How many megapixels does that have?
May 27, 2017 7:38 AM Subscribe
Photographer Joshua Paul shoots F1 auto races using a 1913 Graflex 4x5 film camera and the results are quite spectacular.
These are gorgeous. The technical capabilities of digital SLRs are so advanced, that their output can be (in the right hands) 'flawless.' And therein lies an issue for me, when one flawless shot looks pretty much like any other flawless shot. These film shots are for me much more evocative.
posted by carter at 8:15 AM on May 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by carter at 8:15 AM on May 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
How many megapixels does that have?
Well over 50.
posted by sammyo at 8:31 AM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Well over 50.
posted by sammyo at 8:31 AM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
i don't know anything about cars or cameras but oh jeez these are pretty
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:41 AM on May 27, 2017
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:41 AM on May 27, 2017
Huh, "grid girls." Yeesh.
posted by gorbichov at 9:26 AM on May 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by gorbichov at 9:26 AM on May 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
The comments after the article are even dumber than PetaPixel's usually are: "Hurr Durr, I could have done that in Photoshop" or "He could have gotten sharper shots with a new camera".
posted by octothorpe at 9:52 AM on May 27, 2017
posted by octothorpe at 9:52 AM on May 27, 2017
I love f1 from the legacy to last weeks race and plan my weekend mornings around watching. I love seeing old race photos etc and i do find myself a bit bored by race photos now. This is just glorious. Thanks a lot for this post.
posted by chasles at 9:59 AM on May 27, 2017
posted by chasles at 9:59 AM on May 27, 2017
I was going to say that the stark portraits remind me of the 1930s, then realized how much of my impression of the emotional pallette of that era is influenced by then-current photographic techniques.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:59 AM on May 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 9:59 AM on May 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
That's not a view camera; it's a reflex camera. It a 1913 SLR.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 10:06 AM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by 1970s Antihero at 10:06 AM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
You're correct, it's something similar to this camera. I'm actually taking a view camera class this summer and there's a Calumet 4x5 set up about three feet from me as I type this.
posted by octothorpe at 10:11 AM on May 27, 2017
posted by octothorpe at 10:11 AM on May 27, 2017
Photography nerds are some of the best nerds.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:49 AM on May 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by blue_beetle at 10:49 AM on May 27, 2017 [5 favorites]
The photo of him standing in a thicket of telephoto lenses with the Graflex is priceless.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:58 AM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:58 AM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
So do you suppose Kimi was mumblng as he looked in that hulk of a camera... "Oh, ya pretty cool, hmm, you know, different..."
I kid simply because it's nice to have F1 be actually fun and entertaining again, and I don't feel like some gentle mocking is gonna make the whole thing collapse. These photos feel like the visual representation of the sigh of relief the collective fans of the sport have let loose this year. Well, as long as you're not a McLaren/Honda fan, that is...
posted by 1f2frfbf at 11:55 AM on May 27, 2017
I kid simply because it's nice to have F1 be actually fun and entertaining again, and I don't feel like some gentle mocking is gonna make the whole thing collapse. These photos feel like the visual representation of the sigh of relief the collective fans of the sport have let loose this year. Well, as long as you're not a McLaren/Honda fan, that is...
posted by 1f2frfbf at 11:55 AM on May 27, 2017
My total knowledge of F1 racing comes from obsessively watching the James Garner movie from the 60s so I have no idea who Kimi Raikkonen, I just liked the photography.
posted by octothorpe at 12:06 PM on May 27, 2017
posted by octothorpe at 12:06 PM on May 27, 2017
I don't give a hoot about F1, but those photos are lush.
posted by ZipRibbons at 12:08 PM on May 27, 2017
posted by ZipRibbons at 12:08 PM on May 27, 2017
I love analyzing the technical specifics. I wonder how much of the style is "straight" or if he is doing post digitally. The look has the tell-tale of a film scan. However, there are some other qualities that contribute to the aesthetic:
- Vignetting
- Prominent grain
- Low contrast
- Low key
- "bloom" in the highlights.
