If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Speeed Graphic and the Hindenburg
Hi:
I teach photography and U.S. History at a high school in Washington State, USA. This week, I had a lesson on photojournalism and, in one of the videos I used, there was talk of the photography of the Hindenburg disaster. Even casual photographic history fans are familiar with this event, where the photographer got off four shots in something like 40 seconds using a Speed Graphic. Anyhow, I wanted to show the kids exactly what this entailed so I brought my Crown Graphic and a couple of holders to give a demonstration. Now, I basically take landscape shots so I don't have much experience in handling a Crown Graphic quickly but, even with some embarrassing fumbling and jamming the slide, I got the four shots off in about 90 seconds. I let a couple of kids give it a try and one of the kids did it in about 70 seconds. Now, I'm not saying that the photographer in question did not take those photos that fast but I'm wondering if he did it with standard holders. I'm thinking Grafmatic (if they existed in 1937) or film pack. I could see getting off lots of shots quickly with film pack- pull the paper, recock shoot and do it again. I could go through all 12 (16?) shots in the pack fairly quickly. So.... Does anyone know if that photographer really used standard film holders? raoul |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
raoul wrote: Now, I'm not saying that the photographer in question did not take those photos that fast but I'm wondering if he did it with standard holders. I'm thinking Grafmatic (if they existed in 1937) or film pack. I could see getting off lots of shots quickly with film pack- pull the paper, recock shoot and do it again. I could go through all 12 (16?) shots in the pack fairly quickly. So.... Does anyone know if that photographer really used standard film holders? Almost certainly not. Why would a press photographer do so, when film packs, Grafmatics, and bag-mags were all readily available? -- Thor Lancelot Simon "The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
raoul wrote:
Hi: I teach photography and U.S. History at a high school in Washington State, USA. This week, I had a lesson on photojournalism and, in one of the videos I used, there was talk of the photography of the Hindenburg disaster. Even casual photographic history fans are familiar with this event, where the photographer got off four shots in something like 40 seconds using a Speed Graphic. Anyhow, I wanted to show the kids exactly what this entailed so I brought my Crown Graphic and a couple of holders to give a demonstration. Now, I basically take landscape shots so I don't have much experience in handling a Crown Graphic quickly but, even with some embarrassing fumbling and jamming the slide, I got the four shots off in about 90 seconds. I let a couple of kids give it a try and one of the kids did it in about 70 seconds. Now, I'm not saying that the photographer in question did not take those photos that fast but I'm wondering if he did it with standard holders. I'm thinking Grafmatic (if they existed in 1937) or film pack. I could see getting off lots of shots quickly with film pack- pull the paper, recock shoot and do it again. I could go through all 12 (16?) shots in the pack fairly quickly. So.... Does anyone know if that photographer really used standard film holders? I do not really know, but I remember reading that he shot only one film in each holder so he would not risk double exposures, and dropped the exposed ones on the ground. I infer that he did use standard holders. I am pretty sure GraphMatics were available then, but I am not sure who used them. I have a bunch and they are way more complicated (internally) than normal Lisco type film holders, and in a high pressure situation I would not risk using them. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 07:00:00 up 22 days, 15:15, 3 users, load average: 2.55, 2.43, 2.68 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I have no idea what the photographer used though I think Grafmatics and film
packs were commonly used by photo jopurnalists back then to make a series of photographs very quickly. However, I did wonder whether when you and your students were trying this you were using self-cocking shutters. I've owned several old lenses with self-cocking shutters and they would have saved the Hindenburg photographer quite a bit of time. "raoul" wrote in message ... Hi: I teach photography and U.S. History at a high school in Washington State, USA. This week, I had a lesson on photojournalism and, in one of the videos I used, there was talk of the photography of the Hindenburg disaster. Even casual photographic history fans are familiar with this event, where the photographer got off four shots in something like 40 seconds using a Speed Graphic. Anyhow, I wanted to show the kids exactly what this entailed so I brought my Crown Graphic and a couple of holders to give a demonstration. Now, I basically take landscape shots so I don't have much experience in handling a Crown Graphic quickly but, even with some embarrassing fumbling and jamming the slide, I got the four shots off in about 90 seconds. I let a couple of kids give it a try and one of the kids did it in about 70 seconds. Now, I'm not saying that the photographer in question did not take those photos that fast but I'm wondering if he did it with standard holders. I'm thinking Grafmatic (if they existed in 1937) or film pack. I could see getting off lots of shots quickly with film pack- pull the paper, recock shoot and do it again. I could go through all 12 (16?) shots in the pack fairly quickly. So.... Does anyone know if that photographer really used standard film holders? raoul |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Thor Lancelot Simon" wrote in message
