Sports photography question

[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.