Cinematic Large Format Mistake?

Doc W · Jul 18, 2017

I was watching a television drama this evening about a family in the early 20th century. A photographer was taking a photo of the family with large format camera and he was under the dark cloth when the flash powder went off. This doesn't make any sense to me. Presumably he was under the dark cloth because he was looking through the lens, but if the flash powder was going off, does it not mean that the film holder was in place and the dark slide removed? What exactly would he see under the dark cloth. Nothing, I would think. I have seen this in other films set in that period. Either I am missing something or the director is.

shutterfinger · Jul 19, 2017

As long as it looks good to the uninformed general public is all most film makers care about. I believe it was L.A. Confidential that went to extremes to get the detail right for the early 1940's but used Super Graphic cameras which were not introduced until 1958. I don't remember the other movies I've seen with 1947 and later Pacemaker Speeds and 2x3 Crowns used in 1945, a good 2 years before they were designed.
In the Bonnie and Clyde movie they used a 2x3 Pacemaker Speed for the "Kodak" they used to take the picture of Bonnie with Texas ranger Frank Hammer. I doubt that Faye Dunaway, Warren Beatty, Estelle Parsons, or Gene Hackman cared either.
I've never done wet plate so maybe there was a reason to stay under the darkcloth during exposure.

Europan · Jul 19, 2017

Of course they did it fully wrongly. A photographer first sets up the camera, focuses the lens by the view on the ground glass under black cloth, removes that, closes the shutter, cocks its mechanism, inserts plate or film holder, retracts the slide cover, and only then takes care of a flashlight. Not that she/he wants to stare at the bright light, on the contrary she/he has her/his eyes closed for that moment, but one wants to observe the scene just prior to firing.

Sorry for the painful explanation, everybody on APUG surely knows about this. Television people belong to the superficial heap.

AgX · Jul 19, 2017

On the other hand that dark cloth would be yielding some shelter in case something would go wrong with flash-powder debris...

Alan Gales · Jul 19, 2017

I recently saw a modern show where they were taking spy photos of people. Instead of using a modern DSLR with a long zoom they used a Stereo Realist which has a pair of 35mm lenses for taking stereo images.

Television and Movies are fantasy. Check this out!

https://petapixel.com/2011/07/11/star-wars-lightsabers-were-originally-made-from-camera-parts/

shutterfinger · Jul 19, 2017

Alan Gales said:
https://petapixel.com/2011/07/11/star-wars-lightsabers-were-originally-made-from-camera-parts/

That resulted in Graflex.org being shut down for 2 or 3 years as the price of a Graflex Synchronizer went from $25 to $30 to a few hundred which infuriated a lot of Graflex enthusiast and light saber owners were harassing the photographers using the site and objecting to the limited supply of vintage equipment being made into a replica movie prop.
A few Star Wars enthusiast posted insults trying to provoke another round when the site reopened but the members and mediators did not fall for their tactics.
Today you see Graflite, Heiland, and other synchronizers from the 1950's listed for light sabers at exorbitant prices.

I saw the original Star Wars at a theater but skipped the rest of the series until they aired on TV a few times. I've yet to see a Star Wars movie that merited more than a 2 1/2 stars rating.

pdeeh · Jul 19, 2017

This is why all our countries are going to hell

removed account4 · Jul 19, 2017

the rifleman season 1 episode 18 "the photographer"
everything seemed right except for the type of photograph and fixer
john carradine he used pyrogalic acid to develop and potassium cyanide to fix his daguerreotype
( it was a big dry plate )
https://www.riflemanconnors.com/john_carradine.htm

pdeeh · Jul 19, 2017

jnanian said:
john carradine he used potassium cyanide to develop his daguerreotype

This is how it starts.
Next step - totalitarianism

removed account4 · Jul 19, 2017

pdeeh said:
This is how it starts.
Next step - totalitarianism

uh huh, its a travesty

Kino · Jul 19, 2017

Doc W said:
I was watching a television drama this evening about a family in the early 20th century. A photographer was taking a photo of the family with large format camera and he was under the dark cloth when the flash powder went off. This doesn't make any sense to me. Presumably he was under the dark cloth because he was looking through the lens, but if the flash powder was going off, does it not mean that the film holder was in place and the dark slide removed? What exactly would he see under the dark cloth. Nothing, I would think. I have seen this in other films set in that period. Either I am missing something or the director is.

Well, duh, the auto focus doesn't work unless you get back under the dark cloth...

Sheesh. No one knowz anything anymore...

E. von Hoegh · Jul 19, 2017

Doc W said:
I was watching a television drama this evening about a family in the early 20th century. A photographer was taking a photo of the family with large format camera and he was under the dark cloth when the flash powder went off. This doesn't make any sense to me. Presumably he was under the dark cloth because he was looking through the lens, but if the flash powder was going off, does it not mean that the film holder was in place and the dark slide removed? What exactly would he see under the dark cloth. Nothing, I would think. I have seen this in other films set in that period. Either I am missing something or the director is.

That's the rule, rather than the exception. Revolvers firing 20 times without reloading, flintlocks that fire with the frizzen open, every handheld camera seems to have a motor drive according to the soundtrack; I sometimes wonder if the show McGiver wasn't a carefully thought out spoof. Just using flashpowder in broad daylight is pointless, forget staring at the filmholder under the darkcloth...

