Which post-war photographer do you like best?
 

Here are examples of each of the photographer's work.

Attachment 6527Malcolm Emmons

Attachment 6528Don Wingfield

Attachment 6529George Woodruff

Attachment 6530Herbie Scharfman

Attachment 6531William Jacobellis

In my opinion:

#1 - Ozzie Sweet
#2 - Malcolm Emmons / Salas (tie because of different styles)
#3 - George Dorrill, Barney Stein, Wingfield (Tie because their work is similar)

Honorable mention: Bob Bartosz who took many of the interesting images that Fleer used on their cards in the 1980's.

Ozzie Sweet took the coolest photos, Salas the most interesting.

Scott

Good call Dr Cycleback...
 

on casting your vote for Herbie Scharfman. It was a tough call for me, but because I have several dozen Emmons photos, I believe I leaned that way.

Scharfman IMO, is by far the most underrated of the postwar lensmen.

Here is another of his masterpieces. Vintage original TYPE I photo.

Clemente robs Pee Wee Reese 1955. Also used on his 1956 Topps card.
Attachment 6611

Lets not forget about Mark Kauffman!! The man was certainly a force to be reckoned with, as he he was the first sports photo editor for Sports Illustrated, and if I'm not mistaken, the youngest photographer to have a piece on the cover of LIFE magazine (17?). I don't know if Type 1s exist of his work or anything, but damn, he did some great stuff!!

I'll try to post some in the next couple of hours...

I actually considered Sweet, Stein, Salas, Iooss, and Leifer but trimmed it down to the five I listed, and I still stand by them.

Some of the reasons I omitted Sweet, Stein, and Salas is they were basically paparazzi (before it became a dirty word ;) ) then ventured out into the Baseball world.

Of course Castro personally chose Salas to be his top photographer for the new government. Sweet at 91 years old is still with us and I've yet to see one of his TYPE I photos come up for sale. Negatives yes, photographs no. And Stien TYPE I photos are just plain scarce as well. Plenty of TYPE II's came up for sale on ebay the last few years but TYPE I's are few and far between.

Iooss and Leifer TYPE I's pretty much don't exist in the secondary market although I was lucky enough to win a pair of Iooss TYPE I's some years back in a charity auction for SI photographer VJ Lovero's family shortly after he passed away at 44.

So there you have it... the five I chose were great Baseball photographers and their original TYPE I photographs are available in auctions from time to time. My top two criteria.

Here is my Walter Iooss 11x14 TYPE I signed photo of Sandy Koufax during his no-hitter in Philly.

Attachment 6612

Good call on the criteria, Jimmy.

I think I had a bias towards Kauffman because of his many behind-the-plate shots of players, those of Mantle being incredibly exquisite. I just forget that those SI guys were in a totally different kind of league in the collectible world than Emmons, Wingfield and the like - especially since I'm using these photos for my own artistic needs.

As amazing as Leifer, Iooss and his contemporaries are, it's a shame that to the general public, they're the rock stars of sports photography. I guess it makes sense, being that they were given the forum that most people were exposed to. Though, the lesser-knowns that collectors love so much were just as important to the game (both pre and post-war), and certainly, their craft equals that of the big guns. Heck, if it wasn't for the artwork on all of those Bowman and Topps cards of the 1950s, I know I wouldn't even be interested in doing baseball paintings. But that's neither here nor there.

I like to think that now that all of those incredible photographers have passed on, it's up to people like us to continue their legacy. Luckily, this hobby has some great people in it who want nothing more than to do so.

And by the way Jimmy, that Iooss never ceases to amaze me (as I'm sure you know ;)).

And by the way Jimmy, that Iooss never ceases to amaze me (as I'm sure you know ).
__________________

And by the way Graig... this piece never ceases to amaze me as well :D

Attachment 6617

:p

One of thing things that makes photography collecting so great is that there are so many things for people to find appealing.

For example, the reason that I rate Salas so high is that he took such great candid photos (paparazzi type). He was really the only one doing it at the time and it gives you a look at the subject that you don't get from a posed shot. I would not really throw Sweet into that classification. Some of Sweets stuff looks candid, but was actually planned or posed (1953 Bowman Reese).

Surprisingly I find Barney Steins type 1 photos to be the most common of anybody yet mentioned but maybe that is because I have sold alot of Brooklyn Dodgers stuff over the years.

Scharfman I think benefits that he covered so many sporting events in NY and took so many photos, that he can't help but have taken some great ones. Plus he was one of the guys that sold his prints on a retail level later in life and that helped to make him more collectible.

However, nobody can deny that they are all great and among the best of their era.

Scott

Ozzie Sweet
 

Scott,

I completely agree with you about Sweet. In my opinion, his 1950s Sport Magazine images are the most enduring from an era that was easily one of baseball's greatest ..

Here's a link to my collection of Sport Magazine photos from the 1950s, many of which were taken by Sweet ...

http://imageevent.com/ccmcnutt/1950ssportmagazineimages

Chris,

That shot of Jackie sliding into second base against the Phillies is exquisite!! Any idea/recollection as to what issue that came from?

Graig

Jackie Robinson Sport Magazine Photo
 

Graig,

I got most of collection from one seller, who was offering about 400 in one lot, and they were already clipped from the magazines. Amazingly, when they arrived, there were over 600 images. The only clues I have about the dates of each photo are from the back. The Jackie Robinson photo has an article about Dick Donovan, who refers to 1955 as "last season." The article has a subhead that says "Hot Stove League Section," so I'm guessing the article is from December, 1955. If not, it must be close to that date. The story about Donovan looks extensive, so it's probably mentioned on the cover ...

Poll within a Poll...
 

Same subject, same pose, different photographer. Which one do you prefer?

Attachment 6657by Salas

Attachment 6658by Wingfield

Oh man, that's a toughie - they're both insanely nice. I think in the end, I go with the Salas. I think for me, it's a better balanced image, as the really light values are cut almost perfectly in half by the deeper gray/black ones. Usually, I'm attracted to the opposite, when there's an overabundance of one and not the other. Heck, a lot of times in good landscape photography, you actually don't want that kind of balance either, as it can make for a less interesting picture. I feel like in this case though, it really hits home - almost like a yin and yang.

But then again, that stark contrast of the Wingfield is hard to deny.

Shit.

I think I should frame them up side by side...
 

with this in between them...

Attachment 6659Attachment 6660

On the Clemente Photos, very tough call, I will take them both!

Scott

Chris,

Thanks so much for the info. It sounds like you got a pretty awesome collection there!! The work from Sport Magazine never ceases to amaze me. What I would like to see in circulation however, is the rest of their collection - the stuff that DIDN'T make it into the magazine. I had been in talks with them regarding image licenses a year or so ago, and the stuff that they showed me was pretty impressive. Their rates weren't.

Anywho, I think you've pretty much sold me on the fact that I should track some of the old issues down!

Thanks,

Graig

A high school friend of my sister's was a sports photographer for Associated Press-- based out of Chicago so did a lot of Packers and Bears games along with regional MLB. I talked to him about 12 years ago and he only used a digital camera for work and it cost something like $5,000. He game my mom, a Packers fan, a Brett Favre autographed photo-- he shot it during a game and later had Favre sign it when he photographed Favre for a magazine ad. He was never interested in sports until he became a sports photographer-- then he became a big fan of the Packers.