Some of that (contrast and vignetting) could come from using a period lens, but the vignetting is not symmetrical. It also doesn't explain the grain. Then, it occurred to me that the photographer probably has to crop heavily. This was normal practice when newspaper photographers shot 4x5 regularly. Another possibility that would great the grain and the contrast would be deliberately overexposing the film: this would places the tones far up on the shoulder of the film where the contrast curve is a lot shallower and overexposure tends to make grain more prominent. The overexposure can also give a bit of the bloom (though there are other things that create that effect).
From a shooting side, it must be challenging to get shots. First, since it is a reflex camera, you see things swapped left to right. Second, any lens in use is going to be very "slow", that is having a small aperture relative to its focal length. This means that you'd have to shoot at fairly slow shutter speeds. The slow shutter speed gives rise to motion blur.
The technicalities directly contribute to the aesthetic. Stuff like this is why I love film. You aren't seeing what the photographer sees through the lens, but you are seeing something that they meant you to see.
posted by scamander at 12:48 PM on May 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
- Vignetting
- Prominent grain
- Low contrast
- Low key
- "bloom" in the highlights.
Some of that (contrast and vignetting) could come from using a period lens, but the vignetting is not symmetrical. It also doesn't explain the grain. Then, it occurred to me that the photographer probably has to crop heavily. This was normal practice when newspaper photographers shot 4x5 regularly. Another possibility that would great the grain and the contrast would be deliberately overexposing the film: this would places the tones far up on the shoulder of the film where the contrast curve is a lot shallower and overexposure tends to make grain more prominent. The overexposure can also give a bit of the bloom (though there are other things that create that effect).
From a shooting side, it must be challenging to get shots. First, since it is a reflex camera, you see things swapped left to right. Second, any lens in use is going to be very "slow", that is having a small aperture relative to its focal length. This means that you'd have to shoot at fairly slow shutter speeds. The slow shutter speed gives rise to motion blur.
The technicalities directly contribute to the aesthetic. Stuff like this is why I love film. You aren't seeing what the photographer sees through the lens, but you are seeing something that they meant you to see.
posted by scamander at 12:48 PM on May 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
More lomography than F/64.
The images seems to be pandering to the expectation that an old camera should produce images that are impaired. Without a guiding esthetic that places high value on such things, all of the characteristics that scamander lists are defects.
This Graflex, with a focal plane shutter, is capable of using fast lenses (since the shutter need not be incorporated into the lens), and an experienced user of a 4x5 camera would not use a reflex setup for press or sports work. With the handicaps this photographer chose for himself, this is mostly performance art with equipment that can do so much more than what you see here.
posted by the Real Dan at 2:30 PM on May 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
The images seems to be pandering to the expectation that an old camera should produce images that are impaired. Without a guiding esthetic that places high value on such things, all of the characteristics that scamander lists are defects.
This Graflex, with a focal plane shutter, is capable of using fast lenses (since the shutter need not be incorporated into the lens), and an experienced user of a 4x5 camera would not use a reflex setup for press or sports work. With the handicaps this photographer chose for himself, this is mostly performance art with equipment that can do so much more than what you see here.
posted by the Real Dan at 2:30 PM on May 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
You're right tRD but I don't see that as a bad thing. The F/64 movement was started in reaction to work like his which is much more like the what the pictorial photographers were producing in the late 19th/early 20th century and I find it more much interesting than the technical proficiency of Adams and company.
Also, performance art is still art, you know.
posted by octothorpe at 3:07 PM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Also, performance art is still art, you know.
posted by octothorpe at 3:07 PM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Glad to see that the old focal plane oval wheels trick is alive and well in the Senna curve picture.
posted by scruss at 3:18 PM on May 27, 2017
posted by scruss at 3:18 PM on May 27, 2017
the Real Dan, this seems like some weird sort of gatekeeping: "[an] experienced user of a 4x5 camera would not use a reflex setup for press or sports work". Are you saying that because the photographer is not experienced enough, they shouldn't be shooting or displaying their work? Or that the use of the camera does not fit into predefined ways of using a camera ("press or sports work"). Or are you saying that the photographer does not have an aesthetic? Or is there some other form of 4x5 camera that they should be using? I can imagine these pictures with a field or monorail and I think they would not have the same energy as these do. Maybe a rangefinder?
The only thing I take umbrage at is the poor scanning. A drum scan or scanning the prints would have reduced some of the artifacts of scanning. In 2017 I'm pretty sure people are starting to think those scanning artifacts are part of the aesthetic of analog photography. To be honest, I'm just thrilled to see anyone shooting film in any fashion--lomography, 35mm SLR, ultra large format, whatever. If they can find a niche with an aesthetic derived from not using film as "[an] experienced user of a 4x5 camera" would, then more power to them. Just keep doing it so the remaining film companies keep producing film and paper so I can keep shooting and printing.
posted by scamander at 4:47 PM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
The only thing I take umbrage at is the poor scanning. A drum scan or scanning the prints would have reduced some of the artifacts of scanning. In 2017 I'm pretty sure people are starting to think those scanning artifacts are part of the aesthetic of analog photography. To be honest, I'm just thrilled to see anyone shooting film in any fashion--lomography, 35mm SLR, ultra large format, whatever. If they can find a niche with an aesthetic derived from not using film as "[an] experienced user of a 4x5 camera" would, then more power to them. Just keep doing it so the remaining film companies keep producing film and paper so I can keep shooting and printing.
posted by scamander at 4:47 PM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
For the aspiring retro sports photographer, here's a general description of the Graflex RB Series D / Super D camera and Instruction Manual. After a few minutes' study, you'll be shooting like a pro.
posted by cenoxo at 8:10 PM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by cenoxo at 8:10 PM on May 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Been wondering what David Cameron's been up to since he left number 10.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 1:59 AM on May 28, 2017
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 1:59 AM on May 28, 2017
Those photos are gorgeous. They seem to instill a sense of romanticism in the sport that it's sorely lacked for a long, long time.
posted by Thorzdad at 4:14 AM on May 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 4:14 AM on May 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
scruss: Glad to see that the old focal plane oval wheels trick is alive and well in the Senna curve picture [image].
I miss that camera effect (caused by a vertical focal plane shutter) seen in historic racing photos. Like a racing stripe, it always makes the cars go faster.
posted by cenoxo at 7:47 AM on May 28, 2017 [3 favorites]
I miss that camera effect (caused by a vertical focal plane shutter) seen in historic racing photos. Like a racing stripe, it always makes the cars go faster.
posted by cenoxo at 7:47 AM on May 28, 2017 [3 favorites]
Saw a Lartigue exhibit at The Pittsburgh Frick last year including a print of that race car shot. His stuff was so alive.
posted by octothorpe at 8:45 AM on May 28, 2017
posted by octothorpe at 8:45 AM on May 28, 2017
For the non-initiated it might be worth mentioning that F1 photography kind of finds itself at a cross roads at the moment as everyone is tired of seeing yet another static picture of a car hitting an apex. What you're often seeing now is hyper stylised somewhat abstract pictures, typified by the likes of Darren Heath (for example, see the rest of his feed for more). It's been this way for the last few years. Well, there's always been this kind of photography but now the sport is saturated by it.
So the complaints from commenters on PetaPixel (and other places I've seen this appear) about the technical aesthetics being poor are complete bollocks because there is a demand for something different at this point in time. Like I say - another over sharpened static image of a car hitting the apex? No thanks.
Other F1 photographers are at it as well, Clive Mason for example. There are loads more on Instagram, do a search. These are F1 photographers who have been at it for *decades* so know the sport inside out, have free range of the track for shooting, top of the line gear and complete mastery of it. The fact they *choose* to shoot images like these speaks volumes.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this BTW, in fact many of the shots of that type look amazing. However they're the kind of imagery that are beautiful to look at but tell you absolutely nothing about the sport. Joshua's large format images fall into this "something different" aesthetic, and it's great but also there's nothing really new there. Well there is, but in the "what once was old" type of new. But think for a moment - today was the 75th anniversary of the Monaco GP, so what exactly is there new to say about the sport?
posted by lawrencium at 1:52 PM on May 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
So the complaints from commenters on PetaPixel (and other places I've seen this appear) about the technical aesthetics being poor are complete bollocks because there is a demand for something different at this point in time. Like I say - another over sharpened static image of a car hitting the apex? No thanks.
Other F1 photographers are at it as well, Clive Mason for example. There are loads more on Instagram, do a search. These are F1 photographers who have been at it for *decades* so know the sport inside out, have free range of the track for shooting, top of the line gear and complete mastery of it. The fact they *choose* to shoot images like these speaks volumes.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this BTW, in fact many of the shots of that type look amazing. However they're the kind of imagery that are beautiful to look at but tell you absolutely nothing about the sport. Joshua's large format images fall into this "something different" aesthetic, and it's great but also there's nothing really new there. Well there is, but in the "what once was old" type of new. But think for a moment - today was the 75th anniversary of the Monaco GP, so what exactly is there new to say about the sport?
posted by lawrencium at 1:52 PM on May 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
"This Graflex, with a focal plane shutter, is capable of using fast lenses (since the shutter need not be incorporated into the lens), and an experienced user of a 4x5 camera would not use a reflex setup for press or sports work. "
Reminds me that I need to find a good used film holder for my Speed Graphic.
posted by klangklangston at 2:00 PM on May 28, 2017
Reminds me that I need to find a good used film holder for my Speed Graphic.
posted by klangklangston at 2:00 PM on May 28, 2017
First Ever Monaco Grand Prix (1929) – SLYT footage from British Pathe, and Historic Racing photo gallery.
posted by cenoxo at 3:24 PM on May 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by cenoxo at 3:24 PM on May 28, 2017 [1 favorite]
I think I fail as a gatekeeper, Scamander. Perhaps you meant something more like contrarian or crank :-).
Without my glasses, I see that Pictorialist crap all the time, and I hate it, so it might be a personal problem :-)
posted by the Real Dan at 12:24 PM on May 29, 2017
Without my glasses, I see that Pictorialist crap all the time, and I hate it, so it might be a personal problem :-)
posted by the Real Dan at 12:24 PM on May 29, 2017
First Ever Monaco Grand Prix (1929)
This sent me into the YT "up next" trap and I ended up watching highlights of the race from each decade. It's remarkable to see how wide open the track used to be: look at older videos of tabac, the start finish straight, casino square before the corner to the hairpin. Nowadays the pure density of the principality along with the attempt to squeeze in as many grandstands as possible (and the necessary safety and recovery measures) means these areas are much tighter than they used to be. These were great overtaking points in the past, but are no longer. There were zero successful overtakes for position this year.
The whole place feels compacted though, it's layer after layer after layer of high rise concrete and steel. I was there at the weekend, for a third time, and I tried to shoot some photos that give this impression. Some parts of the circuit you feel like you could almost reach over to the other side if it weren't for the scaffolding and armco barrier in your way.
posted by lawrencium at 1:22 PM on May 29, 2017
This sent me into the YT "up next" trap and I ended up watching highlights of the race from each decade. It's remarkable to see how wide open the track used to be: look at older videos of tabac, the start finish straight, casino square before the corner to the hairpin. Nowadays the pure density of the principality along with the attempt to squeeze in as many grandstands as possible (and the necessary safety and recovery measures) means these areas are much tighter than they used to be. These were great overtaking points in the past, but are no longer. There were zero successful overtakes for position this year.
The whole place feels compacted though, it's layer after layer after layer of high rise concrete and steel. I was there at the weekend, for a third time, and I tried to shoot some photos that give this impression. Some parts of the circuit you feel like you could almost reach over to the other side if it weren't for the scaffolding and armco barrier in your way.
posted by lawrencium at 1:22 PM on May 29, 2017
« Older This is my surprised face. | Bamboo Architecture Biennale Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also on the art and racing tip, may I suggest the new graphic novel, Steve McQueen in Le Mans. Based on the movie of the same title, it's freaking gorgeous. It's available in four languages. I've already got the English version, I think Imma order the French version for authenticity's sake.
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 8:15 AM on May 27, 2017 [1 favorite]