And, I disagree. I think it was a real life photograph from the time, real people, in action.
Do you think the three different pictures were taken at precisely the same moment, or do you think they’re just coincidentally similar in the positions of the performers? (I still don’t think the latter is an absolute impossibility, given that the nature of the act itself implies skill and precision on the part of the riders)
As a point of interest, that second picture seems to be of the cyclist nearest the camera in the OP’s original image, probably taken on the same occasion.
I think a waxwork can be ruled out by the fact that he’s in a different position (he’s not only riding hands-free, he’s pulled the handlebars off, too).
I don’t see any signs of the bike being attached to the track there, either.
I believe that this photo is real. Flash powder could’ve been used, although there’s no doubt it’s been cleaned up in the modern era. If you look at the photo closely, you can see that the riders are merely riding up the incline and then back down to the ground and then back up over and over. The incline is a bit steep but not impossible, I’ve done similar stuff on steep concrete banks on a bmx bike, so not impossible. If anything, this photo is a precursor to motorcylces in the ball of death or whatever they call it at the circus.
I have the definitive answer. There was a guy on Martha today (OK, I’ll tun in my “man” card) that collects photos of sports teams. He said it was common practice to stage photos because of the long exposure times. An example is hanging a baseball on a string and having a player pretend to catch it. He showed another “action” photo of a person sliding into 2nd base where the actors were just holding their positions.
So a person doing this sort of photograph would be well acquainted with staging action scenes.
Pretty nebulous to be used as “the definitive answer.”
a guy
collects photos of sports teams
“says it was common practice to stage photos…”
What period of time are his photos?
Pre WWI
ETA: Doubt Martha at your own risk.
While I am siding with the “staged” crowd, I agree with samclem that the information from Martha hardly qualifies as a “definitive answer” for this picture and its set of circumstances.
I saw a couple of similar photos in a magazine last year (an article about early sports photography) in they showed an image of a famous (at the time) cyclist ‘in action’. At a cursory glance it seemed as though he was racing, bent almost double over the handlebars as he glanced over his shoulder at the pack chasing him.
But the article explained, and directed the reader, to look closely at the wheels, where you could just make out the slender bracing wires. The article said that it was common practice to stage photos like this.
It was a hard-copy magazine and last year sometime, but i’ll see if i can google-fu my way to the photo.
May your flowers wilt and your decoupage have bubbles.
But in all seriousness, it’s like people claiming things like crop circles being done by aliens. Once it’s shown that it is possible for a person to do them the claim that aliens did it becomes extremely unlikely. Here we had a person who collects old sports photos say that it was common to stage “action” scenes and he showed an example of someone sliding into home. Now that we know this, it becomes less likely that someone went to the great effort of synchronizing multiple cameras and flash powder to photograph something that could be done more easily with support wires.
It’s nowhere near the improbability of aliens making crop circles, though. I really don’t think there’s any chance whatsoever of it involving high speed flash sync and multiple cameras. I’m willing to bet my life savings on that. Like I said before, that may not be technically impossible for the time, but very, very highly improbable.
Now, a somewhat faster shutter speed (1/250 second or so) and decent amount of stage lighting, and it becomes well within the reason that this photo did not have to be staged. Or, heck, even 1/100 second was possible if all four riders were able to slow down to near stall speeds at the same time. Mind you, I believe it was staged (especially given the alternate angles of the photograph, and given my guesses of the aperture, film speeds, and lighting amounts involved at the time), but I could not definitively say so. If I had to put numbers on it, I’d say 85% probability staged, 14.99% fast shutter speed and ample lighting, .01% some ingenious rig involving flash powder w/ high speed sync (and possibly multiple cameras.)
puly, I don’t think your first paragraph says what you meant for it to say.
OK, I’ve had multiple beers tonight, given a cousin’s birthday party that I was hosting, so I may be slightly slow, but you’re going to have to help me out. The point of the first paragraph is that the talk of this being a “real” in-motion camera is hardly on the improbability level of aliens and crop circles. The high-speed flash sync explanation may be a little out there (although even that is not on the level of aliens and crop circles), but not the more mundane highly stage-lit, moderate shutter speed (~1/250 sec) explanation.
ETA: I think I see how you’re reading it. The logic is supposed to be: a) It’s not as ridiculous as aliens and crop circles because b) Even though I agree with you and believe it has nothing to do with high-speed shutters, high-speed sync, and ample amounts of flash powder, I do think that c) A moderately fast shutter speed combined with ample stage lighting just might make a live-action shot a reasonable, if not best-bet, probability.
The thing is, it can’t be a moderate shutter speed, or the spokes wouldn’t be frozen. Here is a photograph of cyclists taken at a shutter speed of 1/250s. Plenty of motion blur in the spokes, particularly near the rim. Even if we grant that these cyclists are in all probability traveling significantly faster than those in the shot from the OP, it’s difficult to believe that we have a shutter any longer than 1/500 if the cyclists are riding.
Moreover, and I’m surprised no one’s commented on this yet, the photograph exhibits a very wide depth of field. This would have been taken with a rather large film format to get as much detail as we see on film from that era - we’re talking about a largish view camera, I’d expect - and larger formats inherently exhibit less depth of field (which is why you can throw backgrounds out of focus so much more easily with a dslr than a p&s). If that’s anything less than f16 I’ll eat my hat. Given that the film shot is likely ISO25 or 50 at fastest, f16 and 1/500s takes a ridiculous amount of light. Specifically, it requires three to four full stops of light beyond direct sunlight - the “sunny 16” rule is that at f16, correct exposure requires a shutter speed equal to your ISO, so 1/30, making 1/60 > 1/125 > 1/250 > 1/500 four stops, or sixteen times the lumens you get in direct sunlight. Good luck getting that out of arc lights.
I vote staged.
I’m being generous to err on the side of caution. Also, I really can’t tell given the resolution of the photo. But, yes, I think you are correct, although 1/250 might be just enough to freeze the spokes, depending on the speed of the cyclists.
I could have sworn I wrote about depth of field, but apparently, I edited it out of my post. My personal guess would be f/8-f/11 at minimum. I think it’s just barely on the cusp of what is possible with artificial lighting, but, once again, I want to err on the side of being generous in what was possible at the time. (Maybe they’re pushing the film one or two stops, who the hell knows. I really doubt it, but I want to give every benefit of a doubt to what might be possible.) Still, my feeling is it’s not practically probable.
Basically, I don’t want to say that it’s impossible for this to be an unstaged photograph. It’s just very unlikely.
I dunno, assuming a 4x5 view camera with a 150mm lens and a subject distance of 25’, I get 19-35’ as the depth of field at f8. I think we’re seeing significantly more than that. And it only gets worse if it’s an 8x10.
But why, if it were possible to stage the photo, and if it were common to do so at the time, would you bother with all that expense and rigmarole? When you hear hoof beats look for horses, not zebras.
I’m confused. With a given lens and a given aperture, doesn’ t the f stop stay the same when you go to a larger format? It just results in a wider angle.