Another mystery car
Discussion
Yertis said:
TonyRPH said:
V41LEY said:
Can you explain what a ‘tranny’ is ? I’m getting the wrong image in my head !
I'm assuming 'transparency'
A ‘Tranny’ was a transistor radio in my youth. Nowadays it is seems to be a gearbox as well.
TonyRPH said:
As I noted in a previous post - there is some evidence of lens compression, which suggests a telephoto lens was used.
I did wonder that instead of a step ladder, the photographer was in an elevated position in a nearby building, possibly a little further away from the car than is being envisioned.
I agree, bloke up a ladder on a high street would mean lots of faces raised upwards. The depth of field is remarkable in this picture for a busy moving environment.I did wonder that instead of a step ladder, the photographer was in an elevated position in a nearby building, possibly a little further away from the car than is being envisioned.
Edited by Loose_Cannon on Wednesday 2nd June 09:21
Loose_Cannon said:
<snip>
The depth of field is remarkable in this picture for a busy moving environment.
Yes, it suggests that some quite high quality kit was used, as a very decent lens (possibly large format?) would have been required too, in order to capture the depth of field and freeze the motion without any blur.The depth of field is remarkable in this picture for a busy moving environment.
Additionally, maybe very fast film was used as well, which would account for some of the grain in the image.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Perhaps, but (a) where did the car come from, and (b) how lucky was it that there was a shot of the car with just the right perspective available to him/her?Whilst there are some reasonable arguments to support the idea that this is somehow a fake, in the absence of modern computer tools the photographer would also have to be a skilled graphic artist to create the image of this car from scratch. As for putting it together as a bitsa, this would require a huge archive of car shots from which to choose just the right components shot at just the right angle from which to cobble it together. The time alone required to achieve that to me strongly contraindicates the idea - Occam's Razor seems reasonably applicable here
I don't believe it's a fake.
Back in the 60's, the amount of work required in a dark room would have been substantial to doctor an image to that extent - and to what end?
I suspect the photographer had probably been waiting for the right moment in order to capture as many buses into shot as possible, and hence could have been in position for some time maybe?
I believe that the car just appearing is purely incidental.
Back in the 60's, the amount of work required in a dark room would have been substantial to doctor an image to that extent - and to what end?
I suspect the photographer had probably been waiting for the right moment in order to capture as many buses into shot as possible, and hence could have been in position for some time maybe?
I believe that the car just appearing is purely incidental.
TonyRPH said:
Back in the 60's, the amount of work required in a dark room would have been substantial to doctor an image to that extent - and to what end?
It wouldn’t have been done in a darkroom, a continuous tone colour print would have been retouched by professional illustrators using good old technique.TonyRPH said:
Yes, it suggests that some quite high quality kit was used, as a very decent lens (possibly large format?) would have been required too, in order to capture the depth of field and freeze the motion without any blur.
Additionally, maybe very fast film was used as well, which would account for some of the grain in the image.
In all the astounding amount of work done for this thread by people in their own time, I am surprised no-one has tried to physically find the vantage point and recreate the picture as it is today (unless of course I missed a page). Would it be possible to do so without knowledge of the lens diameter, or does photographic compression/distortion make this difficult?Additionally, maybe very fast film was used as well, which would account for some of the grain in the image.
Johnspex said:
Stevepolly said:
The mystery car could even be the photographer's car, it looks like it could be parked there as it's a wide one way street with plenty of room to pass.
Steve.
How did he carry the ladder that it has been suggested he used.Steve.
I do think that the car could have been included deliberately. The picture is framed/cropped such that the entire car is visible. And it is the car that had been reworked/ enhanced within the picture.
If it was all about the buses, and the car was of no importance to the photographer (or the author) then I suspect we would only see a part of it - imagine how much more frustrating it would be if we couldn't even see the wheels or the tail-end.
London buses in Oxford Street, 1962
Analysing the perspective in the image, we can see that the horizon line (which is effectively the same as the camera height) varies a little depending upon which object we are looking at. This is because of the various gradiants in the roads.
The buildings will be built level, regardless of any gradients. If we take the horizon line for the buildings as a datum, we can see that the first bus (KGK 538), is coming uphill a little, as the horizon projected from the bus is slightly lower than that for the buildings. The horizon projected from the buses behind is lower still, so they are coming up a slightly steeper slope.
The horizon line for the buildings (effectively, camera height), as projected on the first bus, is close to the bottom of the cream line between upper and lower decks.Scaling from a general arrangement drawing of the bus, the eye-level of an average man of around 5' 8", standing on the second step of a step ladder would be close to the correct camera height. Allowing for the slight uphill stance of the bus, and the difference in height between road and pavement, possibly this could be as little as a single step.
Clearly, you wouldn't get a ladder in such a small car, but a two-step, folding step ladder could be carried in the boot, or even on the passenger seat. This, or a suitable wooden crate, could well be part of the standard kit used by a professional photographer.
If a 'fast' film was used, as suggested by TonyRPH a few posts back, could the shot have been hand-held? How big and heavy was a 1960s telephoto lens?
The Thames van disappearing to the left has a horizon line that is higher than that for the buildings, so is on a slight downgrade relative to them (ie, heading slightly downhill). The mystery car horizon line is higher still, coming near the bottom of the upper-deck bus windows. This, presumably explaining that the camber on Vere Street has allowed us to see slightly more of its' upper surfaces.
Apart from the huge complexities involved with inserting the car into the image (with 1960s studio techniques) as has been suggested previously, I also see nothing in the perspective to suggest that the car wasn't exactly where it appears to be.
