Quote:
Originally Posted by sphere and ash
Steve—I agree on Muybridge. His methods are not compatible with on-field action. I was just trying to give a short history of action photography.
My point was that by 1905 photographers had everything they needed to capture plays at home, first or third. Things got a little harder in 1910 when Lynch barred photographers from the field in the National League, but Conlon was still able to capture Cobb sliding into Jimmy Austin at American League (Hilltop) Park that same year.
Better technologies would have increased the probability of capturing a memorable moment, but only if photographers were there and trying to capture those moments.
Why didn’t anyone capture Ray Chapman as he lay stricken, minute after minute, or as the umpire shouted to the stands asking for a doctor, or as Chapman was carried by Speaker and Wood? All of the technology existed. The New York Daily News had a photographer there. It’s almost certain that he left before the beaning. The primary reason no memorable moments were photographed before October 1920: there was no demand for them. That changed with the birth of the tabloid press.
|
That's certainly a part of it as well. The photographer probably had his assignment, and as much film as he felt he needed. I'm not sure how much film they'd have carried back then, 4x5 negatives in carriers are pretty bulky, Maybe 25? Maybe 50?
I can easily see him leaving once he'd gotten what he'd been assigned. The guy my friend met probably would have too, if the extra for getting the unexpected wasn't so much.
Back then there was also a bit of respect for peoples bad moments, so he might not have taken pics if he was there. That wasn't true for all photographers, some of the crime scene/accident photos they actually published would never make it to press today.
I met a semi pro photographer who claimed to have been at an airshow disaster. Supposedly he had the event in his viewfinder and couldn't take the picture, or any of the aftermath.