Sports photography question

[billyb]

I have seen vintage baseball press photos that have four pictures, in sequence, on one photo. Does anyone know which sports photographer introduced the speed shutter, or method, to capture those images in the matter of moments? I am interested in findout out what sports photographer was first to capture several images of one play.
I have been searching, but could not find an answer.

[MooseDog]

John Zimmerman who is mostly known for work for Life and SI was great at using all kinds of shutter tricks, though I don't know if he was the first. Some real cool stuff in the 1950s.

[billyb]

Moose,
Thanks Moose, but I know I have seen a 4 sequence photo from the 20s or 30s. It was of Babe Ruth and his swing. Was wondering if around that time was the earliest, or was it done even before the 1920s?

[thecatspajamas]

Eadweard Muybridge did it in the 1870's using multiple cameras staged along a track to capture the galloping motion of a horse. The cameras' shutters were triggered by threads stretched across the track that the horse would run through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadweard_Muybridge

I couldn't say for sure what method was used to capture the Ruth swinging images you are referring to, but I wouldn't rule out a staggered multiple-camera approach as opposed to a single camera opening and closing a single shutter quickly. Photographers could (and still can) be pretty tricky with their methods for coming up with a unique shot. At some point, using something more akin to a motion picture camera and re-assembling multiple frames from the resulting film seems a likely option as well.

[MooseDog]

Originally Posted by billyb

Moose,
Thanks Moose, but I know I have seen a 4 sequence photo from the 20s or 30s. It was of Babe Ruth and his swing. Was wondering if around that time was the earliest, or was it done even before the 1920s?

It's been about 30 years since I was really into photography, but if I can shake off some of the dust in my brain...

I don't think the technology to take four rapid pictures from one camera existed in the 1920s. Basically the cameras took one negative at a time. You had to physically pull out a frame holding a glass plate negative, then pull up the cover of the holder, take the picture, put the cover back in, take the plate out, put in another, lather, rinse, repead. There were dual backed negative holders, still the time to change or flip would be at minimum 30 seconds to a minute each.

More likely the images was made up of four different swings and then printed from from four negatives to one piece of photographic paper. You could do this by cutting a matte, and then printing each individual photo in each "square".

Another scenario would be having four different cameras set up and tripped in sequence. There were no auto-timers back then so each would have to have been manually tripped by one or more people.

The farthest out theory - I vaguely remember a book of pictures of unsual cameras. I think I recall seeing a view camera with multiple lenses - four mounted on one board but this could just be a mind shadow. Would have been very expensive at the time but New York is probably where one would find such a beast.

[Griffins]

I agree- I really doubt the images from the 20's were taken by the same camera in sequence.
Images in that era were generally taken with 4x5 press cameras. It's incredibly slow taking an image and reloading for the next one. As Moosedog wrote even with 2 sides to each holder of film 30 seconds is about the quickest to shoot, replace the dark slide, flip the holder, take out the dark slide, and cock the shutter. To the best of my knowledge the first motor drives were made for the Nikon F, in the early/mid '60's and that is when they came into widespread use for sports and fashion shoots.
Most likely for the images of Ruth they were either done with multiple cameras, or more likely just a series of shots taken on different pitches and put together to look like a sequence.

The view camera with multiple lenses could've been an early color camera- we played with one in school, before color film a separate negative would be shot for red, green and blue spectrums and then printed together. There was also a twin lens reflex (picture a rollei, look down the top into the camera, one lens to view and the other to capture the image) that shot 4x5 but those weren't very common and were pretty slow.

[billyb]

This is a muffed edit job I have had, sorry for the pic. Believe it was in the 20sAttachment 100994

[billyb]

Guys,
I really did not want to post that pic, too embarrassed, it shows how bad at editing I am, I could make all the excuses, sun was in my eyes or something, but I just suck.

[MooseDog]

Neat images...looks to me like four separate negatives. Each would probably have been glass 4x5 inches. Most likely over several pitches.

[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.

[steve B]

Or, they could simply print the four from a movie negative.