Edited by borrani72 on Wednesday 2nd June 11:24
I've been researching 1960's cameras.
If... if it was a large format camera with 'fast' film (then 120ASA for colour!) it must have been a pretty special camera.
Something like the Linhof Technica illustrated below (this being from 1966). This most definitely would have required a tripod, so ruling out a ladder.
A note on film speeds: In the 35mm format, common for SLR cameras from the 1970's on - 400ASA (colour) and 1000ASA (b&w) film was available in the mid 70's. I note that it's still possible to buy 400ASA (colour) and 3200ASA (b&w) for 35mm cameras.
I'm not familiar with the large format stuff - however one site I found suggests "120" film which appears to be ~60mm wide and I believe would have been ~100ASA at the time. I *think* that you can't compare film speeds to 35mm because the large format allows more light due to the larger film surface area and larger diameter lenses.
TLDR; In summary, it looks as though the photographer here probably had quite a heavy camera, ruling out handheld use.
Therefore, I find it inconceivable that the photographer was in view of the people in shot - as something like this would have drawn attention - which reinforces my earlier view that said photographer was in a building, slightly elevated.
If... if it was a large format camera with 'fast' film (then 120ASA for colour!) it must have been a pretty special camera.
Something like the Linhof Technica illustrated below (this being from 1966). This most definitely would have required a tripod, so ruling out a ladder.
A note on film speeds: In the 35mm format, common for SLR cameras from the 1970's on - 400ASA (colour) and 1000ASA (b&w) film was available in the mid 70's. I note that it's still possible to buy 400ASA (colour) and 3200ASA (b&w) for 35mm cameras.
I'm not familiar with the large format stuff - however one site I found suggests "120" film which appears to be ~60mm wide and I believe would have been ~100ASA at the time. I *think* that you can't compare film speeds to 35mm because the large format allows more light due to the larger film surface area and larger diameter lenses.
TLDR; In summary, it looks as though the photographer here probably had quite a heavy camera, ruling out handheld use.
Therefore, I find it inconceivable that the photographer was in view of the people in shot - as something like this would have drawn attention - which reinforces my earlier view that said photographer was in a building, slightly elevated.
Loose_Cannon said:
In all the astounding amount of work done for this thread by people in their own time, I am surprised no-one has tried to physically find the vantage point and recreate the picture as it is today (unless of course I missed a page). Would it be possible to do so without knowledge of the lens diameter, or does photographic compression/distortion make this difficult?
Funny you should mention that... already done (not by me ), plus a load of video survey and reflection source analysis to show where shadows were coming from... though the only thing I'm currently party to are a couple of street-level pics at the time of the first of two visits to the site. Near car driver's position, roughly.
Cameraman position, again roughly.
Edited by Johnnytheboy on Wednesday 2nd June 18:00
"Fast" film. It didn't really exist until much later on. I've been an SLR user for forty years and I can remember the day when Fuji launched to 400 ASA film. Before that, and before autofocus, I used to go out on the track and mark a spot with a chalk cross, then focus on it and await the arrival of the cars. 200 ASA had been around for years, but while I took photos in 1962, it was with my Brownie. In this photo nothing is moving fast at all and probably the people faster than the traffic from the look of it. Eye level for me is just above the windscreen of the first bus, so, could the photographer been on a mezzanine perhaps? or on an outside staircase? But it matters not. Semantics are now in play and I am pretty sure we will never be aware of what it really is.
lowdrag said:
"Fast" film. It didn't really exist until much later on. I've been an SLR user for forty years and I can remember the day when Fuji launched to 400 ASA film.
<snip>
Yes, I did a lengthy post above about film speed etc. I too have been an SLR user since the mid 70's (I got my 1st SLR at 16), and I remember the introduction of 400ASA film and all the experiments I tried in low light etc.<snip>
My point was that to have captured the depth field as it has been, a fairly small aperture (or 'F' stop) would have been required - which would have necessitated a slow shutter speed - however if the shutter speed were too slow, the people (likely the fastest moving subjects of the image) would have been blurred.
All of this is relevant to working out the camera position (for what that's worth!).
lowdrag said:
"Fast" film. It didn't really exist until much later on. I've been an SLR user for forty years and I can remember the day when Fuji launched to 400 ASA film. Before that, and before autofocus, I used to go out on the track and mark a spot with a chalk cross, then focus on it and await the arrival of the cars. 200 ASA had been around for years, but while I took photos in 1962, it was with my Brownie. In this photo nothing is moving fast at all and probably the people faster than the traffic from the look of it. Eye level for me is just above the windscreen of the first bus, so, could the photographer been on a mezzanine perhaps? or on an outside staircase? But it matters not. Semantics are now in play and I am pretty sure we will never be aware of what it really is.
Is there not a period similar pic from a different angle from which the location of the photographer could be extrapolated, so we could indeed see if it was a window / balcony / mezzanine?. Even maybe a freezeframe of a period movie?.It also strikes me as a bit odd that no one seems to be noticing the Camera or photographer if he's stood on a ladder.
All said and done, this is by far one of the best threads on the forum. I've been following it since day 1 and it's the first sub forum I go to when coming on the site.
Johnspex said:
Stevepolly said:
The mystery car could even be the photographer's car, it looks like it could be parked there as it's a wide one way street with plenty of room to pass.
Steve.
How did he carry the ladder that it has been suggested he used.Steve.
Pity I havnt got a sunbeam alpine and someone willing to take a quick photo as I pulled up at a pre arranged time.
Hey that's an idea, anyone?
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff