Camera Nerds Going Crazy Over NASCAR Image Blunder

Camera Nerds Going Crazy Over NASCAR Image Blunder

A recent post to twitter by NASCAR has left photographers and camera nerds around the world stumped at how they missed this simple image editing mistake.

Since digital took over the photography world in the early 2000s, analog film was generally phased out of professional work for the most part due to the new flexible workflow that digital photography afforded. Because of this, there is a new generation of creative content creators, graphic designers included, that are blissfully unaware of the variety of camera film stocks and their intended uses.

That brings us on to the NASCAR image blunder. To celebrate Chase Elliott's record of achieving three consecutive road course victories in the NASCAR cup series, they tweeted a composite image of Elliott on what looks to be a roll of Ilford film; the only problem is the photos are in color and the film (Ilford HP5 Plus) was only ever made in black and white. Oops.

Nascar tweet reply

Jeremy called it - you can trawl through dozens of comments of camera nerds losing their minds over the mistake

Colorblind reply twitter comment

I suppose it's more difficult to tell the issue if you're colorblind, but most colorblind people can still see a spectrum of colors

Many camera nerds have taken to the comments section to mock, poke fun, and generally whip up a bit of a tease at NASCAR for missing the problem. Just take a look at some of the replies above.
Log in or register to post comments


Matt Williams's picture

I don't think that one dude understands what "gatekeeping" means... at all.

Alex Reiff's picture

This is almost as bad as that episode of Sarah Silverman, where Brian reveals that he hasn't listened to metal since the early 90's, but in describing why his fantasy sequence includes a Lamb of God song from 2006. I don't understand how sitcom writers committed such a blatant error in heavy metal chronology. It's almost as if people can make inconsequential errors in subjects they're not well versed in.

Ryan Mense's picture

I think many people at one time or another have used those faux film frame borders on their digital images, like with Hipstamatic when that was a thing. It’s not the end of the world.

Lawrence S's picture

Well, this is not "one time or another" and not a mother sharing photos of her baby to her 200 FB friends. NASCAR is not a small local store. It's a big money business with millions of fans and followers and a big budget for their communication. So the social media manager and or graphic designer who - I presume - came up with this, is paid a nice annual salary. So yeah, some critique/laughs are in order. But as always, internet goes twelve bridges too far.

Ryan Mense's picture

I promise it’s fine.

Cool Cat's picture

Just because we can land on the moon doesn't mean it's a great place for a hotdog stand. Technology is great but too much is too much. Something Matt the Rat doesn't understand.

Gregory Mills's picture

With everything going on in the world right now, the fact the photographers a making such a big deal out if this makes us look petty and like a "well actually..." guy that no one invites to parties. Sure, forums like Fstoppers is a good place to discuss it because people here actually care. On Twitter, nobody actually cares because the majority of the people reading the NASCAR twitter feed care that about the accomplishment of one of their favorite drivers.

Paul Asselin's picture

This part of the article perfectly sums up the narcissism that is running rampant today. "there is a new generation of creative content creators" Really? What about non creative content creators? or creationist who believe only 'god' can create, or maybe a 'creative' who can't quite grasp how to be a creator. The English language is doomed. The mind boggles. Oh, and as far as metal goes, time actually stands still for core metal, except for Lamb of God who seem to be cutting edge today with music from 2006.

Cool Cat's picture

Hi Paul. Doesn't the word "create" mean "bring (something) into existence"? Depending on your religion, only GOD can create from nothing. But we can certainly create something from something and bring it into existence. But like I said above, "just because we can land on the moon doesn't mean it's a great place for a hotdog stand".

Paul Asselin's picture

My concern is the phrase "creative content creators" From the Department of Redundency Department and the Ministry of Silly Phrases. Better to say "a new generation of creatives" or "a new generation of content creators" But not "creative content creators". Pet peeve of mine.

anthony marsh's picture

"Since digital took over photography",etc. Really? Digital took over photography only in the minds and practices of many,not all, who wanted a point and shoot machine that offered hundreds if not thousands of clicks to arrive at "THE ONE" good image.