Kodak had a camera that could do 1000 frames a second in the early 30's.
But a regular movie camera at 24fps will just capture 4-5 frames of a swing if the .2 of a second swing time I've heard is correct.


It's hardly old, but I have a camera that takes four sequential pictures on the same frame. Plastic and cheesey, and a bit too slow for baseball. But still kinda cool.

Steve B

[Griffins]

But movie frames were half frame 35mm, pretty small and not remotely the quality of a 4x5 negative.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by billyb

This is a muffed edit job I have had, sorry for the pic. Believe it was in the 20s

I think four separate pitches. Possibly even 4 separate at bats.
Top left shows a right handed pitcher with his left leg as his forward leg.
Bottom left shows a left handed pitcher with his right leg forward and is from a higher angle.

[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.

[steve B]

Hard to say. I wouldn't mind seeing the other two in the series.

The shadows all look like they're at nearly the same angle, so maybe the same at bat? The pairs also look really similar. Maybe he was holding two cameras and hit the shutter just a bit apart? Hard to tell really.

I know how it was done in the 1980's though. A friend of mine worked in a camera shop that handled film from one of the globe photographers. He used a 3000 shot roll of 35mm and a camera with auto advance. If I remember it right a Canon AE-1. He had a list of assigned subjects for each game and would just hold the shutter down and let the auto advance do its thing when a player on the list was batting or whatever action they wanted that day. A typical game was 5-6 full rolls, so 25-30,000 images he figured at least one would be usable. Milestone games or important games like the 78 playoff or Yaz 3000hit or 400hr were two cameras and more film each.
He also had a good feel for some special things and caught a lot of great stuff that wasn't on the list. Players first hits, or first appearances and minor milestones that were unexpected.

I wonder where all those pictures are now? The Globe only took the ones they liked, I think he said 30-100 per game.

Somewhere I have almost an entire home movie reel I took of Yaz grounding out and popping up I went to something like 12 games in a row and he got hit 3000 the night my parents said enough was enough.

Steve B

[billyb]

Steve,
25 to 30 thousand pics????? Talk about headaches, could you imagine going through all those to find the ones you want to keep. It does sound like he has a lot of great pics though.
I wish I had the rest of the photo, it was the only copy I have. The photo belonged to someone I knew, I will see if I can contact him again. I am researching what photographer took that photo, I have an idea it was VanOeyen, as the photo came out of a collection that had other VanOeyens. I have contacted the Western Reserve Hist. Society, said they will get back to me.

[steve B]

And that's 25-30 thousand per game. Times 81 home games. That's a bit over 2 million just for the Red Sox. Since he worked for the globe he also did all four pro sports, college, plus a few highschool events and things like the marathon and rowing. Probably other stuff too. So figure around 5-6 million photos a year?

Hard not to get a few good ones doing it that way.

[billyb]

Steve,
That seems overwhelming. How many hours does he spend editing the photos to select which ones to use?

[thecatspajamas]

25-30k shots per game?! Yeesh! That sounds basically like shooting high-quality video footage and then just selecting individual frames for printing. That just amazes me, and makes me appreciate the relative scarcity of older photos and negatives even more, especially the earlier ones shot on glass plates.

[steve B]

The guy I knew just worked for the place he got his cameras and repairs and dropped off the bulk film for developing.

Apparently the photographer didn't even have the raw film cut into 3 shot strips like any of us would get, but just got back a bunch of 3000 shot rolls of negatives. Always rush processed, and taken to the globe where he and the globe people would unroll it and look for specific things based on his notes. Once they found the at bat or play they wanted they'd look at the sequence to see if there was a really good one - The ones popular at the time would show the ball just leaving the bat, or just geting there. Once they found a likely segment they'd cut that bit out and have a few small B+W prints run in house. The one they picked would go to the sports dept for editing, and the rest------I don't have any idea what he did with them.

I think my friend said the real important stuff never even went to the lab, but was developed in house by the paper.

I've never heard of anyone else working that way, It's very hard on the equipment and probably on the budget too. My friend never did tell me who it was, just said to pay attention to the photo credits and see who had the most.

The flip side was a photographer I worked for for about a month who would spend a bunch of time setting up a picture then doing some post processing to make it perfect. I spent an entire two days helping him get 4 pictures of his thunderbird ready to send to one of those bargain hunter type magazines. Wax the car, set it up in the driveway just so, wait till the light is "right" 4 clicks over maybe a minute and a half. Then developed. Next day, cropping and printing with a contrast filter to get it looking really good. The contrast had to be bumped up because the cheap weekly want ad always washed out the image. I learned a ton of stuff in a really short time. The other jobs weren't as fun, I spent most of the next week sorting 4 file cabinets of camera gear by how broken it was.

Steve B

[billyb]

Steve,
Great story. I would love to sit in on a conversation, about sports photography, between yourself and some of the guys on this site. I can feel, through your postings, how much you guys care about collecting sports photos.
To me, press photos are the new '52 Topps. Photos are out there to buy, but not for long. At least not the good ones. In time, I can see some of these press photos sitting our your vaults and safes, along side of the Old Judge an T-206 cards.
Again Steve, I really enjoyed your story about photographers and their photos. I just had no idea they took that many photos.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by steve B

I've never heard of anyone else working that way, It's very hard on the equipment and probably on the budget too. My friend never did tell me who it was, just said to pay attention to the photo credits and see who had the most.

I'll say! Hard all around, but I guess if you were keen to get that one millisecond shot like you say, maybe that's how you had to do it. Hard to believe it would have been worth the added expense unless you were re-selling the same primo image to multiple outlets.

Incidentally, I have heard of some photographers more recently just shooting super-high-definition video and then going frame by frame to select the shots they want. I believe this was for a fashion magazine cover shoot, not sports-related, and all done digitally so that there was no developing cost. Still kind of the same idea as your guy though. I guess it just took technology 30 years to catch up to his methods enough to make it affordable

[billyb]

One more question regarding photos with crop marks. To encapsulate or not to encapsulate, that is the question?

When PSA authenticates photos, they encapsulate them, but photos with crop marks, the buyers cannot remove these crop marks without damaging the seal of the holder.
Is it better to auction off photos, with crop marks, without PSA authentication?
Does value make that determination to authenticate/encapsulate or not? Remember, we are talking of photos with crop marks.

[steve B]

I know not everyone likes them, but I'd go with crop marks left in place. Same for other editorial modifications like whiteout etc.

I don't think I have any though, I only have a few photos. Just ones I've come across that I liked.

I'm not a huge stickler for a photo being original or a certain "type" either as long as it's identified and priced properly. I have a couple that are modern reproductions but they're of images I could never afford otherwise.

Steve B

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by billyb

One more question regarding photos with crop marks. To encapsulate or not to encapsulate, that is the question?

When PSA authenticates photos, they encapsulate them, but photos with crop marks, the buyers cannot remove these crop marks without damaging the seal of the holder.
Is it better to auction off photos, with crop marks, without PSA authentication?
Does value make that determination to authenticate/encapsulate or not? Remember, we are talking of photos with crop marks.

As with most things regarding photos, I don't think there is really a blanket statement that you can make regarding whether to encapsulate with crop marks in place or remove them prior to encapsulation.

There is another option though: Don't encapsulate. PSA doesn't have to encapsulate every photo that they authenticate. You also have the option of having them place their sticker on the back of the photo and issue an accompanying LOA.

I would say, in general, just use your best judgement. The markings on a photo that will negatively impact selling price are typically those that are more obtrusive than simple crop marks (large areas of the background whited out, big fat lines laid on top of the paint, etc), but those are also the kinds of modifications that you probably don't want to attempt removing yourself due to their extensive nature.

I would also say that, in that unusual circumstance where the editor's markings actually help to prove a photo's provenance (one of which we've talked about), you should definitely not remove them.

