Photographer shoots Formula 1 with 104-year-old camera

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

We also have the techno naziswho claim they can emulate anything.

godwin's law invoked.

I don't think you know what Godwin's law really is.

then you'd be wrong.

Then why did you relate that post to Godwin's law?

because it applies.

How?

as you say,
I don't think you know what Godwin's law really is.

change that to:

you don't know what godwin's law really is.

To save an awful amount of beating around the bush - here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Hitler approaches 1."

It says nothing about Nazis or techno nazis.

yes it does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Godwin%27s_law
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
‹ Mike Godwin, 1990

http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/G/Godwin's-Law.html
[Usenet] ³As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.² There is a
tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over,
and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees
the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any
intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its
thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. Godwin himself has
discussed the subject.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Godwin%27s%20Law
A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an
online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly
likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When
such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has
effectively forfieted the argument.

https://www.wired.com/1994/10/godwin-if-2/
I developed Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion
grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or
Hitler approaches one.

I seeded Godwin's Law in any newsgroup or topic where I saw a
gratuitous Nazi reference. Soon, to my surprise, other people were
citing it - the counter-meme was reproducing on its own! And it
mutated like a meme, generating corollaries like the following:

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

According to you sometime in the past, all the characters within the
are part of the URL. I checked. While the are not mandatory
they are recommended. On that basis, prohibited characters should not
be within .

Except automatic newlines created by the text editor because of line
wrap, and probably an space resulting of the same line wrap. What I
don't think it can cope is with quoting.

quotes in a delimited url work perfectly fine.

it's a complete non-issue and one reason why delimiters are important.

On 8/30/2017 10:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 30, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/30/2017 2:25 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 29, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/29/2017 2:39 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 29, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/28/2017 10:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:20:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Aug 28, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 17:46:29 -0400,
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:


https://drivetribe.com/p/photographe...-with-X1IQMfA4
SA
aK
Kv1
8X9
tiXA?iid=ZZO21sIrTD6l6DWTxZnp9Q
or http://tinyurl.com/ybnx4ohw

composition is good, but the quality is complete utter ****.

There is something about taking the highest level of racing technology
on the planet, and making phony old-timey photos of that technology
that is just stupid. Art makes me sick sometimes...

Well, they aren’t phoney. They are just limited by old technology.

When you consider that the camera uses 4" x 5" plates, the grain
suggests either they were heavily cropped or they were developed in
(thermally) hot developer to get the speed up - maybe both.

I have used several Graflex cameras and I am mystified by the absence
of the expected diagonal distortion and streaking in his shots of high
speed motion. If they are not present in the moving car they should be
present in the backgound.

An uncropped version of the image at the head of the item referenced
by the URL I originally cited may be found at
https://www.instagram.com/p/BSGiNCgACeC/ This shows his camera. So too
does https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads...05/showing.jpg My first
reaction on seeing these was 'Where is the lense?' I expected
something the size of can of beans sticking out the front of the lens
board, but no. If you look carefully you can see that there is
something mounted in the hole in the lens board, apparently from
behind. There is no way this can be a long focus lens to suit the
4" x 5" plate.

All the evidence points to the camera being something different from
just a plain 4" x 5" Graflex. Maybe its a shorter focus lens
concentrating on a small area of film/plate?

I've posted this before. the photographer uses a Polaroid back, and real
flashbulbs. He is very happy with his results.

Where did you get that information?

From talking to him. He is quite open about his photography, and I have
met him at NYC events, such as the Mermaid Parade, and Photo Expo. With
that camera, he is easy to spot.

I don’t believe we are talking about the same guy or camera.
I have a feeling you are confusing Luis Mendez, who does shoot the Mermaid
Parade, and not F1, with Joshua Paul who shoots F1, and not the Mermaid
Parade.
Luis Mendez:
https://shootnewyorkcity.files.wordp...mendez-at-the-
mermaid-parade.jpg
Joshua Paul:
http://www.monacolife.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_7505-696x696.jpg

This Joshua Paul seems pretty locked into following the F1 circuit, and
publishing his F1 centered magazine. He also uses a Rolleiflex TLR.
http://aphotoeditor.com/2015/09/01/the-daily-edit-lollipop-joshua-paul/
https://www.lollipop-gp.com
https://www.instagram.com/lollipopmagazine/

Hmm. I was talking aoubt the guy I linked to.