Doc W · Jul 19, 2017

You guys crack me up! Thanks for all the responses. I thought it was a bit of a silly question but the tv show in question was "Downton Abbey" and the producers went to great lengths to ensure authenticity in so many ways, I just thought ... oh well, you are probably right. This is the first step toward jackboots marching down the street!

pdeeh · Jul 19, 2017

"Downton Abbey" you say?
I shall have one of the under-footmen procure a copy and we shall view it upon the cinematograph screen in the library after dinner.
The ladies of course will be staying in the withdrawing room for their chattering about this and that.

E. von Hoegh · Jul 19, 2017

Doc W said:
You guys crack me up! Thanks for all the responses. I thought it was a bit of a silly question but the tv show in question was "Downton Abbey" and the producers went to great lengths to ensure authenticity in so many ways, I just thought ... oh well, you are probably right. This is the first step toward jackboots marching down the street!

Too late, too late...

E. von Hoegh · Jul 19, 2017

AgX said:
On the other hand that dark cloth would be yielding some shelter in case something would go wrong with flash-powder debris...

Yes, it's one of those ballistic Kevlar darkcloths with a lead lining.

Edit - I move that this thread be made a sticky, and moved to a different forum if necessary.

Alan Gales · Jul 19, 2017

shutterfinger said:
That resulted in Graflex.org being shut down for 2 or 3 years as the price of a Graflex Synchronizer went from $25 to $30 to a few hundred which infuriated a lot of Graflex enthusiast and light saber owners were harassing the photographers using the site and objecting to the limited supply of vintage equipment being made into a replica movie prop.
A few Star Wars enthusiast posted insults trying to provoke another round when the site reopened but the members and mediators did not fall for their tactics.
Today you see Graflite, Heiland, and other synchronizers from the 1950's listed for light sabers at exorbitant prices.

I saw the original Star Wars at a theater but skipped the rest of the series until they aired on TV a few times. I've yet to see a Star Wars movie that merited more than a 2 1/2 stars rating.

Thanks for the interesting info!

I saw the first Star Wars movie on VHS tape and couldn't figure out what the hoopla was all about. I've seen a couple more including the Jar Jar Binks one at the theater. We took our daughter when she was young. They are like Harry Potter to me. Great for kids.

I'm a Star Trek fan. It's what I grew up with. Of course they had cheap props too.

E. von Hoegh · Jul 19, 2017

Alan Gales said:
Thanks for the interesting info!

I saw the first Star Wars movie on VHS tape and couldn't figure out what the hoopla was all about. I've seen a couple more including the Jar Jar Binks one at the theater. We took our daughter when she was young. They are like Harry Potter to me. Great for kids.

I'm a Star Trek fan. It's what I grew up with. Of course they had cheap props too.

Yes, but Star Trek, or more properly Trekkies didn't drive the price of kitchen gadgets (they found a lot of the smaller weird props such as the ones Bones used at a kitchenware store) through the roof.

I've never seen an entire Star Wars movie.

Luckless · Jul 19, 2017

Personally I think the best movie photography goof is when they have someone using a large format press camera and are clicking away like it is a modern SLR without switching out film or even recocking the shutter.

This mistake is only made better when they slip a repeating electronic flash into a 1920's film, and they keep popping off dozens of "Photos"...

Sirius Glass · Jul 19, 2017

You caught a mistake. It show you were paying attention.

BrianShaw · Jul 19, 2017

I was watching Ghandi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi_(film) and noticed the photographer with the crown graphic (1) photographing relatively close with the lens board barely extended (not even extended enough to really focus at infinity unless she was using a 50mm lens) and (2) putting in the film holder and photographing without pulling the darkslide. Earlier in the movie she was putting the darkslide back in after taking a picture so I believe they knew that it had to be removed and replaced.

Interesting details but who cares... it had nothing to do with the point of the film.

Worrying these details is too nerdy... even for me.

pentaxuser · Jul 19, 2017

pdeeh said:
This is how it starts.
Next step - totalitarianism

Wrong. The next step is the collapse of Kodak then totalitarianism inevitably follows D

pentaxuser

shutterfinger · Jul 19, 2017

E. von Hoegh said:
I've never seen an entire Star Wars movie.

You haven't missed anything.
The same story line played out 50 years ago in cowboy/Calvary and Indian movies in another few decades it will be back with a different exterior and most of the kids will think its something new.

If movies and TV programs were too accurate then many would take them for reality.

E. von Hoegh · Jul 19, 2017

shutterfinger said:
You haven't missed anything.
The same story line played out 50 years ago in cowboy/Calvary and Indian movies in another few decades it will be back with a different exterior and most of the kids will think its something new.

If movies and TV programs were too accurate then many would take them for reality.

You mean they don't already?

E. von Hoegh · Jul 19, 2017

Luckless said:
Personally I think the best movie photography goof is when they have someone using a large format press camera and are clicking away like it is a modern SLR without switching out film or even recocking the shutter.

This mistake is only made better when they slip a repeating electronic flash into a 1920's film, and they keep popping off dozens of "Photos"...

One of my favorites, I think it was a Road Warrior movie, a guy's going down the road, (shown from in front of the car) and there's a Roots type blower -probably a 6-71- sticking up through the hood. The drive pulley on the blower is stationary. Then you have the car going down the road, shifting all the time - movie cars must all have 13 speed transmissions. And let's not forget developing film under a red safelight.

Cinematic Large Format Mistake?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency