I agree a ton of light is possible, and if timed with a good shutter speed means its theoretically possible to do this shot using lots of flash powder based devices from different angles and a high shutter speed, given Ive found examples of high shutter speed shots from this time period.
I find it highly unlikely this it what has happened though, given it either involves multiple light sources doing these flashes at the same time given the targets are moving and unblurred, with multiple cameras all being timed together to boot, or 3 separate shots that reproduced almost exactly the same scene.
I just cant think of a reason why such a technically complex method would be used for what seems to be a pretty run of the mill subject (sorry, couldnt resist). Bracing just seems like a much simple way to get the same result.
I just disagree with the folks that say it must be “stagged” because it was beyond the abilities of the time.
It might not have been trivial, but come on folks, its not like it would have been the Apollo program of the day to do it either. IMO a smart, determined (stubborn) photographer of the day with a bit more cash than sense could have done a “real” version of this photo.
And again, some photogs go to great lengths to get a “real” shot rather than a “fake/cheating” shot.
I don’t think anyone said it was absolutely impossible. I think the relevant question is, was it more difficult than staging the scene? Especially considering the good picture quality (even lighting and sharpness) required for what is presumably a publicity or advertising photo.
Some folks have said you couldnt get enough light. Folks have said you couldnt get fast enough shutter speeds. Of course they didnt use the words absolutely impossible, but I think their bent is clear. I’ll let you figure out who these people are or aren’t. And, of course, on the flip side of that observation, also note I havent invoked the total resources of nation state to prove its doable either.
“And again, some photogs go to great lengths to get a “real” shot rather than a “fake/cheating” shot.”
If it was just the first shot Id agree and be more open to it as a possible fanatical photographer, although still be dubious given Occams razor.
Given the other two prints as well though, it just doesnt seem like that kind of photographer.
I just cant see how it makes it more ‘real’ to try and do 3 shots at once, or how it would really add to redundancy. The first shot is so clearly superior in artistic/commercial value you have to wonder what the point of the other two shots as ‘backups’ were if that was the intention for instance.
They just come across more to me as someone taking 3 shots of a static setting from different angles.
If you spent a buttload of cash for flashpowder to illuminate the scene for one brief moment, wouldn’t YOU have more than one camera set up for “just in case” and to capture other angles at the SAME time?
Hell, I’d have as many cameras I could get my hands on for the shot. It doesnt really cost much to use a camera. And I’ve done that sort of thing before.
So why position the other two cameras so badly then?
If redundancy is the aim you’d want each camera to be positioned to have as good a chance as possible to create a good shot. I wouldnt say thats what you have with the examples given.
I also havent seen anything to say that flash powder was gold dust back then anyhow. Compared to the cost of the entire setup this would entail, I suspect it would be actually pretty minor.
Ive done some googling on electrically fired flash powder.
The first commercial one seems to be the Nesbit high speed flash apparatus. It worked by triggering the camera when the light was brightest It doesnt refer to multiple flash triggering at once or the use of multiple cameras at once though but it does take care of the for the best possible light output with flash powder.
Only problem is it doesnt seem to have been available in 1903, the earliest reference is 1910, but maybe it had been being made for 10 years by then, its not clear when the very first one came out. The same problems with why you’d position one camera well and two badly remain though, but I guess its not a game killer in itself.
Still its not a long way off, maybe we have an unacknowledged photography pioneer going on here.
Short of a camera history expert who can give details of particular actual devices that could do this, I have to say its looking closer than Id have thought, but would still go with diorama a more plausible pending evidence of the actual technology being available and in use.
Sorry to not have the time to re-read the whole thread.
If you go search for photos in the Byron Collection in the Museum of New York, you can get more images of almost anything you want from the period. I used “circus” as my search term, and found two more photos that might illustrate why this is a real photograph of real persons performing, from the period, not staged, the riders are in motion, who cares just how they lit the subject?, and (I forgot what I was gonna say…) :smack:
I would have said real, I think that it would be very difficult to brace these bikes effectively, but this last point is very good.
It looks like there might be a band across the rim of the rearmost bike. Banding the wheels to the track and tensioning the bikes with a cable would do the trick, assuming the photo could be effectively touched up to hide the cables.
Note that in the third photo the foreground cyclist is standing, not mounted on his bike, while the others seem to be in the exact same positions. His bike is on the floor, in the other pictures I think he has just mounted the bike and moving slowly for the photo.
Otherwise, if this is a real act; I would think it would be much easier to just perform rather than go through all the work to stage this. Mounting the bikes so these guys could sit on them motionless would be no simplistic task. The only reason to do so would be if it was truly beyond the photographic tech of the time to take an action shot.
The only mystery here is why the people in the three different photos are posed so similarly.
I’m certain we have more than adequately established that a brief enough exposure could be made to capture the action so sharply frozen.
And I don’t think the angle of the bikes vs the track is unrealistic - the 1g downward vector force is always entirely present - they would need to be at leaning over at 45 degrees only if they were moving fast enough to generate a centrifugal force equivalent to 1g.
They were not using flashes, they are using regular stage lighting. You can see the oval patterns of the stage lights, especially on the left in the Wiki shot. The right spotlight seems to have gone out for one of the other pictures, leaving the lower right under the track in darkness.
So they were using the regular stage lighting. Hence, that is bright but nowehre near sunlight quality, so shutter speeds of 1/1000 are very unlikely.
The fact that the guy on the ground (free bike) has moved a few feet betwen pics, but the others are in the same location and pose even down to the pedal positions, means the bikes are fixed; braced and wired is the logical inference. Obviously, they picked the angles to hide the braces - although the other 2 photos really don’t have enough detail to know for sure. Maybe the originals are better.
I still say they posed the pictures as a publicity shot for a real act because the cameras of the day could not take a usable “live” picture indoors.
Regardless of staged or not, I just spent some time reading about B.F. Keith and learned that he was quite the forward thinking theater owner. He ‘cleaned up’ vaudeville and introduced Lumière Cinématographe to US audiences in 1896. For those old movie buffs, he is the ‘K’ in ‘RKO’.
Doubtless, these are pictures of a real act of his - must have been something to see four riders on a track that small - live and on stage.
Its only the first shot that makes me wonder techncailly, the other two are far enough off it could just be natural light and a bit of blur. But even that by itself Id be willing to consider it a natural shot as a possibility.
The other examples given with other people are similarly far off to the second two, rather than being similar to the first though, so not really much help.
I agree the real puzzle is the 3 different angled shots of apparently the same scene, and they are the main reason I tend towards bracing/diorama, because I cant think of alternatives that seem likely.
I don’t doubt that there was no intent to deceive: The photographer was trying to produce an accurate representation of what someone in the audience of this show really would see. I just think it quite plausible that that accurate representation was produced by a process other than directly photographing the act itself.