... In article , raoul wrote: So.... Does anyone know if that photographer really used standard film holders? Almost certainly not. Why would a press photographer do so, when film packs, Grafmatics, and bag-mags were all readily available? Presume nothing, Sir. Grafmatics were not particularly popular with the press. It was a device that the more enlightened and wealthy enterprises supported. Most press work was still done with dual film holders. Photography's tactic then was to get a shot, develop it and print it wet. We would have to dig a little deeper to find whether the particular photographer used the Grafmatic. We cannot generalize in this case. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Shelley" wrote in message
news:eR1Pd.19284$uc.14371@trnddc08... I have no idea what the photographer used though I think Grafmatics and film packs were commonly used by photo jopurnalists back then to make a series of photographs very quickly. [...] Perhaps and only when they could anticipate that they would need to make rapid pictures. The Hindenberg action was supposed to be as fast as a barge docking in an upstream current; the photogs were probably using standard holders. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"raoul" wrote
photography of the Hindenburg disaster ... the photographer got off four shots in something like 40 seconds using a Speed Graphic ... I let a couple of kids give it a try and one of the kids did it in about 70 seconds. Now, I'm not saying that the photographer in question did not take those photos that fast but I'm wondering if he did it with standard holders. Why not? A kid did it stone cold in 70. I'm no maven, though I do take 4x5 point-'n-shoots, and I managed 50 seconds. If I did this for a living, I'd say 40 seconds was slow -- but maybe he dropped the holder a few times. People were just as smart and just as skilled 10,000 years ago, not to mention a mere hundred. But I wasn't there and I have _no_ idea what the photographer used. The negatives may still be extant and they would settle the issue. Let your 70 second Wunderkind have a weekend to practice and see what he can do. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Feinman" wrote in message
... Press photographers in the 1930's generally used film pack. This was 8 or so sheets in a metal holder. Talking out your butt, perhaps? They were 6-film packs, and I tell you they didn't use them very much at all. What do you know that I don't? I doubt any press photographers used plain double sheet holders. They are bulky, need to be reloaded and require to much fussing between shots. Impressionistic, seat-of-the-pants bull****. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
raoul wrote:
Even casual photographic history fans are familiar with this event, where the photographer got off four shots in something like 40 seconds using a Speed Graphic. There were more than one photographer. Possibly one got off four in 40 seconds. So.... Does anyone know if that photographer really used standard film holders? In "The History of Photography" by Beaumont Newhall, Newhall describes the situation. Chance often gives the news photographers their oppor- tunity, yet great news photographs are not acciden- tly made. Twenty-two photographers, representing New York and Philadelphia newspapers, were gather- ed at Lakhurst, N. J., on May 6, 1937, for a routine assignment: the dirigible _Hindenberg_ was due, and al- though it was the airship's eleventh transatlantic cross- ing, the event was still considered newsworthy. At dusk the great silver giant sailed majestically in from the Atlantic, and the cameramen were preparing to compose "art shots" for the feature editors when sud- denly flames shot out from the hull. In forty-seven seconds the great dirigible lay on the ground, a mass of twisted flaming wreckage. In those forty-seven seconds, every one of those photographers produced pictures that are still memorable. Jack Snyder of the Philadel- phia _Record_ said, I've been carrying my camera around for sixteen years, but I never got an opportunity for really good pictures before. I waited for hours for the Hindenberg in a pouring driving rain, as I wanted to get a close-up. I thought, "I'll get close to the mooring mast to see her tied up." Then I heard a crackling over my head, a sort of roaring crackle, and then W-H-W_A-M. There was a terrible flame and the heat singed my hair. He rushed for shelter, but not before he had clicked his shutter. Another photographer worked so fast that he threw the film holders on the ground at his feet after exposing only one of the two films which each con- tained, for fear that in his excitement he might make a double exposure. A messenger collected the holders; they were flown to New York. The metropolitan news- papers, all of them, told the story of the tragedy not in words but in pictures, which were often enlarged half a page in size. The _New York World-Telegram_ carried twenty-one photographs; the _New York Post_ had seven pages of pictures, the _Daily Mirror_, nine. Never had a disaster been so covered by photography. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 14:45:00 up 22 days, 23:00, 3 users, load average: 2.13, 2.18, 2.13 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
jjs john@xstafford.net wrote:
: "Robert Feinman" wrote in message : ... : Press photographers in the 1930's generally used film pack. This was : 8 or so sheets in a metal holder. : Talking out your butt, perhaps? They were 6-film packs, and I tell you they : didn't use them very much at all. What do you know that I don't? I've got four myself and I never use them. A better name for them is gouge-o-matic. :-) I used to think that the press photographers used the graphmatics until I got a book about WeeGee. One of the many photographs in the book was of him sitting at his mobile office (trunk of his car) and you can plainly see the hundreds of two sided film holders that he had stored in boxes. : I doubt any press photographers used plain double sheet holders. : They are bulky, need to be reloaded and require to much fussing : between shots. : Impressionistic, seat-of-the-pants bull****. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|