I think the original story still stinks (conflicting reports of who was actually driving, Hart appearing intoxicated and being snuck home before going to the hospital) -- but... This is a lousy thing to be sued for. A heavily modified 50-year old muscle car... Enter at your own risk.

Rollcages are unsafe in road-going cars as they are more likely to cause a traumatic brain injury. They are not designed for use without a certified helmet used in concert with them.

“criminally negligent.”

i did a dumb and got hurt and it's everyone's fault but mine!

Most people I know that have installed 5 point harnesses end up never using them due to the hassle over a regular 3point seatbelt.

This is dumb!!!

To continue to be amazed that the 1940s were actually in color...

This is the worst episode of Ballers ever. 

These have to be from large format view cameras.

My guess is medium format vs 35mm. Smaller film has more grain, less sharp lenses unless you had a Leica. 

Those are awesome, thanks for posting.

I’ll take that last one framed, please.

Exposure might have something to do with it too; a lot of these shots have relatively low contrast, which makes me wonder if they were pushing the film a bit, or at least exposing primarily for the highlights.

Incredible. 

It’s an interesting set of questions. The metadata says only “transparencies,” but I’d bet a round for the bar in a fairly spendy establishment that they were Kodachrome, introduced in the mid 1930s. Probably a lot of them were shot in a medium-ish format by today’s standards (120 or 4x5) as well.

To continue to be amazed that the 1940s were actually in color, look at the Kodachrome category on Shorpy.com

Part of the reason these look different to you is because these were shot on medium format Kodachrome transparency film, so the negatives are much larger and less grainy than the 35mm negatives you’re used to looking at. The bigger reason they look better is because these are scanned from the actual negatives, the old…

These photos are Kodachrome, introduced in 1935. It required complex and expensive processing, so it was used mainly by professionals and was much better than consumer grade slide film like Ektachrome. The colors are much more stable and fade less than consumer-grade film which is why these archival photos look so…

I find it interesting that these pictures seem to be more lifelike to me than the bulk of the colour pictures from the 50s/60s that were taken with Kodachrome film. I wonder if this is an artifact of how the pictures were scanned in and retouched, or if they used a film with a different colour balance that I find more…

Excellent pictures!