
Both you and Otto make statements like this with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Do some research on photographs taken at that time. They exceed any detail a drawing could produce.
"he knew Moore, a top-notch artist with a seedy sex life"
As I explained earlier, this is fiction. It would be just as easy to make Moore a top-notch photographer with a seedy sex life.
"Dr. Kreizler needed Moore to go where he could not go (sex underworld) and do what he could not do (create a detailed colourized illustration of the body and crime scene that a then-camera could not provide)"
Other than color, a 'then-camera' could provide much more detail than an illustration, and wouldn't depend on the artist's interpretation. And him needing Moore to go where he can't has nothing to do with the technology used to capture the images.
You're trying to make this too complicated.
What part of "Kreizler couldn't get a photographer into the crime scene on short notice" do you not understand?
share"What part of "Kreizler couldn't get a photographer into the crime scene on short notice" do you not understand?"
Completely arbitrary rule. As I said, this is a work of FICTION. The author gets to decide those kinds of things. Moore could have been a photographer just as easily as he was an illustrator.
It's a simple point. Not sure why you're having trouble grasping it.
what I am having trouble grasping--Dr. K is beyond rude in the series, just the opposite in the book. My wife asked me if he was almost hostile in the book. No. She bailed after episode 2.
His rudeness in the series would have him working by himself--it's just common sense.
Why could not Dr. seen the body? He did in the book.
Why change Moore? He would have been much more valuable as a crime reporter--he knows the underbelly of the City if he's a crime reporter.