You didn’t link to anybody.

Oops!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gi8ox9oopuqyx3h/CameraAwesomePhoto%20%281%29.jpg?dl=0

I don't think he shoots F1

The Guy who shoots the Mermaid Parade, Luis Mendez, does not shoot F1.


True.

--
PeterN

On 8/30/2017 10:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 30, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/30/2017 2:40 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 29, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Aug 29, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/29/2017 2:39 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 29, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/28/2017 10:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:20:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Aug 28, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 17:46:29 -0400,
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:


https://drivetribe.com/p/photographe...1-with-X1IQMfA
4S
A
aK
Kv1
8X9
tiXA?iid=ZZO21sIrTD6l6DWTxZnp9Q
or http://tinyurl.com/ybnx4ohw

composition is good, but the quality is complete utter ****.

There is something about taking the highest level of racing
technology
on the planet, and making phony old-timey photos of that technology
that is just stupid. Art makes me sick sometimes...

Well, they aren’t phoney. They are just limited by old technology.

When you consider that the camera uses 4" x 5" plates, the grain
suggests either they were heavily cropped or they were developed in
(thermally) hot developer to get the speed up - maybe both.

I have used several Graflex cameras and I am mystified by the absence
of the expected diagonal distortion and streaking in his shots of high
speed motion. If they are not present in the moving car they should be
present in the backgound.

An uncropped version of the image at the head of the item referenced
by the URL I originally cited may be found at
https://www.instagram.com/p/BSGiNCgACeC/ This shows his camera. So too
does https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads...05/showing.jpg My first
reaction on seeing these was 'Where is the lense?' I expected
something the size of can of beans sticking out the front of the lens
board, but no. If you look carefully you can see that there is
something mounted in the hole in the lens board, apparently from
behind. There is no way this can be a long focus lens to suit the
4" x 5" plate.

All the evidence points to the camera being something different from
just a plain 4" x 5" Graflex. Maybe its a shorter focus lens
concentrating on a small area of film/plate?

I've posted this before. the photographer uses a Polaroid back, and real
flashbulbs. He is very happy with his results.

Where did you get that information?

From talking to him. He is quite open about his photography, and I have
met him at NYC events, such as the Mermaid Parade, and Photo Expo. With
that camera, he is easy to spot.

I don’t believe we are talking about the same guy or camera.
I have a feeling you are confusing Luis Mendez, who does shoot the Mermaid
Parade, and not F1, with Joshua Paul who shoots F1, and not the Mermaid
Parade.
Luis Mendez:
https://shootnewyorkcity.files.wordp...ndez-at-the-me
rmaid-parade.jpg
Joshua Paul:
http://www.monacolife.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_7505-696x696.jpg

This Joshua Paul seems pretty locked into following the F1 circuit, and
publishing his F1 centered magazine. He also uses a Rolleiflex TLR.
http://aphotoeditor.com/2015/09/01/the-daily-edit-lollipop-joshua-paul/
https://www.lollipop-gp.com
https://www.instagram.com/lollipopmagazine/

...and Luis Mendez uses a Graflex Speed Graphic, Crown Graphic model,
considerably later than 1907-1912 3A Graflex used by Joshua Paul. He does
use
a Polaroid back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/nyregion/03polaroid.html?mcubz=3

Yep. Same guy.

So you agree, the shooter in the OP, with the 1907-1912 3A Graflex Reflex WAS
NOT using a Polaroid back.


It was late. I thought I posted a link. That's why you were confused.
Mea Culpa

--
PeterN

On Aug 30, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/30/2017 10:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 30, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/30/2017 2:40 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 29, 2017, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

On Aug 29, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/29/2017 2:39 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 29, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/28/2017 10:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:20:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Aug 28, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 17:46:29 -0400,
wrote:

In , Eric
Stevens
wrote:


https://drivetribe.com/p/photographe...a-1-with-X1IQM
fA
4S
A
aK
Kv1
8X9
tiXA?iid=ZZO21sIrTD6l6DWTxZnp9Q
or http://tinyurl.com/ybnx4ohw

composition is good, but the quality is complete utter ****.

There is something about taking the highest level of racing
technology
on the planet, and making phony old-timey photos of that technology
that is just stupid. Art makes me sick sometimes...