[billyb]

Lance,
I understand, it will definately be encapsulated.
Regarding PSA, I think I read on PSA's site that they now encapsulate all photos they authenticate. I may be wrong, but they way they worded it, it sounded like something new, or fairly new.

Steve B.
I know what you meant about the "white out" or whatever they used. It looks messy, and the one or two we have like that, I have not tried to print to see how they turn out. Otherwise they would be great photos.

I am going to check with PSA about that encapsulating all photos, I hope I am wrong.

[Lordstan]

I agree with both Steve and Lance's recommendation, but with a twist. Don't send to PSA at all unless you are going to be selling them in the short term.
While I like the Type system, I don't care for the idea of certification, much like I don't care for slabbed cards or autos. If I know it's a type 1 or vintage original, why do I need to pay for someone else's opinion? If I'm not sure or if I want to sell it and feel that the cert will add significantly more to the final price, that is different.
That being said, I don't think that quality photos sell more that much less without certs as compared those with certs. If we eliminate the results from Henry's auction, which are usually well above typical prices, even in relation to the bigger auction houses, there are many sellers on ebay that get top dollar for high quality vintage photographs without any certs.
If you do go for the cert, I wouldn't worry that much about whether to slab or not to slab. A buyer who wants the picture will likely buy it either way. They always have the option of cracking the slab if they want to. I have cracked many pictures out of slabs, especially those done by Beckett. IMO, their slabs take up waaaaay too much room for just a photograph.

Best,
Mark

[billyb]

lordStan,
I probably won't slab a lot of photos, the special interset photos like golf and hunting, photos like that, but their are some that absolutely will need the authentication, and slabbing. Ot this collection, there are maybe 40 to 50 with crop marks. That's a lot of money for authenicating when we may not recoup the cost.
But as I said, there are some that will be slabbed, even with the crop marks.
This is why I asked this question, a little different opinions, and choices, that is what I was searching for. I appreciate all input, as I am as raw as a tenderfoot in the saddle.
For the time being, I think I am going to have the most important ones authenticated first.
I have emailed PSA about authenication without encapsulation, but I have not got a reply as yet.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by billyb

lordStan,
their are some that absolutely will need the authentication, and slabbing.

Billy,
Sorry, but I disagree with this comment. No picture NEEDS authentication and slabbing. Some might sell for more money with a PSA/DNA letter or slab, but none need it.
If you are starting a vintage photography collection, and keeping the pics you're talking about, then, IMHO, sending pics for certs is a waste of money. You can use the extra cash to buy more pics!
If you have high quality photos which you are selling, I would just offer them for sale without any certs. Take good, clear pictures, with well thought out write ups. I think, bad pics and descriptions are a much more significant reason why photos sell for lesser amounts, than having a cert from anyone. If the pics are really high end, I would consider submitting them to an auction like Henry Yee. He will likely get waay more than you will privately with or without the cert.

Good luck either way. Enjoy collecting.

Best,
Mark

[billyb]

Lordstan,
This is actually my cousin's collection, and I have been working with him, as he knows nothing. It was inherited from a great uncle all Ruths. The cousin's father wants to distribute the photos amongst the family, but how do you do that equally and fair when some are valuable than others. They have decided to sell, but father is the last holdout, but they will bring him around to their way of thinking.
The collection may have some unstamped VanOeyens photos, and I am researching and have some positive proof, and these photos are what I was debating about. Slab or not slab.
We have others to check, and we were hoping that collection would come out soon, but this process is taking longer then we thought. We are looking at selling in Spring of 2014, but who knows, could be sooner.
Most of the collection, not much to talk about, special interest photo, golf, fishing, hunting, Japan Tour, etc. but there are some good ones besides those.
I have been on this site before and showed a couple of the photos back in December, and after getting as much information as possible, we are at the point of getting the authentications. About 160 photos is a lot of money in authentications, hope the bulk rate is much lower.
We haven't sold as much as a Coot Veal in our selling history, so this has been very slow. But I have bought some stuff, just was never a seller.