For a given exposure and a given field of vision, moving to a larger format results in a narrower depth of field. It’s complicated, but the short version is that it’s due to the longer focal length you’ll use to maintain the same angle of vision. This is why tiny-sensored pocket cams can take macro shots with reasonable depth of field, and why you need at least a full 35mm format to get that extreme shallow field portrait effect where the eyes are in focus but the nose is blurry.
What this means is that for a given field of vision and a given depth of field, if you move to a larger format you’ll have to use a narrower aperture (bigger f-number) and hence a longer shutter speed (or more light, or higher ISO). So, the larger the camera this photo was taken with, the more difficult the lighting situation is.
You said you would stake your life savings on the photo being staged. While I agree that it probably was, I wouldn’t stake my life savings on it, nor, I think, would you.
While IMO it is staged, just because its easier that way, I’d stake my life on being ABLE to take that photo “for real” without an absurd amount of time, effort, cost or ingenuity.
No, what I said is I would bet my life savings it was not taken with “high speed flash sync and multiple cameras.” Completely sober, I would still be willing to stake everything I have on this (of course, this is easy to say over the internet. Then again, for all you know, I may have no life savings.) I would not bet the same on just the general idea of it not being staged. As I said in my post, I’d guess at about a 15% chance of it simply being a real in-motion photo. Maybe even 25%. That’s not a sure bet at all. The other one, in my considered opinion, is.
I think you could do it using 1902 technology, but I would need to know one thing: Is flash powder pretty instantaneous? If it is, meaning you can send an electrical impulse down a wire to multiple flashes (this photo has more than one flash, which need to by synched to each other) this makes things a lot easier. You just need to set off the flashes just before your high-speed shutter and you should be fine. If it’s not, then you’re running into a lot of difficulty synching multiple flashes and a shutter together.
You probably wouldn’t (which is the point I’m arguing.) It doesn’t make that interview with on Martha “definitive,” though. I don’t think anyone here doubts that action photos were staged in the early days of photography. The question is, was this particular photo staged? The photographer on Martha doesn’t definitively prove anything other that which we already know: photographers sometimes stage photographs.
Again, if the flash duration is longer than the shutter speed, your synch only needs to be as about as good as your flash duration, not your shutter speed, which is likely for the technology of the time if they were attempting a photo like this.
You can also run more than one camera with slightly different offset times so that there is a good chance at least one of the cameras is exposing during the best flash time. If I can come up with a way to get 1/1000 of a second shutter speed, I am pretty sure I can space out the different camera timings to values greater than that with relative ease.
My guess is that you could get flash flash powder durations on the order of a 1/10of a second. You don’t think you could rig some up mechanical system in 1900 to synch a camera shutter and a spark producer to set off the powder on the order of a 1/10 a second? I think both coud be done significantly better than that even, but 1/10 a second flash duration for a high speed exposure doesnt IMO waste so much light the picture becomes absurdly difficult.
As I point out - the bicycles and riders are in the exact same pose - pedal position and everything, except for the guy in the middle who moves several feet; yet between one of the photos and the others, the spotlight on the lower right has gone out.
You can see the rounded shape of the stage spotlights. This is not flash technology, powder or other. the shadows are too hazy and well filled and the lighting is from too many directions. A flash is almost too bright head-on and deep shadows behind the subjects.
The 3 bikes on the track must be rigged with wires and braces.
Depends on the working definition of “relative ease,” but I’ll agree it’s possible.
Sounds about right.
This I don’t know. This question also interests me from a historical perspective, as, from my understanding, flash photography at that time was all “open flash,” meaning the sequence of events was open shutter, set off flash, close shutter, and had to be taken in relatively low light conditions so the ambient exposure doesn’t have a chance to affect the total exposure. As far as I could find, the first camera to have flash synchronization is the Exakta from 1935, and flash synchronization doesn’t seem to have really been developed until the late 1930s.
Now, this doesn’t mean with some mechanical ingenuity you might not be able to synch flash in 1902, but I really can’t find any reference to anyone doing it in this time period. I’ve found references for faster shutter speeds than usual (the usual of the period peaking at 1/100), but I can’t find any literature supporting any kind of flash synchronization at the time. I genuinely am curious if anybody was doing it, and if someone was, why did it take nearly 40 years to become mainstream?
I think these guys could be going a LOT slower than we imagine. If they are only moving at something like walking speed then the lack of blur on the riders and spokes becomes much easier to do.
I do agree about the staging. However, your statements about flash are incorrect. Once again, I don’t think there’s any chance there is flash being used in this picture, but shadows being “too hazy” doesn’t play into it. You can create all qualities of light with flash, from distinct sharp shadows to soft, fuzzy shadows to virtually no shadows. And there’s no reason for the flash to be head-on (and the lighting obviously isn’t head on in the picture.) You can recreate this photo today, with the exact same quality of light, using strobed light sources. And you probably would use strobes for this type of picture.
But I feel this thread has wildly derailed into this unimportant side discussion.
Well, I’m no photography expert, as everyone else seems to be here, but I’m throwing my hat in the “not-staged” ring.
Why? None of you have taken into account the psychology of the producer. While I don’t know B.F. Keith personally, no theatrical producer worth his salt would allow a staged or fake photo of one of his acts to be shot. Why, if word leaked out that one of Keith’s acts wasn’t real, he’d be finished.
Also, it’s taken on a stage probably right before or after a show. No vaudeville producer could afford to rent a stage for a day to set up all the lighting and scenery, not to mention altering the rig and the cycles just for a publicity shoot. He probably hired the photographer and had the shot done right after a performance.
As far as motion blur, you all seem to be under the impression these guys are riding like Lance Armstrong. The picture is taken with three of the riders at the top of their arc – when they’re riding their slowest.
Occam’s razor, folks. Option 1 - a publicity photo taken after a performance by a good photographer who knows how to use his tools.
Option 2 - altering the bikes and the ramp so that the (very valuable) performers can balance precariously while the photographer sets up a ton of flash powder.
Um, option 2 does not involve any flash powder. Stage lights are more than enough. Set up the camera on a tripod, take a light reading, make your exposure.
My Occam’s razor says Option 2 is more likely, especially given the multiple angles of the set-up we saw in the OP.
yeah, the arguemnt is going in circles, but the cyclists aren’t.
To get a fuzzy effect from a flash - or multiple flashes - you need diffusers or reflectors. Not likely in front/behind a trough of flamable smoke-making powder. I suspect they used minimal equipment. The spotlight patterns are very visible; the spots are therefore almost or more bright than any possible flash, since the flash does not drown them out. If so, why use a flash?
it’s a bunch of vaudville performers, not a major photography demonstration. I doubt the technology got as complex and a huge collection of multiple flash trays and diffusers.
Otopn 2 is more likely.
They were not likely the only or sometimes even the main performance; probably the track was set up and taken down in 10 or 15 minutes between other acts. So - they could probably easily do this one morning when the stage was empty.
Clamping some bikes is not diffcult with wire and some small braces. This is the stage, I’m sure the stagehands know what they were doing. Even early movies used wires to do special effects. Some cheezy ones you can see the wires, but the well-done ones the plain black wires are thin enough not to be obvious in a well-lit situation. The alterations were probably minimal. As someone else points out, the wheels are positioned over the metal track brace where it would be easy to clamp them or wire them.
In the “good old days” the requirement for integrity was nowhere near what it was today. (Remember the “sea monkey” comic ads?) A publicity shot could be somewhat exaggerated.
I still repeat - pics taken several seconds or more apart, the guy in the middle has moved substantially while straddling his bicycle frame and standing on the ground, a light has turned of or blown - yet the other riders are in the EXACT same position in each shot, even to the pedal position, bike location, and head pose.
Like I said, I don’t think the photograph is dishonest. Look at it this way: Suppose this had been 20 or 30 or 50 years earlier, when the photographic technology absolutely wasn’t anywhere near up to the task. What would Mr. Keith have done? He’d have hired an artist to draw a picture of the act. And as long as the drawing didn’t look too different from the real thing, nobody would have a problem with that, even though a drawing is more “faked” than a staged photograph.
After reconsidering, I’m in the “Real Act, Staged Photo” camp. Way too much working building this track (and the similar but bigger track in the other photo) and so forth to do for just a picture. I’ll believe the track is strong enough, especially as it would be screwed/bolted to the stage somehow. And given the crazy impressive feats circus performers can do, I have no problem believing people could ride this track (with practice).
But, I find it very hard to believe this photo was taken with three flashes, especially as if I was settting it up, I’d get better coverage. So it’s either amazingly high-speed film for the era, or the guys were basically motionless.
The thing is, a good bicycle rider can not only ride very slowly, but even balance at a standstill; it’s called a trackstand. The thing is, to do so you need to have your front wheel turned sharply to one side, and these guys have their wheels pointed perfectly straight. If they’re still or riding at less than walking speed, they’re falling over. In fact, I still think the front wheels are too straight to be riding on a curved track like that.
I see no reason not to slightly stage a photo to publicize your real act.