Well, they aren’t phoney. They are just limited by old technology.

When you consider that the camera uses 4" x 5" plates, the grain
suggests either they were heavily cropped or they were developed in
(thermally) hot developer to get the speed up - maybe both.

I have used several Graflex cameras and I am mystified by the absence
of the expected diagonal distortion and streaking in his shots of
high
speed motion. If they are not present in the moving car they should
be
present in the backgound.

An uncropped version of the image at the head of the item referenced
by the URL I originally cited may be found at
https://www.instagram.com/p/BSGiNCgACeC/ This shows his camera. So
too
does https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads...05/showing.jpg My
first
reaction on seeing these was 'Where is the lense?' I expected
something the size of can of beans sticking out the front of the lens
board, but no. If you look carefully you can see that there is
something mounted in the hole in the lens board, apparently from
behind. There is no way this can be a long focus lens to suit the
4" x 5" plate.

All the evidence points to the camera being something different from
just a plain 4" x 5" Graflex. Maybe its a shorter focus lens
concentrating on a small area of film/plate?

I've posted this before. the photographer uses a Polaroid back, and
real
flashbulbs. He is very happy with his results.

Where did you get that information?

From talking to him. He is quite open about his photography, and I have
met him at NYC events, such as the Mermaid Parade, and Photo Expo. With
that camera, he is easy to spot.

I don’t believe we are talking about the same guy or camera.
I have a feeling you are confusing Luis Mendez, who does shoot the
Mermaid
Parade, and not F1, with Joshua Paul who shoots F1, and not the Mermaid
Parade.
Luis Mendez:
https://shootnewyorkcity.files.wordp...mendez-at-the-
me
rmaid-parade.jpg
Joshua Paul:
http://www.monacolife.net/wp-content...505-696x696.jp
g

This Joshua Paul seems pretty locked into following the F1 circuit, and
publishing his F1 centered magazine. He also uses a Rolleiflex TLR.
http://aphotoeditor.com/2015/09/01/the-daily-edit-lollipop-joshua-paul/
https://www.lollipop-gp.com
https://www.instagram.com/lollipopmagazine/

...and Luis Mendez uses a Graflex Speed Graphic, Crown Graphic model,
considerably later than 1907-1912 3A Graflex used by Joshua Paul. He does
use
a Polaroid back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/nyregion/03polaroid.html?mcubz=3

Yep. Same guy.

So you agree, the shooter in the OP, with the 1907-1912 3A Graflex Reflex
WAS
NOT using a Polaroid back.

It was late. I thought I posted a link. That's why you were confused.

I wasn’t confused.

Mea Culpa

Noted.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 08/30/2017 10:43 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 8/30/2017 10:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 30, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/30/2017 2:25 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 29, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/29/2017 2:39 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Aug 29, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 8/28/2017 10:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 15:20:15 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Aug 28, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 17:46:29 -0400,
wrote:

In , Eric
Stevens
wrote:


https://drivetribe.com/p/photographe...-with-X1IQMfA4

SA
aK
Kv1
8X9
tiXA?iid=ZZO21sIrTD6l6DWTxZnp9Q
or http://tinyurl.com/ybnx4ohw

composition is good, but the quality is complete utter ****.

There is something about taking the highest level of racing
technology
on the planet, and making phony old-timey photos of that
technology
that is just stupid. Art makes me sick sometimes...

Well, they aren’t phoney. They are just limited by old technology.

When you consider that the camera uses 4" x 5" plates, the grain
suggests either they were heavily cropped or they were developed in
(thermally) hot developer to get the speed up - maybe both.

I have used several Graflex cameras and I am mystified by the
absence
of the expected diagonal distortion and streaking in his shots
of high
speed motion. If they are not present in the moving car they
should be
present in the backgound.

An uncropped version of the image at the head of the item
referenced
by the URL I originally cited may be found at
https://www.instagram.com/p/BSGiNCgACeC/ This shows his camera.
So too
does https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads...05/showing.jpg My
first
reaction on seeing these was 'Where is the lense?' I expected
something the size of can of beans sticking out the front of the
lens
board, but no. If you look carefully you can see that there is
something mounted in the hole in the lens board, apparently from
behind. There is no way this can be a long focus lens to suit the
4" x 5" plate.

