Getting close to the action - how it was.

[LongQ]

www.klemcoll.com/image/56E4A-8.aspx?page=

Ok so it was 50 years ago but nevertheless you can't get much closer than this.

www.klemcoll.com/image/56E4A-8.aspx?page=

or can you?

www.klemcoll.com/image/C57C1-1.aspx?page=

[steviebee]

Well, this fella did

[FourWheelDrift]

I've got some close photo's taken by the person putting their life on the line but these ones have other people in shot very close to the action. Names and locations in the image name.









And the really mad one, Eau Rouge, in the rain. Don't press the shutter until you see the whites of their eyes.

[LongQ]

I remember the Spa shot from a while back and I think there are several versions of the the G Hill '63 British GP shot in the referenced collection. IN fact I thing one may have been taken by the guy right in front of the camera!

However for the Reims shot it seems to me that the photographer is standing on the track at the end of a very long straight on a narrow road with cars arriving in the braking zone two abreast.

All terrific shots though and my title and lead comment cannot be too far wrong for any of them - certainly by comparison with today.

Some terrific shots of the always drifting Fangio by several of the photographers in the collection.

[Dave Brand]

Apart from the safety aspect, photographers nowadays don't need to stand so close to get much better shots than their 1960s counterparts, thanks to the lenses now used. In the 60s a 200mm fixed-focal length was a LONG lens!

[LongQ]

Dave Brand said:

... photographers nowadays don't need to stand so close to get much better shots than their 1960s counterparts, thanks to the lenses now used.

I'm not sure you could argue that today's shots are intrinsically better as images. If one is looking for a head in a car and nothing else then maybe so. But if you want context and personality the need to get close to the action resulted in some remarkable shots. Historically I think the depth of field, retaining the background details as it does, offers much more for posterity than most modern images. In other words the images from back then will always have a higher interest value, though of course the relative rarity will also help.

Only my opinion of course and others may have a very different view.

[Dave Brand]

LongQ said:

I'm not sure you could argue that today's shots are intrinsically better as images. If one is looking for a head in a car and nothing else then maybe so. But if you want context and personality the need to get close to the action resulted in some remarkable shots.

I'm with you on this one! I think the problem now is that, because they can get close in, they do. To many of the shots you see nowadays are technically superb but lacking that little something that makes a good picture. Lots of technicians, very few artists.......

[LongQ]

Dave Brand said:

I'm with you on this one! I think the problem now is that, because they can get close in, they do. To many of the shots you see nowadays are technically superb but lacking that little something that makes a good picture. Lots of technicians, very few artists.......

Hmm. Well, yes.

A bit like their subjects then - one could argue ....

[combemarshal]

LongQ said:

Dave Brand said:

... photographers nowadays don't need to stand so close to get much better shots than their 1960s counterparts, thanks to the lenses now used.

I'm not sure you could argue that today's shots are intrinsically better as images. If one is looking for a head in a car and nothing else then maybe so. But if you want context and personality the need to get close to the action resulted in some remarkable shots. Historically I think the depth of field, retaining the background details as it does, offers much more for posterity than most modern images. In other words the images from back then will always have a higher interest value, though of course the relative rarity will also help.

Only my opinion of course and others may have a very different view.

But at what price, back then it was just stupid.

And I'll try and find some Monaco videos from back then, even worse, single piece of rope tied between morring posts to stop cars going in the water, didn't work!!
Even to this day there are divers in the Harbour during the races.

[FourWheelDrift]

combemarshal said:

But at what price, back then it was just stupid.

And I'll try and find some Monaco videos from back then, even worse, single piece of rope tied between morring posts to stop cars going in the water, didn't work!!
Even to this day there are divers in the Harbour during the races.

Or just a few sandbags, 1936-37 Monaco Grand Prix.



La Monegasque Gendarme keeping an eye on proceedings


Or nothing to stop you driving into someone ground floor apartment except an FIA approved safety hedge.

[LongQ]

combemarshal said:

But at what price, back then it was just stupid.

Yes indeed but that was how it was then and was accepted at the time along with the risks of other pioneering technology like flying (for a few people) and similar.

But I was thinking mainly about the images and the photographers.

Does anyone know of any sources that would tell us how many photographers were killed or injured at races (car or bike) between, say, 1920 and 1970 or so when the armco started to appear everywhere?

Just curious.

It strikes me that these days we could probably re-capture the nature of the older images without any risk using digital technology - but only at those locations where the safety barriers are close to the edge of the track unless someone is prepared to spend a lot of money developing a small and light mounting and camera device that would not damage anything (in particular the driver) should it be hit.

[Dave Brand]

LongQ said:

[quote=combemarshal]It strikes me that these days we could probably re-capture the nature of the older images without any risk using digital technology - but only at those locations where the safety barriers are close to the edge of the track unless someone is prepared to spend a lot of money developing a small and light mounting and camera device that would not damage anything (in particular the driver) should it be hit.

It's been done for TV coverage of bike racing, particularly from the Isle of Man. A tiny lens around 20mm dia or less, which they can place right at the edge of track to get ground-level shots.

[LongQ]

Dave Brand said:

LongQ said:

It strikes me that these days we could probably re-capture the nature of the older images without any risk using digital technology - but only at those locations where the safety barriers are close to the edge of the track unless someone is prepared to spend a lot of money developing a small and light mounting and camera device that would not damage anything (in particular the driver) should it be hit.

It's been done for TV coverage of bike racing, particularly from the Isle of Man. A tiny lens around 20mm dia or less, which they can place right at the edge of track to get ground-level shots.

Also the video cameras embedded in the kerbs fot F1 stuff and similar and under a rock or wherever they put the things for rallying.

But I was think more of the 5 to 6ft above ground as if hand held like the old days.

Anywhere with high enough walls or maybe armco up to the side of the track could be a possibility. But it is the 'side of the track' part that is the problem.

So Monaco and a few other street circuits might be options. There might be a couple of places at Mallory Park that would work but not for high speed drifting as so many of the more interesting older shots seem to illustrate.

In theory it would be possible to use a small remote control digicam near the apex of a bend but it would need to mounted on something to get the height and the tripod or whatever is obviously not a good idea. On the other hand the drivers in the older shots seemed to keep wheels mostly on the tarmac whereas if you look at the apex of most corners on many circuits these days it is clear that cutting the corner has become normal, often by most of the cars' width. So locating a camera there mounted on something substantial enough to support it fairly steadily and not be blown over by the passing cars might be more than a simple challenge.

I gues the IOM would offer a number of opportunites for the bikes - but then there must be plenty of places on IOM where you can get that sort of shot standing at the side of the road anyway. Or am I wrong about that?