If you look at the biker in the back, the shadow of his head is between two plants painted on the backdrop. However, in the first picture it looks a little closer to the leftmost plant than in the third picture. This means that either:
or
or
Well, you must have one poor mechanical imagination then.
Yeah, there is just NO way somebody in 1900 could rig up some mechanical device that got the sync between camera(s) and flash to somewhere within the 1/10 a second. That would be just magic.
Was it likely staged? Yeah, IMO because that would be soooo much easier. And a careful analysis of the photos would quite possibly reveal details that it was staged.
Is it staged because it was absolutely beyond the technology of the day? No IMO. Heck, many photographers seemed to be motivated by taking the “impossible” shot INSTEAD of doing it the easy way. I know I have been.
Why the strawman? Did you not read my post?
And I’m not exactly sure why we’ve even gotten side tracked to all this high speed flash sync business. It’s totally unnecessary. If you have a camera that has a shutter speed of 1/250 or 1/500, it’d surely be easier just to add hot (continuous) lights rather than bothering with flash powder and all this synchronizing. For 100ISO film, you’d basicall need daylight levels of light for those shutter speeds at f/8-f/11.
I think that’s the part we are having trouble with. I believe conventional cameras back then had leaf shutters, not focal-plane shutters. Those usually don’t go down to 1/250.
It looks like an indoor stage. It takes a huge amount of artificial lighting equipment to achieve “daylight levels of light”. Normal stage lighting is at least 1 order of magnitude dimmer.
Also, did they have film back then that was as sensitive as 100 ISO?
I’m being generous for billfish’s sake. We were arguing about what was technically possible at the time. Apparently, 1/2000 second, according to the Muybridge shutter and his photos. This seems to be a specialty application. The most commonly available cameras at the time, as I have noted, have a top shutter speed at 1/100 second, so far as I can tell.
We’re not talking what is “normal” here. We’ve already gone into esoteric talk about syncing high speed shutters and the like. In my opinion, increasing the amount of stage lighting by one or two stops is an order of magnitude easier than trying to sync a fast shutter with magnesium flash powder.
I don’t know for sure. From my understanding, ASA ratings (we were still a long ways away from the ISO standard) didn’t even exist at the time (the American Standards Association, now ANSI, wasn’t founded until 1918.) Also from my understanding, the equivalent of 12 or 25 ASA would be more common at the time. But a two-stop push process of 25 ASA film would be a reasonable possibility. I have no idea what it would look like given the emulsions of the time.
The lighting isn’t consistent in the picture. Judging from the shadows the light is parallel and inline to the center/right rider. The front of his body is over-exposed and there is a reflection of light off to the right. The rider’s face behind him (far left) is not as illuminated as his front bike frame is. In order to create the shadow of the center/left rider the light would have to be on the same horizon (or slightly higher) as the rider which would fully illuminate the face of the far left rider.
It would be easy to get a stop action shot with flash powder but I would say this picture required some burning and dodging.
There probably was dodging and burning in the print (it’s a rare print that doesn’t require some amount of dodging and burning), but the the lighting is just multiple light sources. It’s almost certainly a set-up of some sort, just using regular stage lighting.
The flash durations for flash powder, as noted, would not have made it an easy “stop action” shot. Billfish is correct in saying that it would theoretically be possible in conjunction with a fast shutter speed. I don’t think this is what is going on, though, given the technical problems involved. edit: I should add that coremelt’s site about high speed strobe photography, which I initially disagreed with, is actually probably correct. (I though that flash powders had much shorter durations.) I can’t find any literature supporting flash durations of 1/250 second or faster until the development of the stroboscopic flash in 1923.
There is no need for flash in 1903. there was ample artificial light available at the time.
Shadows… Lighting… Wires… Sounds like a Moon hoax to me!
I think that the photo is actually a printed frame from a motion picture camera.
With enough light the scene could have easily been filmed.
Also, the position of the riders is misleading.
Their position makes you assume that they go round and round the track.
In fact they are only able to maintain traction on the track very briefly.
They continually crisscross across the open space and ride back up onto
the track. The rider on the ground is about to do just that.
The frame just happens to have captured a moment when four
of the riders are up on the track.
I hope this is clear.
So to sum it up.
This was done with a motion picture camera. Three actually.
This is not staged.
That’s my theory. : )
Does anyone who is familiar with the difference between orthochromatic film and panchromatic film think that this looks more like panchromatic? Which would have been rare at the time for an indoor photo shoot.
Based on this poster, it appears that there was a circus-like show (“The 7 Wild Wheel Whirl Wonders”) utilizing an identical track at the time this picture was taken (the LOC identifies the poster as c1902). I suspect the “promotional material” (or similar) theory is correct in ascribing motive for the picture.
I cant think why you would have 3 cameras set up to take the same scene indoors, at the same time, given whats being taken and the historical period.
Yes you could do one giant flash if all the cameras had long exposures and it was possible to get the flash duration low enough - but then you’d expect to have only one light source and there are clearly multiple light sources from multiple angles, some of which are almost certainly stage lights. Setting off multiple high speed flashes so close together that theres no position change seems a reach for a shot that seems pretty low in importance budgetwise, its not exactly the moonlanding. Given the lack of blur and the likely presence of constant light sources combined, the one giant flash/redundancy argument isnt really very likely.
Nor do I consider high shutter speed/high ISO as a likely explanation given its indoors and the time period and likely fstop, and if so, what was the compelling reason to use this to take 3 apparently close to simultaneous shots of the same scene from different angles?
I just cant see why it would be important to have similar body and bicycle positions with each photo angle, differences in positioning would be the expected norm if it was a real scene taken multiple times, and I cant see any compelling reason why you’d be trying to make them to look similar - it would take a fair bit of work to manage once you discard the 3 camera options.
Given this, a set diorama with 3 separate exposure shots seems the most likely explanation.
The only question for me is whether its wax dummies or people, given the apparently very similar positioning and lack of obvious reason to try and be similar, my guess is wax. On the other hand it would be pretty impressive work so you wouldn’t expect it to exist simply for a camera shot - maybe it was some kind of museum display of a circus scene or the like?
Otara
OK, but that makes no sense, because:
Without synchronising the shutters, there would not be three versions of the same moment in time - they would be noticeably adrift from each other (esp if the subjects were in rapid motion)
Where are all the other hundreds or thousands of frames from the footage? Why did only these three survive?
Why would you even want three different angles on the same moment in time?
(someone mentioned upthread) Why isn’t the camera that took the first linked picture visible in one of the other two shots? (it really should be, if it was there)
A motion picture camera doesnt magically have better ISO or faster shutter speed either.
They’re just camera’s taking multiple stills in a row, you’d have all the same issues and more that have been outlined for a still camera taking those pictures. If you could do a non-blurred shot with a movie camera, you could do it with stills more easily and again, why the heck would it be being done anyhow? There just isnt an obvious reason.
Otara
My photography experience is one short class in high school, so take this for what it’s worth.
Stage the scene in a light tight room.
Turn out the lights.
Open shutter(s)
Ignite flash
Close shutter(s)
Turn on the lights.
Shutter timing was irrelevent.
Doh! Nevermind. You’d only need flash photography to capture live action.
I agree for this picture. I’m not arguing that flash is being used. However, “there is no need for flash in 1903” is not exactly an accurate statement. There’s plenty of available light today, yet a great need for flash. At any rate, that’s derailing the thread, but note again that I am saying no flash was used in the OP’s picture. It’s a set-up with stage lighting. That’s it.
…Crash! The cyclists are all dead.