Photographer shoots Formula 1 with 104-year-old camera

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

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...-X1IQMfA4SAaKK
v1
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 certainly aren't literally phony. It just seems pretentious. I
don't expect many people to agree on this sort of thing, though.

They are just limited by old technology.

Those very limits are what seem to make these sorts of photos "art" to
many people. I wonder what people thought back in the day when this is
what there was. Those limits certainly didn't suddenly make it art,
but I wonder how many people thought the IQ just sucked, and hoped and
prayed for improvements. Like we still do with so many things.

Hasn’t that been the goal of improvement to technology over the ages. Those
shots demonstrated the need to improve camera technology back in 1913, hence
the Speed Graphic which was first released in 1912 with better performance
than the camera used in the story, with even faster lenses available in the
1920’s. The Graflex that the story was about might have been originally
bought in 1913, but it was a Graflex model, the Graflex 3A, sold 1907 to
1912, with its successor released in 1915.
At $75 for the body only back in 1907 it was not inexpensive.
https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/graflex/3A%20Graflex.html
--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 8/28/2017 5:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-08-28 21:19:26 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

https://drivetribe.com/p/photographe...TD6l6DWTxZnp9Q

or

http://tinyurl.com/ybnx4ohw

I posted a petapixel link to that storyback in May.
https://petapixel.com/2017/05/13/photographer-shoots-f1-1913-graflex-4x5-view-camera/

And we have that question that can never be answered. What is art.

--
PeterN

On 08/28/2017 04:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
https://drivetribe.com/p/photographe...TD6l6DWTxZnp9Q
or http://tinyurl.com/ybnx4ohw




I liked the photos a lot!

On 29/08/2017 00:30, philo wrote:
On 08/28/2017 04:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
https://drivetribe.com/p/photographe...TD6l6DWTxZnp9Q

or http://tinyurl.com/ybnx4ohw




I liked the photos a lot!

Me too! :-)

Another friendly wave from a bully-boy! http://imgur.com/gallery/4q0ir

--
Regards,
David B.

In article , Bill W
wrote:


They are just limited by old technology.

Those very limits are what seem to make these sorts of photos "art" to
many people. I wonder what people thought back in the day when this is
what there was. Those limits certainly didn't suddenly make it art,
but I wonder how many people thought the IQ just sucked, and hoped and
prayed for improvements. Like we still do with so many things.

in 1913, they probably thought it was amazing.

similarly, people of the future will think that today's cameras are
junk, except it won't take anywhere near 100 years. even 10 year old
cameras are visually inferior to what's available today. cameras from
the 90s are really bad. technology advances at a rapid pace.

On Aug 28, 2017, David B. wrote
(in article ):

On 29/08/2017 00:30, philo wrote:
On 08/28/2017 04:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
https://drivetribe.com/p/photographe...1IQMfA4SAaKKv1
8X9tiXA?iid=ZZO21sIrTD6l6DWTxZnp9Q

or http://tinyurl.com/ybnx4ohw



I liked the photos a lot!

Me too! :-)

Another friendly wave from a bully-boy! crap removed.

You need to stop piggie-backing your provocative flamewar crap on unrelated
posts and threads.
It is unwelcome and not funny.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:29:21 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 8/28/2017 5:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-08-28 21:19:26 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

https://drivetribe.com/p/photographe...TD6l6DWTxZnp9Q

or

http://tinyurl.com/ybnx4ohw

I posted a petapixel link to that storyback in May.
https://petapixel.com/2017/05/13/photographer-shoots-f1-1913-graflex-4x5-view-camera/

And we have that question that can never be answered. What is art.

It is answered, by each person individually. We all know that there
will never be one answer, but we can also agree that there are art
nazis that would like to force a definition on us. Many different
definitions, in fact.

It's all so silly.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

And we have that question that can never be answered. What is art.

It is answered, by each person individually. We all know that there
will never be one answer, but we can also agree that there are art
nazis that would like to force a definition on us. Many different
definitions, in fact.

It's all so silly.

https://petapixel.com/2017/07/27/pho...prize-photo-sc
ratches-spit/
Varga created the ³photo² by handing a piece of large format film to
her grandmother and asking her to scribble on it with a pen and then
spit on it to leave saliva trails.
....
³But photography has never just been about appearance,² he continues.
³It¹s also been part of the way that we experience things like memory
and relationships. The image * a series of scrawls made by the
artist¹s grandmother directly onto a piece of film * has been printed
at monumental scale. It¹s a very moving portrait of the artist¹s
relationship with and love for her grandmother.²

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 20:41:30 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:

And we have that question that can never be answered. What is art.

It is answered, by each person individually. We all know that there
will never be one answer, but we can also agree that there are art
nazis that would like to force a definition on us. Many different
definitions, in fact.

It's all so silly.

https://petapixel.com/2017/07/27/pho...prize-photo-sc
ratches-spit/
Varga created the ³photo² by handing a piece of large format film to
her grandmother and asking her to scribble on it with a pen and then
spit on it to leave saliva trails.
...
³But photography has never just been about appearance,² he continues.
³It¹s also been part of the way that we experience things like memory
and relationships. The image * a series of scrawls made by the
artist¹s grandmother directly onto a piece of film * has been printed
at monumental scale. It¹s a very moving portrait of the artist¹s
relationship with and love for her grandmother.²

Yep, examples abound. It's awfully hard to tell when this **** - uh
spit - is parody. You're as likely to see this in the Onion as a
serious art publication.

Crazy people.

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...1IQMfA4SAaKKv1
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?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens