Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Science

George Lawrence Photography Revisited 62

Posted by kdawson from the 99-red-balloons dept.
danlor writes "We were all taken aback 4 years ago when someone linked us the history of George Lawrence and his photos of the aftermath of the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake. I personally thought to myself: man, I would love to make one of those cameras. The idea of flying 2,000-pound cameras with kites... Well, someone has actually recreated the feat. They even provide links to get large prints of the original and recreated scenes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

George Lawrence Photography Revisited More

George Lawrence Photography Revisited

Comments Filter:

  • Recreate? (Score:4, Funny)

    by hcdejong ( 561314 ) <`hobbes' `at' `xmsnet.nl'> on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @05:43AM (#22219740)
    They forgot one thing: the earthquake...
  • They used a helicopter, not kites. Cheaters.

  • Helicopter! (Score:1, Redundant)

    by rxmd ( 205533 )
    They apparently used a helicopter instead of a series of kites, which makes the "recreation" somewhat boring.

    • Re:Helicopter! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TFer_Atvar ( 857303 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @06:12AM (#22219872) Homepage
      That's was my first thought, too, but look at it this way: They used a century-old camera, with the great-grandson of the original photographer in the helicopter, using the exact same lenses and photographic techniques. You might ding them for the helicopter -- I congratulate them for everything else.
      • "ding them" isn't strong enough of a term, it seems like using the kite was the most amazing part of the entire feat. traffic reporters are showing us aerial photographs from helicopters every day, so it's the method that would be novel. if they posted this as an article about someone building a replica camera (the challenging bit that they did do!) i'm not sure it'd make the cut on anything but a slow news day

    • Next Up (Score:4, Funny)

      by dreamchaser ( 49529 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @07:08AM (#22220092) Homepage Journal
      Next recreation: The Battle of Thermopylae, only we'll be using M1 Abrams Tanks instead of Spartans.
      • Well, 300 M1 Abrams' against 150.000 persian troops from 700 B.C is definately an unfair match. You don't even have to shoot at them. Just run them over. Alright, you MIGHT have to shoot at the elephants and rhinos, but ...
        • I like to think a single M1 would survive quite well against 150k light infantry armed with spears and clubs... though eventually the blood rivers would bog down the tank. maybe someone will put it on PayPerView only using spammers instead of Persians.

  • 2,000 lbs? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dan100 ( 1003855 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @06:10AM (#22219860) Homepage
    According to TFA, the camera weighed only a rather less impressive 46 lbs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by clarkkent09 ( 1104833 )
      Yeah, weird summary. You can't lift 2000lb with a kite. According to wikipedia, the same gentleman was responsible for building the world biggest ever camera at 1400lb so maybe that's where the confusion comes from.

    • According to TFA, the camera weighed only a rather less impressive 46 lbs.

      46 pound camera + a 6 lb weight for stability. Still somewhat short of 2,000 lbs.

  • Fine Print (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EdIII ( 1114411 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @06:38AM (#22219960)
    Talk about misleading. Recreated?

    "Although flying kites should be the method of choice, more important is to obtain the correct image. Air space restrictions, and common sense required the use of a helicopter. The new image was shot from the exact location as Lawrence achieved in 1906."

    That is according to the new photographers. I just love their usage of the word "exact". Uh huh. Not to mention a helicopter was used instead of a kite.

    The original page states a 46 pound camera, but the article states 2000 pounds.

    "I'm sure the Mr. Lawrence would have used a helicopter if it had been available. We had a wonderful side trip"

    I don't doubt that. The article is misleading and contradictory, and I did not see what I thought I was going to see. What they accomplished is pretty neat, and certainly good photography, but not groundbreaking or particularly mind blowing.

    I just feel like the ol' bait and switch gag has been played on us
    • I was just about to post the same thing.

      The photos that the dude with the kites originally took are awesome achievements if you take into account the way pictures were developed back then, but like you said, this is a way misleading article.

      I was waiting for the actual part where they hoisted a home-made box camera (not hard to make, I made several...) onto a kite.

      This suxors...

    • Re:Fine Print (Score:4, Informative)

      by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @07:58AM (#22220324)
      They recreated the photos, not the actual taking of the photos.
    • You are right, now you do it the correct way, that will show them!

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by EdIII ( 1114411 )
        Apparently YOU did not read the article or my post. This was misleading. That is why it was disappointing.

        As one of the other posters pointed out, there was a difference between recreating the photo, and recreating the ACT of taking the photo.

        I already said, it was a good photo (even though the website is down and I can't see it), but it is not groundbreaking, and it is not represented by the language of the article.

        Point in fact, I COULD make the photograph. Just get a buddy with a helicopter, GPS, and

  • 2,000 feet, not pounds. (Score:5, Informative)

    by ParnBR ( 601156 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @06:43AM (#22219994) Homepage
    The summary is wrong. It defies common sense that someone would be flying a 907kg (2,000lb, for SI-impaired ones) anything on a kite. Actually, the camera had around 21kg (46lb), as stated by TFA. But the kite was flying around 610m (2,000ft) high, and this is where I think the figure came from.

    • The summary is wrong. It defies common sense that someone would be flying a 907kg (2,000lb, for SI-impaired ones) anything on a kite. Actually, the camera had around 21kg (46lb), as stated by TFA. But the kite was flying around 610m (2,000ft) high, and this is where I think the figure came from.

      I also doubt the a kite can carry 2000lb, but kites can still carry quite a load. During the years leading up to WWI observation baskets lifted by a string of kites were used for artillery spotting. Kites were later abandoned in favor of kite-balloons and aircraft but a pure kite could still lift at least one observer, his equipment and even a passenger. Some of the systems used were pretty similar to the one seen in the drawing on that page linked to in TFA [asu.edu] except of course the kites were much larger. The

    • for SI-impaired ones

      Not to start a metric flamewar, but the people impaired with SI are likely the ones who would need the translation- from lbs to kgs.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ParnBR ( 601156 )
        Hey, I kind of agree with you. Learning everything in decimal units make imperial units seem illogical and annoying, and in a certain way this is a limitation of a decimal way of thinking. =) Usually I just take the easy route and make 1kg=2lb, 3ft=1m and so on. Despite the errors, it works fine for me since I can't tell apart a 4lb weight from a 2kg one. ^^ Since I was going to reply anyway, I decided to go the extra 1.6km =P and translate the units for people like me.
        • Same here. I usually just round 2000 feet to 2000 lbs, and the margin of error is too small to matter.

          Now back my calculations for the next Mars mission...

  • Coral Cache seems to work (Score:5, Informative)

    by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @06:58AM (#22220052) Homepage
    Links:
    http://www.ronkleinphotos.com.nyud.net:8090/Lawrence.html [nyud.net]
    http://www.ronkleinphotos.com.nyud.net:8090/success.html [nyud.net]

    PS. Install the Slashdotter extension for Firefox, does the CC links automagically.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Icculus ( 33027 )
      FYI, it is no longer necessary to add the goofy port stuff on there. Seems to work fine by just adding "nyud.net" to the end of the hostname.
      • Ah, it seems that whoever made the Slashdotter extension should update it then. I never go through the Coral Cache site these days. :)

  • 2000 pounds? (Score:3, Informative)

    by kylegordon ( 159137 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @07:01AM (#22220070) Homepage
    That's nearly a tonne... the article states that the camera is approx 46 pounds. Submitters... please rtfa before submitting. And if you did, then pay attention to it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 4D6963 ( 933028 )

      That's nearly a tonne...

      That is a tonne. An imperial tonne that is.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nagora ( 177841 )
        That is a tonne. An imperial tonne that is.

        There's no such thing. An imperial ton is 2240lbs (20 hundred-weight of 8 stone each). The reason for the odd numbers is that measurements grew out of a system for trade which allowed for the weight of barrels. So a hundred-weight of 112lbs was supposed to be 100lbs of actual cargo and 12lbs of packaging.

        The American system discared the packing allowances and so the American "short" ton is 2000lbs.

        TWW

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      Camera weighed 46 pounds.

      Film was much heavier back then.

  • The 3 years after photo (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They really got things done right in the early 1900's, i wonder what New Orleans will look like next august.
    • I'm not sure that pushing all of the rubble into the bay and then building on it was the best long-term development plan considering the future earthquake potential.
    • Thats what I thought, and those aren't some little shacks they've managed to build either but an awful lot of proper stone buildings by the look of it.

  • lead kite! (Score:3, Funny)

    by ionymous ( 1216224 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @08:22AM (#22220494)
    Not only were the cameras weighing 45+ pounds each, but the kite itself was made of lead!! (See illustration) http://activetectonics.asu.edu/kites/06eq.html [asu.edu]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TemporalBeing ( 803363 )

      Not only were the cameras weighing 45+ pounds each, but the kite itself was made of lead!! (See illustration) http://activetectonics.asu.edu/kites/06eq.html [asu.edu]

      While your picture refers the leading kite...I don't see how a lead (Pb) would be a problem.

      The MythBusters (production #112, 1/23/2008) [wikipedia.org] have already shown that a lead balloon is quite possible - i think I would have done it slightly differently (by plying together a few layers of the lead foil they used to make a stronger foil surface), but it did work. I see no reason why a Lead (Pb) kite wouldn't be possible either, though certainly not trivial to do. (BTW, their Lead Balloon used Lead Foil and at le

  • kite lifting (Score:2, Informative)

    by garvon ( 32299 )
    I know the the camera was was not 2000lbs
    but here is a link to show a kite CAN lift more then you think

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkAL1jTojY [youtube.com]

  • ...I'm sure the Mr. Lawrence would have used a helicopter if it had been available...

    He would have used an airship if he had had the money.
    On the other hand:
    I'm sure he would have used a Leica Aviophot RC30 camera if it had been available.
    I'm sure he would have used digital post processing and multi-spectral analysis if it had been available.
    I'm sure he would have driven a Saleen S7 to the airport for the shoot - if either the Saleen or the airport had been available.

  • Especially with the advent of lightweight digital cameras (no more wasted film or being limited to 24/36 shots). Just google for kite aerial photography [google.com]. It's got a Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] and even a jargon wiki [vogelblik.nl].

  • It's The Camera (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kozar_The_Malignant ( 738483 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2008 @12:41PM (#22223640)
    For all the whining about not using kites, etc., no one has acknowledged the recreation of the camera. They did recreate a century old piece of equipment and used it to take an extremely high quality photo. I went to school from junior high through college with Ron Klein, and I guarantee that he built a meticulous reproduction of the original camera. It wouldn't surprise me if he used 100 year old brass screws to put the thing together. Let's give some props to some extremely cool retro-tech work instead of bashing it.
  • The idea of flying 2,000-pound cameras with kites.

    I think they call those "spy satellites" nowadays.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close