Sports photography question

[billyb]

Moose,
So you think it was done over several pitches??? Hard to tell with half a photo, sorry. I thought VanOeyen was tinkering with speed shutters, thought I read that some where, but I may be wrong.
Re checked , nothing about speed shutters, scratch that information.
It is obvious now that the photos were taken on different pitches. Thanks Moose
So Moose, you think it started in the 50s???

[cubsfan-budman]

The angles are all different. My guess is that it's 4 cameras.

[MooseDog]

Originally Posted by billyb

Moose,
So you think it was done over several pitches??? Hard to tell with half a photo, sorry. I thought VanOeyen was tinkering with speed shutters, thought I read that some where, but I may be wrong.
Re checked , nothing about speed shutters, scratch that information.
It is obvious now that the photos were taken on different pitches. Thanks Moose
So Moose, you think it started in the 50s???

So like Griffins said, most of the mainstream photography of that time was done with bulky 4x5 cameras. Long lenses weren't very common either so the photographer had to get pretty close to the action to get shots.

From your scan you can clearly see the edges of the glass negatives, so the total images was made from four separate images. you can easily fit four 4x5 negatives on one 8x10 sheet of photo paper (most common size).

Considering a batter might see 30-40 pitches in a 9-inning game, if the photographer was concentrating on Ruth he might have had that many shots to choose from. Perhaps he had an idea that people would see the composite image as one at-bat. After all, photography was relatively new those using the tools were free to be experimental and people were easily fooled back then.

[billyb]

I wonder how many different games he may have attempted, just to get the swing in the four different positions to make it look like a full swing. Even if he had 12 to 15 swings (photos) to choose from, it still must have been difficult.

[MooseDog]

This thread is making my brain hurt, but in a good way...

Cameras back then had one focal length. You could switch lenses but it took some time. Also, photographers were right on the field "in play". From the two pictures that are fully visible, you can tell from the Holland Coffee sign that the camera was in two different positions (closer in the top shot) from those two shots so clearly could not have been the same pitch.

Now, to seal the case, you can use a little simple geometry and check the angle of the shadows in each picture.

Just saying how, not going to do it myself.

[billyb]

Moose,
LOL.....Didn't mean to make your head hurt. It looks like a runner on second in one photo and not in the other, plus the ump in one picture and not the other. Unless he moves like Ricky Henderson, it is two different photos.
I like reading the advertisement in the background. Holland Coffee looks cool. Why does their advertising look so much better than what we have today?

[billyb]

oops

[steve B]

The angles are very different. I hadn't noticed that.

While not quite as nice as 4x5, 35mm even as movie film can produce excellent results.

Steve B

[billyb]

Yea, I hadn't noticed the difference of the angles either, until pointed out.
Again, what do you think? how many times , or how many games do you thing he attempted that precess, before he got all four positions correctly.
I guess the photographer could have used photos from different games within the 3 or 4 game series also.