Photographer shoots Formula 1 with 104-year-old camera

On Aug 28, 2017, Eric Stevens 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 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?

My understanding is that the camera was a 1907 3A Graflex Reflex, shooting 3A
31/4" x 51/2�, or 122 roll film.

As for the lens, there were a few options:
Zeiss Kodak f/6.3 no.4
Bausch & Lomb Zeiss Teissar Series 1c f/4.5
Cook Lens Series II f/4.5

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:40:59 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Aug 28, 2017, Eric Stevens 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 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?

My understanding is that the camera was a 1907 3A Graflex Reflex, shooting 3A
31/4" x 51/2�, or 122 roll film.

Aha!

Then I wonder it says in one of the cites I gave that he is limited to
only 20 shots? Its possible to change film in the standard roll-film
magazine in the field. http://tinyurl.com/y9d3uy4j

As for the lens, there were a few options:
Zeiss Kodak f/6.3 no.4
Bausch & Lomb Zeiss Teissar Series 1c f/4.5
Cook Lens Series II f/4.5
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Aug 28, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:40:59 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Aug 28, 2017, Eric Stevens 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...th-X1IQMfA4SAa
KK
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 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?

My understanding is that the camera was a 1907 3A Graflex Reflex, shooting
3A
31/4" x 51/2�, or 122 roll film.

Aha!

Then I wonder it says in one of the cites I gave that he is limited to
only 20 shots? Its possible to change film in the standard roll-film
magazine in the field. http://tinyurl.com/y9d3uy4j

The image that you provided is a much more modern 120 roll film magazine. He
was shooting a 1907 vintage camera, thought to be of 1913 origin. I
couldn’t say just how the early magazines functioned, or were loaded.
Remember this is a Graflex, not a Speed Graphic. They only started using 120
roll film after 1923.

https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/graflex/3A%20Graflex.html
https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/holders/index.html


As for the lens, there were a few options:
Zeiss Kodak f/6.3 no.4
Bausch & Lomb Zeiss Teissar Series 1c f/4.5
Cook Lens Series II f/4.5

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article ,
Bill W wrote:

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

In article , 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...

The photog works within the limitations of the camera, very fuzzy
corners and the results are great. More retro than arty thou... If you
ask me, which you didn't! This is an olds school example of chauvinistic
composition expected from the era of the camera, not the subjects that
we could live with out me thinks... Otherwise: Great!

https://drivetribe.imgix.net/Vfk322n...&h=1828&fm=pjp
g&auto=compress&fit=crop&crop=faces,edges

Look Erich! Angel brackets! :-))

My Zeiss Nettar has been returned to me and I might do some shooting
with it but I would need a new (to me) scanner for the MF film though.
May be next year when my arms are better.
--
teleportation kills

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 22:03:28 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Aug 28, 2017, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 19:40:59 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Aug 28, 2017, Eric Stevens 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...th-X1IQMfA4SAa
KK
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 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?

My understanding is that the camera was a 1907 3A Graflex Reflex, shooting
3A
31/4" x 51/2�, or 122 roll film.

Aha!

Then I wonder it says in one of the cites I gave that he is limited to
only 20 shots? Its possible to change film in the standard roll-film
magazine in the field. http://tinyurl.com/y9d3uy4j

The image that you provided is a much more modern 120 roll film magazine. He
was shooting a 1907 vintage camera, thought to be of 1913 origin. I
couldn’t say just how the early magazines functioned, or were loaded.
Remember this is a Graflex, not a Speed Graphic. They only started using 120
roll film after 1923.

Yep, but they used the same plate mounts on both Graflex and Speed
Graphic. Any film-back made to fit a 4"x 5" Speed Graphic would fit a
4"x 5" Graflex.

https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/graflex/3A%20Graflex.html
https://lommen9.home.xs4all.nl/holders/index.html


As for the lens, there were a few options:
Zeiss Kodak f/6.3 no.4
Bausch & Lomb Zeiss Teissar Series 1c f/4.5
Cook Lens Series II f/4.5

There were quite a few in those days but they all mounted in front of
the lens board. They had to, to give access to the aperture ring.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:56:59 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Bill W wrote:

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

In article , 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...

The photog works within the limitations of the camera, very fuzzy
corners and the results are great. More retro than arty thou... If you
ask me, which you didn't! This is an olds school example of chauvinistic
composition expected from the era of the camera, not the subjects that
we could live with out me thinks... Otherwise: Great!

https://drivetribe.imgix.net/Vfk322n...&h=1828&fm=pjp
g&auto=compress&fit=crop&crop=faces,edges

Look Erich! Angel brackets! :-))

And a wrapped URL containing ctrlLF :-(

My Zeiss Nettar has been returned to me and I might do some shooting
with it but I would need a new (to me) scanner for the MF film though.
May be next year when my arms are better.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 07:56:59 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Bill W wrote:

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

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


https://drivetribe.com/p/photographe...h-X1IQMfA4SAaK
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...

The photog works within the limitations of the camera, very fuzzy
corners and the results are great. More retro than arty thou... If you
ask me, which you didn't! This is an olds school example of chauvinistic
composition expected from the era of the camera, not the subjects that
we could live with out me thinks... Otherwise: Great!

https://drivetribe.imgix.net/Vfk322n...&h=1828&fm=pjp
g&auto=compress&fit=crop&crop=faces,edges

Look Erich! Angel brackets! :-))

And a wrapped URL containing ctrlLF :-(

Formattings between angel brackets are ignored by proper newsreaders
when found in a URL and the URL opens in the default application when
clicked on. So too in this case... Here's the URL as it appeared in the
browser, sans brackets:

https://drivetribe.imgix.net/Vfk322n...h=1828&fm=pjpg
&auto=compress&fit=crop&crop=faces,edges

Do ignore the linefeed, it was not forwarded to the browser...

http://tinyurl.com/yafod5by
--
teleportation kills

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!

I liked *some* of them, but not the grainy blurred portraits which
looked as though they had been shot in 127 on a Brownie.

In article ,
newshound wrote:


I liked *some* of them, but not the grainy blurred portraits which
looked as though they had been shot in 127 on a Brownie.

a 127 brownie would have done a much better job.

In article , android
wrote:

https://drivetribe.imgix.net/Vfk322n...&h=1828&fm=pjp
g&auto=compress&fit=crop&crop=faces,edges

Look Erich! Angel brackets! :-))

And a wrapped URL containing ctrlLF :-(

Formattings between angel brackets are ignored by proper newsreaders
when found in a URL and the URL opens in the default application when
clicked on. So too in this case... Here's the URL as it appeared in the
browser, sans brackets:

https://drivetribe.imgix.net/Vfk322n...h=1828&fm=pjpg
&auto=compress&fit=crop&crop=faces,edges

and now it's broken because apps can't tell where the url begins or
ends, so it doesn't know that the url continues to a second line.