All the evidence points to the camera being something different
from
just a plain 4" x 5" Graflex. Maybe its a shorter focus lens
concentrating on a small area of film/plate?

I've posted this before. the photographer uses a Polaroid back,
and real
flashbulbs. He is very happy with his results.

Where did you get that information?

From talking to him. He is quite open about his photography, and I
have
met him at NYC events, such as the Mermaid Parade, and Photo Expo.
With
that camera, he is easy to spot.

I don’t believe we are talking about the same guy or camera.
I have a feeling you are confusing Luis Mendez, who does shoot the
Mermaid
Parade, and not F1, with Joshua Paul who shoots F1, and not the Mermaid
Parade.
Luis Mendez:
https://shootnewyorkcity.files.wordp...mendez-at-the-

mermaid-parade.jpg
Joshua Paul:
http://www.monacolife.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/IMG_7505-696x696.jpg


This Joshua Paul seems pretty locked into following the F1 circuit, and
publishing his F1 centered magazine. He also uses a Rolleiflex TLR.
http://aphotoeditor.com/2015/09/01/the-daily-edit-lollipop-joshua-paul/

https://www.lollipop-gp.com
https://www.instagram.com/lollipopmagazine/

Hmm. I was talking aoubt the guy I linked to.

You didn’t link to anybody.

Oops!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gi8ox9oopuqyx3h/CameraAwesomePhoto%20%281%29.jpg?dl=0


I don't think he shoots F1

The Guy who shoots the Mermaid Parade, Luis Mendez, does not shoot F1.


True.

After looking at the pictures of the photographers (Mendez and Paul), I
can see how anyone could easily get them mixed up. The resemblance
between them is amazing.

--
Ken Hart

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:25:59 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

We also have the techno naziswho claim they can emulate anything.

godwin's law invoked.

I don't think you know what Godwin's law really is.

then you'd be wrong.

Then why did you relate that post to Godwin's law?

because it applies.

How?

as you say,
I don't think you know what Godwin's law really is.

change that to:

you don't know what godwin's law really is.

To save an awful amount of beating around the bush - here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Hitler approaches 1."

It says nothing about Nazis or techno nazis.

yes it does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Godwin%27s_law
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
‹ Mike Godwin, 1990

http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/G/Godwin's-Law.html
[Usenet] ³As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.² There is a
tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over,
and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees
the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any
intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its
thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. Godwin himself has
discussed the subject.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Godwin%27s%20Law
A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an
online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly
likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When
such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has
effectively forfieted the argument.

https://www.wired.com/1994/10/godwin-if-2/
I developed Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion
grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or
Hitler approaches one.

I seeded Godwin's Law in any newsgroup or topic where I saw a
gratuitous Nazi reference. Soon, to my surprise, other people were
citing it - the counter-meme was reproducing on its own! And it
mutated like a meme, generating corollaries like the following:

I think Wikipedia is wrong and your citation may be correct. That's
two in a row you have won!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

We also have the techno naziswho claim they can emulate
anything.

godwin's law invoked.

I don't think you know what Godwin's law really is.

then you'd be wrong.

Then why did you relate that post to Godwin's law?

because it applies.

How?

as you say,
I don't think you know what Godwin's law really is.

change that to:

you don't know what godwin's law really is.

To save an awful amount of beating around the bush - here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Hitler approaches 1."

It says nothing about Nazis or techno nazis.

yes it does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Godwin%27s_law
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
Ð Mike Godwin, 1990

http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/G/Godwin's-Law.html
[Usenet] 3As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.2 There is a
tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over,
and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees
the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any
intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its
thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. Godwin himself has
discussed the subject.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Godwin%27s%20Law
A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin's Law states that as an
online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly
likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When
such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has
effectively forfieted the argument.

https://www.wired.com/1994/10/godwin-if-2/
I developed Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion
grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or
Hitler approaches one.

I seeded Godwin's Law in any newsgroup or topic where I saw a
gratuitous Nazi reference. Soon, to my surprise, other people were
citing it - the counter-meme was reproducing on its own! And it
mutated like a meme, generating corollaries like the following:

I think Wikipedia is wrong

the wikipedia link you cited is incomplete, but not wrong.

and your citation may be correct.

it *must* be correct, since the last link is mike godwin himself
writing.

That's
two in a row you have won!

an undefeated season.