You don’t NEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDD fancy high speed sync if you can live with wasting a good bit of the flash you paid good money for because the duration of the flash was 1/10 of a second but the camera exposure was between 1/100 and a 1/1000of a second.
You need relatively short duration flash AND relatively fast shutters AND good synch between the two if you want the cost of using your flash to be relatively cheap and convienient to use. Those FIVE things had to reach a certain level ALL together before it all made sense so to speak. THATS what took 40 years.
If its a one off shot, rather than run of the mill uses, you can afford to waste a good bit of your light and dont need ALL of those.
Would you agree that some evidence of this expensive one off setup existing at that time is a reasonable requirement before seriously considering it though?
Ie Jim Dupkiss did early work on near simultaneous camera flash exposures using multiple flash discharges of moving objects in 1902 or the like?
As in this seems to be more around whats theoretically possible using modern day thinking and 1900’s day technology, rather than what can be supported as an actual method used during that time period, which isnt much use for the original question.
An observation. The second and third photos were definitely taken at different times.
Notice there is an object, perhaps a length of rope, on the stage floor to the left(stage right)of the velodrome. It is in different positions in each photo.
Funny, it almost seems placed, as if to provide a clue to observers.
Not sure if this even has any significance re the issue of live or staged.
Its not like I am saying “hey, transitors could have been thought of 20 years earlier, so lets assume they were cause if we coulda thought of it, they coulda thought of it earlier”.
People back then weren’t stupid. Faster than normal shutters for them doesnt require some paradigm shift in the thinking process. (channeling Tool Time’s Tim Taylor) MORE LIGHT only requires using more flash powder. Syncing the two is IMO no more difficult than the shutter problem (for that matter, I came up with a method to do it after just a few minutes of thinking about it). Using multiple cameras “just in case” is not exactly high falutin thinking either. Having the riders go as slow as possible is just common sense for a photographer.
For that matter, all this stuff would have to have been done with simple mechanical and electrical and chemical methods. I’d wager most folks doing cutting edge stuff back then had a WAY better feel for that sort of stuff than most spoiled modern folks today. IMO thats the biggest problem folks here have, they want to use modern methods to take the pic because its the only way they are familiar with, then point out those folks back didnt have it. They didnt need it.
I’ll say this for the umpteenth time. Its most likely staged because it sure would have been easier and cheaper. But maybe this photographer WANTED to do it “for real”.
I just have problems with folks at the beginning of this converstation stating it MUST be staged because it was way beyond their capability at the time, which IMO it isnt.
Now, it is possible that somebody could figure out that this pic was taken at F20, the light sources were 100 feet away, the film ISO was 10, the motion blur was on the order of 1 millimeter, it was an 8 by 10 camera, and the shutter speed was amazingly fast. If all these were true, it would have probably required an absurd amount of flash powder (or number of stage lights). But again, IMO make the shutter speeds moderate, the peddlers slow but moving, the f ratio more moderate, the lighting distances reasonable, some blur but not excessive, and the ISO fast but doable for the time and I think you’d be dealing with mere pounds of flash powder for a shot like this, not tons.
Zheesh, I KNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW you don’t need fancy high speed sync. I’m just talking about any mechanical sync between the shutter and flash. That’s what I can’t find any evidence for until the mid-to-late 30s. And I’m not saying it definitely didn’t exist, I just don’t know about any work being done in synching shutters and flashes this early, and I really have genuine interest if the technique you’re proposing actually was being used by any photographers at the time.
Listen, this is where we disagree: I think it’s trickier, but not impossible, to sync old fashioned magnesium flash powders to a camera shutter than you do. Yes, to that 1/10 second. And even more if we add the complicating factor of multiple flashes. I think it would involve a lot of trial and error and film to get it just right using the technology of 1902. There’s no way we will know unless we try it, so let’s just drop it.
If I use a mechanical system (tied to the shutter) that closes an electrical circuit that creates a spark that sets off one flash, whats the big deal with parallel circuits that set off multiple flashes? Seriously, this is like saying you can’t rig up a circuit to where when you flip a switch more than one light comes one. I think that problem was solved shortly after electricity was invented.
Sigh. I’ve already discussed this point. You even quoted me on it.
If magnesium flash powder is instantaneous or at least predictable, than syncing various flashes is elementary–like you said and I said above, all it would take is sending one electrical impulse down the line. I don’t know whether this is the case.
“Its not like I am saying “hey, transitors could have been thought of 20 years earlier, so lets assume they were cause if we coulda thought of it, they coulda thought of it earlier”.”
I realise you think thats not what you’re doing, but I think in practise that is what you’re doing. At the end of the day the only proof something can be easily done is proof of when it was first done.
Absent that, this just goes round and round in circles.
The lighting is changed. The guy in the middle walked his bike several feet; yet the 3 bikes on the track are in the EXACT same position even to the pedal positions, in all 3 shots.
I keep seeing this, but no one has questioned it, so I will. Let’s assume that you’re right that in the actual performance, the front wheels need to be turned. Let’s assume that the photo is staged, with the riders braced and still. Why would they then have their wheels in an “unnatural” position? I mean, presumably the act itself is real, and these are the real performers, and the photo is meant to represent the real act. So if it’s true that the front wheels need to be turned when the riders are actually riding, why would they hold them so straight for the staged photo? Surely the performers, sitting there on their braced bikes, would naturally try to put themselves and their bikes into the position that would be correct for actual riding, no?
Personally, after reading this whole thread, I think there just isn’t enough evidence to make a definitive conclusion. I think it’s been established reasonably well that the photo could be of the riders in motion, or it equally could be of the riders still and braced. All of the “evidence” put forth to establish that they couldn’t be in motion just doesn’t hold water.
They are supposedly expert performers, so it’s perfectly reasonable that they could have the ability to be stable at extremely low speeds, so there goes the motion blur argument. It also seems reasonable that at such low speeds, having the front wheel straight would not be a problem. The lighting question, despite the extraneous trips into flash-land, have been adequately addressed, I think.
People here have tried and tried to figure out how it could be possible to get that photo with them in motion, and no one’s been able to come up with anything plausible.
But the bikes and riders are leaning in that photo, so they couldn’t be holding that position for any significant amount of time. Even at the lowest plausible speeds, there would still be blur with 100-years-ago camera and flash technology.
I think the weight of the evidence so far is good enough to reach a tentative conclusion of “staged,” of course subject to change with new information.
It doesnt NEED to be instantaneous. Hell, it could take 10 seconds after a spark before it actually flashed and you could correct for it. Not that it does.
All it needs to be is reasonably predictable. Why would you think it WASNT reasonably predictable? The stuff is highly flammable, nearly explosive for that matter. Everytime I’ve put a match or spark to something like that it went WOOMMP within a wink of the eye.
Oh, I ran across some flash powder info on the net a few days ago. I can’t refind the online cite, but the basic gist was good flash powder was nearly perfected in the late 1800’s. For typical setups for the day about a gram of the stuff would do, like I suspected. A couple of pounds is a thousand times that amount. Off the top of my head and the back of my envelope, making middle of the road assumptions about films speeds, flash distances, F stops, shutter and flash speeds, a thousand times the amount as compared to a “normal shot” is enough to do it.
Make worst case assumptions about all of the above and it would start taking hundreds of pounds of the stuff. Make “friendlier” assumptions and it would take even less.
Again, IMO it was reasonably doable back then. But, given the whole “picture”, it was more likely staged.
Well look, here’s some actual technical knowledge of bicycling we can bring to bear. It is fairly easy to balance a fixed-gear bike at low speeds, even balance almost completely stopped, if your front wheel is at a moderately sharp angle (Track_stand). It’s just about impossible with the wheel straight (basic physics-- once there’s any tiny lean to one side, there’s no way to apply any torque to the ground to correct it).
It’s a valid point, but not a very weighty one, in my opinion. Remember, this is (presumably) an advertising/publicity shot. They weren’t trying to make the best possible undetectable forgery of a real action shot, just trying to show people what the act was like – if you think they’d have been committed to strict accuracy, then explain why people who make movie posters today don’t have the same commitment.
We could certainly imagine a valid reason for keeping the front wheel straight: the brace might be harder to put on if the wheel isn’t straight, or it’s easier to adjust the support wire with the wheel straight or something. And since I don’t think they’d have cared deeply about whether the shot was perfectly accurate, even a tiny reason for them wanting to have the wheel straight is enough.
I think nobody is saying it’s absolutely impossible that this couldn’t have been created by some unknown mad genius of photography who created multiple flash technology 30 to 50 years ahead of his time, used it for only these three pictures at great expense, and then disappeared taking all knowledge of the technology with him. We’re just saying it’s less likely than someone taking these pictures using commonly accepted photo-staging techniques of the time.
"They are supposedly expert performers, so it’s perfectly reasonable that they could have the ability to be stable at extremely low speeds, so there goes the motion blur argument. "
Three photos makes this unlikely, people keep talking as if there was only one. In my view the blurring is a bit of a red herring and the multiple shots of a very similar scene are the major issue. It just doesnt make sense to do 3 shots with 3 cameras for the scene in question, flash was the only possible reason why it might be worth doing, and so far thats failed the cite test.
For people arguing movement of the subjects between shots, I think you’re possibly having optical/perspective issues, I cant see any obvious movement given the different perspectives used, you can match the person vs the opposing rider and it looks pretty similar each time. It should be possible given staging as an argument, and the front person would be the obvious person to move in order to prevent overlapping with different angles, but I cant see it myself.
The guy standing in the center with his bike moves between the shots. Several feet! It’s quite obvious, even his arm is moved.
The others are in the exact same position, even their pedals, let alone the exact location of the bikes on the track. As others have pointed out, the bikes are leaning, but are still too upright that they would likely slide down the track if not tied down.
My conclusion - the photos were taken with stage lighting (see the oval spotlight patterns) a few seconds apart by different cameras - one on the balcony/box overlooking, another two almost at mezzanine/orchestra level. Everyone got mounted, held their pose, and a photo was taken. The middle guy guy moved a bit, the right light goes out, and more photos were taken. The others posed on their wired bikes as if in the middle of their action.
The act is obviously high-speed hijinks on a circular tiny track, just as these guys are doing. Whether they played tricks - passing, up and down around each other - who knows?
As I said and you try to address below, they just weren’t moving fast enough for motion blur to be a factor.
What is a “significant” amount of time? I think it’s been well established that the lighting was almost certainly done with fixed lights, not any sort of flash. So then the amount of time that they needed to hold their positions in order for a picture to be taken would be on the order of seconds.
I think the weight of the evidence so far is not enough to reach a conclusion either way.