tyrion

It certainly might. If you could find one.

canklecat

I see several photos online of mountain bikers leaning that much. The difference is they have the look of extreme exertion, the banks are usually a bit more substantial to hold the bike, and there's a bit of visible dirt being kicked up.

Another difference is the handlebar. The drop bar enables Bange's left forearm to be nearly parallel to the ground. It gives the photo an unnaturally calm sense. That would be unusual with most mountain bikes that use flat bars -- the riders often extend an elbow to maintain balance and seem to be flailing around on the edge of disaster.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of fakery. But if it's faked it's done extremely well. The main giveaway may be the absence of apparent dirt and dust being kicked up by the tires. But I don't see any shadows from a support device and wires, although those could have been retouched out.

***


Extreme lean, coming out of a substantial bank, totally different body language/posture necessitated by handlebar designed and to maintain balance.

***


Extreme lean, obviously substantial bank that's nearly a dirt curb, rider looks like he's on the edge of wiping out.

tyrion

That's the significant point. You can get completely horizontal given enough bank, but in that picture the angle between the tire and the ground is impossible.

The "fakery" I think is that he's simply on his way down to the ground, not that there's any wires or darkroom "photoshopping". That's my theory.

nashvillebill

I agree that this picture isn't quite what it appears to be. First, the complete absence of any dirt being kicked up or moved around--that struck me the moment I saw the picture. Second, everything is too well focused, not a hint of camera movement blurring anywhere as it follows the "moving" bike: it's too "picture perfect".

Third, back then there weren't very good (fast) telephoto lenses or high-speed film. So where is the photographer standing in this picture? For a picture to be this perfectly focused with no blurring, he/she must've set a tripod very near to the bike and very close to the apparent path of the bike. By comparison, the more recent photos of the mountain bikers are using fast cameras with fast telephoto lenses, so the photographers can stand many feet away from the track.

I agree with tyrion's hypothesis: the photographer had the rider simply stand motionless, then lift his foot and strike a pose. Several "takes" later, a good photo emerges.

canklecat

Actually the photo isn't that well focused. Google around for the largest versions available (just over 1000 pixels on long edge) and you can see the front of the bike is slightly out of focus, with the area of sharpest focus well beyond the bike. It's mostly depth of field giving the impression of sharpness.

And that's the main factor that has me doubting whether it's faked. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through to fake a photo and not get the focus perfect -- unless Bange himself set up the entire thing, including a self timer to snap the photo, in which case it's conceivable he misfocused slightly.

The camera looks like it's set on the ground or very near the ground, possibly not even on a tripod.

Regarding focal length, etc., as I wrote earlier it's all guesswork. There was no film format I know of with this particular aspect ratio so it's almost certainly cropped. I suspect we're seeing only a small portion of the captured image, possibly to emphasize the lean and sense of motion, possibly to hide some support rigs used to set up the photo. If that's the case, the camera could have been farther from the bike than it appears from this photo. Medium or large format film allows for generous cropping, and even an extreme crop would still equal the quality of a full frame of 35mm negative.

tyrion

I was wondering about that aspect ratio. I looked at the wiki page for film formats and found a format called 531, image size 2⁹/₃₂ ื 5นน/₃₂ inches, introduced in 1926. But a search for "531 film format" yields nothing useful.

But as you say it certainly could be a crop.

dedhed

Major Taylor. I did find many of him on chain driven bikes.

themp

The telephone or power line pole in the background is very distorted, almost at the same angle as the bike.

canklecat

That pole apparently just fell over that way. Being in Australia it's probably a eucalyptus tree, once commonly used for cheap utility poles. But eucalyptus trees make for lousy utility poles. They warp and split too easily. Some US cities tried eucalyptus trees as utility poles decades ago but gave up quickly when they realized the drawbacks. Some African nations have proposed using the eucalyptus to expand utility lines but the proposal is controversial because the trees may worsen the drought.

Any optical distortion would show at the edges. There's no indication of optical distortion in the barn at left, or tree at right.

TimothyH

@canklecat obviously knows about photography in this era.

Lack of humility is a sign of the times, I guess. Someone could have a PhD and fifty years experience in a certain field and there is always someone who says that that they know better.


-Tim-

woodcraft

If that's a fixed gear... pedal strike.

BikeArkansas

As the OP of this thread, I thank the researchers and photography experts.

nemo57

Still and all, it's a great image.

StephenH

Cameras using 120 film were made in a wide range of formats, from 6x4.5 cm to 6x12 cm or even wider. Additionally, the frame could have been cropped at top and bottom, quite commonly done in film days just as now.

StephenH

Looking at this some more, I suspect it is a pretty extreme lean, and is then exaggerated a little bit by a focal plane shutter.