1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Photographer shoots amazing F1 images with a hundred-year-old Graflex camera

Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by Liam Clifford, May 19, 2017.

  1. Liam Clifford

    Liam Clifford Active Member

    Learning likes this.
  2. Fishboy

    Fishboy Well-Known Member

    A maximum of 20 exposures? How does that work then?

    If the camera is from 1913 then I reckon it's probably one of the early 5x4 Graflex RB models and according to Graflex.org (who seem to be pretty clued-up on these things) the options are:

    Film holders - 2 exposures each
    Graflex sheet film magazines - 12 exposures
    Graflex film pack holders - 12 exposures (no longer available)
    Plate film holders (?) - 2 exposures
    Graflex roll holders - 6 exposure roll (no longer available)

    I've had a bit of a search around the internet and the only piece of Graflex kit that limits you to 20 exposures is the RH-20 back - 20 exposures on a 220 roll of film.

    Maybe I'm just over-thinking this. Perhaps his limit of 20 exposures is due to the fact that he can only fit ten film holders in his bag.

    Anyway, does anybody here have any idea of why and how he's limited to 20 exposures?

    Cheers, Jeff
    Claret likes this.
  3. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member


    I could edit your post down to 'Why? '
  4. Fishboy

    Fishboy Well-Known Member

    No, I can see the attraction of 'why'. I'm struggling with 'how' he's limited to 20 exposures.

    Perhaps I should have edited it down to 'how'!

    Cheers, Jeff
    Claret likes this.
  5. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    Maybe that was the number of exposures he managed before the other photographers got fed up of him and the Graflex blocking the view and had him thrown out?
    Claret and Digitalmemories like this.
  6. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    How to get publicity: Do something weird...;)
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  7. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Jeff,

    Quite. I can only assume that he finds more than 10 DDS too heavy to carry around.

    A thought here: Grafmatics are 6 shots, not 12, and often work better with only 5 septums loaded. Four Grafmatics, each a sheath short? Then again, did they make Grafmatics in reflex fitting (locating groove instead of ridge)? I assume they did, but I've never seen 'em. All mine are Graphic fitting.


  8. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I've seen plenty of old sports shots in books and I don't think this guy's are anywhere near up to those standards
  9. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Andrew,

    Possibly because the vast majority of sports photographers used direct vision/rangefinder cameras, as they were vastly easier to use and with far less lag. On the other hand, there's at least one shot there that is brilliant by any standard.


  10. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Which one?
  11. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Andrew,

    The really streaky pan.


  12. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Yes. The best by a long way so far as I'm concerned. The others do nothing for me though.
  13. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    HI Liam, I see that you have already got 22 posts but have not been very visible. I hope that you will be very visible in future. So a somewhat late welcome.
    The Graflex photos have a nice period feel to them except the streaky pan with the modern F1 car. That is so contemporary. At one level Joshua Paul may just be making a point by using a plate camera, however the Graflex was the D5 of its day. His image makes a statement to all of us who whinge about some minor inconvenience of Nikon's or Canon's latest offering.

    So lets hope that we see more of Joshua Pauls photographs, and also more new posts in this room of the forum from Liam and perhaps some pictures.
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  14. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Perhaps he does not have a changing bag.
    I used to have 24 double dark slides.
    And reloaded them as necessary when on a trip.
  15. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    What I do not understand is the lack of sharpness, in their day they produced brilliant images, and often used the superb Kodak Ektar lens. But you could fit just about anything.
    I had a pre war TP Ruby reflex in the late 40"s fitted with an uncoated ross xpress lens. This could suffer from flair but was exceptionally sharp over the whole field. It was pretty much the British equivalent to his camera. But in 1/4 plate.
  16. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    That was what struck me as well as the poor tonality. In the old books and magazines the pictures come across as sharp and with smooth tones.
  17. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    What I am puzzled by is he was inspired by Indy 500 1969 shots.

    Surely those shooters would have been using SLRs? LOL

    But it appears he is using the 1913 camera as a means to slow down his photography and make more of a thinking process.

    Now I think film has a certain look, which straight forward digital does not unless you do some post processing even then there something about film.

    But even using digital you should be able to change your shooting process.

    So the question is can you get the same feel as these 1913 camera shots using digital? Maybe post processing?

    Of course there is one thing about shooting 4x5 film. Each negative in itself becomes a object of art. Its physical, unique. Unlike digital which only exists in a chip or HD somewhere.

    Core reason why I shot slide back in the day was that physical small piece of art a slide was.

    Unique, created by light and chemicals to produce a small piece of expression which you could make come to life just by holding up to light again. :)
    Trannifan likes this.
  18. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    You are replying to a very old thread. Since the very sad early death of Chris Cheesman, whom we still miss, there seems to be a reluctance for AP staffers to continue the News room although young Liam created a few threads. The reasons for this are not our business.

Share This Page