Appreciation of Lartigue

[Sirius Glass]

The photo is from 1912.

View attachment 395911

I'm assuming a camera like an RBGraflex. Apparently, it was an ICA camera of some sort.

I tried a number of times, but I have not been able to reproduce this result with my circa 1928 Graflex Model D.

 

[Don_ih]

Funny, I thought those came with leaf shutters generally. Did they make FP shutter models? I guess so!

Could have been one like this:

but they made other focal plane shutter cameras (at least one that I saw).

 

[Don_ih]

I tried a number of times, but I have not been able to reproduce this result with my circa 1928 Graflex Model D.

A couple of considerations. First, you get the leaning wheels most easily by having the camera still and a slow shutter speed. So slow film.

And the wheel in that photo looks pretty big. I think the bigger the wheel, the more you'll see the effect.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... only partly true: JHL panned fast enough for the drivers, but not fast enough for the rear wheel (or the 6 numeral).

Insert tongue into cheek:

So, obviously then, the axle is going faster than the car. As is the number "6." See, the explanation is simple.

Remove tongue...

The axle is going as fast as the car - and so the wheel outline, a circle, is going as fast as the car. The wheel outline is subject to the same FP shutter panning distortion as the rest of the car. That the wheel is turning is not relevant.

It may be there is a point of finesse where the drivers are lean backwards just enough so that when the distortion leans them forwards to the right they look upright? This explanation doesn't satisfy me, though.

I think I will just suspend disbelief and enjoy the photograph for what it is.

 

[cliveh]

Another one by him

 

[bernard_L]

Insert tongue into cheek:

So, obviously then, the axle is going faster than the car. As is the number "6." See, the explanation is simple.

Maybe I'm expected to be red in the face from this sarcasm. Except you should have read my post.

JHL was panning (not travelling) to follow the drivers. The rear wheel was traveling at the same linear speed as the drivers, but being closer to the camera, had an apparent angular motion (...)

Maybe a little drawing will help. d=driver; w=wheel, c=camera. 1, 2: two successive instants while JHL is panning;
Note that d1d2 and w1w2 have the same length. Rest assured that wheel and driver travel at the same linear speed.

So, obviously then, the axle is going faster than the car.

Not so obviously.

Now the wheel, as I already stated, is closer to the camera than the driver. So you can look-see on the diagram that the angular speed of displacement of the wheel (blue arc of circle) is larger than that of the driver (red arc of circle).

As a consequence, when JHL is panning to make the driver stationary in, his viewfinder, he sees the wheel, in the same viewfinder, moving to the right. (and obviously the bystanders are moving to the left in his viewfinder). Whence the opposite "rolling shutter effects" for resp. bystanders and rear wheel.

See, the explanation is simple.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Maybe I'm expected to be red in the face from this sarcasm.

It was meant as a bit of levity, not sarcasm - postulating that the axle is moving faster than the car.

It would be interesting to create the geometry to scale and see what the results are. Camera to car distance of 12', wheel to driver distance of 2', 1/10 second shutter traverse, 60mph car - just at a guess. Maybe I will fire up AutoCAD later... Obviously there is a geometric solution to the conundrum.

 

[Don_ih]

Another one by him

I like it, especially the eyes. Looks like he used a single light.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A couple of considerations. First, you get the leaning wheels most easily by having the camera still and a slow shutter speed. So slow film.

And the wheel in that photo looks pretty big. I think the bigger the wheel, the more you'll see the effect.

The film was ISO 400, so that would explain my not being able to accomplish it.

 

[Harry Callahan]

The bystanders are leaning to the left, because the camera was moving to the right - there was relative movement between camera and bystanders.
The wheel is leaning to the right - because there also was relative movement between camera and car. If there hadn`t been relative movement between camera and car, the wheel wouldn`t lean to any side.
But there was relative movement between camera and car, because he was panning too slow. That`s probably also the reason for the car not being mid-frame, he was panning too slow and releasing too late to get the car mid-frame, undistorted.
This could be a blown shot.
As others explained the wheel was closer to the camera, therefore being distorted more, but still the car also must show distortion, so the number 6 actually should have been upright. The other wheel is even further away from the camera, therefore showing least distortion (but also still should have some dist.) .

 

[djdister]

This was my attempt to try something similar by hand panning a Graflex Model B 5x7 camera (focal plane shutter) and a moving car...

 

[Don_ih]

Here's another example from his 1912 album, with less obvious distortion.

You can see the panning action in the tree leaning left and the vertical shutter effect in the wheels. The whole car appears to be leaning forward. I think this may be a crop from a larger negative. In the album, it is much smaller than the photo in the first post. Pretty sure he would've only been making contact prints in 1912.

 

[snusmumriken]

I can’t get my head around why the wheel spokes are (almost) sharp.

 

[warden]

This was my attempt to try something similar by hand panning a Graflex Model B 5x7 camera (focal plane shutter) and a moving car...

View attachment 396055

Cool!

 

[Harry Callahan]

Here's another example from his 1912 album, with less obvious distortion.



You can see the panning action in the tree leaning left and the vertical shutter effect in the wheels. The whole car appears to be leaning forward. I think this may be a crop from a larger negative. In the album, it is much smaller than the photo in the first post. Pretty sure he would've only been making contact prints in 1912.

Not sure whether here the camera was panned; the tree nearly is upright - and you don`t need to pan the camera to get distorted wheels/car.
Also it is easier to get a speeding race car with camera on tripod and release when the car is before the tree - instead of trying to pan and follow the car with the viewfinder. He may have been using the tree as reference for when to push the button.

I can’t get my head around why the wheel spokes are (almost) sharp.

The outside of the wheel, the tire, moves fastest - the axis moves slowest. It`s like with a record player, the outside of the record has biggest diameter and therefore travels greater distance than the label or the center hole.
That`s why the spokes close to the axis are pretty sharp, but get less sharp the closer to the tire. Apart from that a focal plane shutter also might contribute to that... but i`m not sure.
But with a focal plane shutter the spokes also should bent in a circular pattern.

 

[koraks]

Not sure whether here the camera was panned

The road shoulder and surface would have looked sharper at least if the camera was static on a tripod. He panned alright.

 

[Don_ih]

I agree with koraks. I think there panning was at much lower speed, due to the distance from the car. And it was probably on a tripod but it might be noteworthy that tripods, at that time, were not made for panning a camera.

 

[Harry Callahan]

I needed a sharper version of this picture to really be sure... at least he panned a lot slower than in the first picture.

 

[Don_ih]

I needed a sharper version of this picture

I doubt that exists.

 

[Harry Callahan]

I mean there is visible pixelation on the writing under the picture... therefore i assume it could be obtainable a bit sharper.

 

[Don_ih]

I mean there is visible pixelation on the writing under the picture... therefore i assume it could be obtainable a bit sharper.

It's from the Lartigue site - a screenshot of one of the albums. Unless there is another online source, this is as good as it gets. And I doubt there is another online source. The photo is also small.

 

[Harry Callahan]

I see.

 

[Rod Klukas]

The photo is from 1912.

View attachment 395911

I'm assuming a camera like an RBGraflex. Apparently, it was an ICA camera of some sort.

There was no Leica Camera until 1925 available. Yes this was an RB Graflex type. He used these but also a 5x7 camera. The shutter is similar to a Speed Graphic, in that a slit passes across the film
to make the exposure. The shutter was not set fast enough to allow a global exposure of the film.

Today this has a similarity to rolling shutter on a Digital sensor.

His photographs of French Society women in Paris and the large number of photographs of his crazy brother, who flew gliders, and raced boats, among his experiments, are also excellent.

See attached Graflex manual". Dropbox Link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vzh4...nual.pdf?rlkey=fat252rrrt8gewhje10lquxro&dl=0


Hope this helps.

Rod

 

[nikos79]

Just another note on Larrigue: I prefer 1000 times his photos of the Parisian bel air, that at least had something personal than all the contemporary photos I see on Instagram that all look the same (childish games with shadows and lights, folklore snapshots of random boring street life, chaos and noise with some extra sauce of clarity + dehaze filter

 

[cliveh]

I agree with koraks. I think there panning was at much lower speed, due to the distance from the car. And it was probably on a tripod but it might be noteworthy that tripods, at that time, were not made for panning a camera.

I also think the panning was at a lower speed, but I don't think he used a tripod for this shot. In general, he was not that sort of a set up/gear photographer. He was more of the instant reaction school.

​