What would your fantasy press photo find be?????

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

My tastes tend to lean more toward the esoteric and obscure than the big-name stars, so I would like to see something along the lines of Al Schacht and Nick Altrock clowning around before a World Series game. And since this one is falling into my lap, throw a HOFer or two in there that would normally price the photo out of "spending on myself" range. Just what are they doing in this photo, anyway?

Or, before Bob swiped my idea, I was also going to say a shot of Eddie Gaedel, only with him at bat just as the ball zips over the plate, and from an angle to also catch the expression of frustration on Bob Cain's face as he realizes he's thrown just a little high, again.

Or even better, how about a photo OF Charles Conlon taking his famous photo of Cobb sliding, from the perspective of the guy standing a few feet behind Conlon. Cobb is still caught coming in hard, dirt flying, but in the corner you see Conlon with his finger instinctively triggering the shutter on his camera.

Failing all that, just make it a sharp Bain photo of a slim, trim rookie-era Babe Ruth circa 1914. Any pose will do, just make sure it's one that Ben has never seen because when it goes to auction, I want to be able to pay off my house with the proceeds

Lance,
Awesome post and some terrific choices. Well done!

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Lance,
Awesome post and some terrific choices. Well done!

Thanks, Scott! I had to stop myself there before I just started listing all of the obscure D-level minor league teams that I've never seen a photo of, which would probably either suck all the life out of the thread or have me dismissed as a kook (or both). I'll just pretend I found that Ruth photo, and continue my imaginary spending spree in my head

[billyb]

This thread has got me to thinking about another question, so since this thread appears to be dying, I would like to ask your opinions about my new question.
The top of the heap, regarding press photos, the Cobb sliding into 3rd base and Ruth's eyes by Conlon, the Pulitzer prize shot of Ruth leaning on his bat, etc....the top tier photos, is there room at the top for other photos similar to those, or would they be judged harshly in comparison to these iconic photos.
What I mean about similar is, another photo of Cobb sliding into third, another Ruth's eyes photo, or another Ruth leaning on his bat, but maybe with different variations, a different top tier photographer perhaps.
With new photos coming out almost every week, there is that possibility.
I know that without seeing a photo to compare this is next to impossible question to answer, but imagine a similar photo, but done by a Thompson, or VanOeyen or another top photographer. Can their photos be judged fairly????
Or are these top photos, now in place, incomparable and unapproacjable, in your minds.

[71buc]

The three photos you listed are works of art. However, what constitutes beauty in art is obviously highly subjective. The two Conlons you mention are, in my humble estimation, very striking. The Nat Fein photo has never really appealed to me. This may call my taste into question. Nonetheless, I think all three pale in comparison to this one.

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/.../2006/645.html

[Runscott]

I think the shot of DiMaggio completing his swing would be right up there.

All-in-all, I like the Combs picture more than any of them.

Another good fantasy pic would be a hitherto undiscovered action shot of Babe Ruth from 1914 with the Red Sox, of iconic composition caliber, perhaps delivering a pitch to another future HOF-er.

[billyb]

Thanks Mike, but it seems that you have put those two Conlon photos up there as incomparable, thus, no photo could compare, no matter what other photographer took the photo, And no other photo of same content, could be a work of art also.
So I assume, there is no other room near the top with the iconic works of art.
By the way, I agree, the photo you provided is superior.

[billyb]

Thanks Lance, that was the same feeling that I was getting, that the top photos mentioned and the like, are already implanted as icons. And over the years they have earned that level of excellence.
The value of any newcomer was not what I was looking at, but, I guess, respect, may be a better word, and that any newcomer may be judged as violating, or crowding one of the iconic photos, more so in terms of same content, regardless of quality.
Sorry Lance.

Scott,
I agree with that DiMaggio's shot also, that would be one of the etc. I mentioned. Too many to list.
And nice fantasy photo, what photographer would be your choice to take that photo of Ruth?

[71buc]

Originally Posted by billyb

Thanks Mike, but it seems that you have put those two Conlon photos up there as incomparable, thus, no photo could compare, no matter what other photographer took the photo, And no other photo of same content, could be a work of art also.
So I assume, there is no other room near the top with the iconic works of art.
By the way, I agree, the photo you provided is superior.

Incomparable? No. Exemplars of Conlon? Absolutely. Van Gogh's Starry Night is both an exemplar of his work and an iconic image. However, it is not an incomparable work of art. I really like Lances definition of what constitutes an iconic image. When considering the three images you presented as the icons of baseball photography, I believe there are many more attractive specimens of baseball photography as art. There are actually a few in the current RMY auction that I think are much more pleasing artistically. That being said I believe there is much room at the top with the three iconic images you discussed initially.

[Forever Young]

I would want one of two fantasy photos:

1) A portrait with the same feel as my Gehrig by bain(pictured below) of Ruth at St. Marys in his playground uni.

or

2) an shot of Ruth at the plate from behind the pitching mound waiting for a pitch in the St Mary's playground with the opposing catcher.. pitcher.. "ump(whatever kid was doing that maybe a nun??-haha)" by Charles Conlon.

[billyb]

Mike,
I agree that there are more works of art regarding baseball photos, I listed the three with an etc... as too many to list. I too believe there is room at the top regarding different content within the photo.
My question was photos of same, or similar content. For example, I believe it was Lance who posted, one of his fantasy photos would be of Cobb sliding into third, but done by another photographer and catching Conlon in photo taking his famous photo of that slide. Or another example would be another Ruth's eyes, but done by a Thompson, or Bain or VanOeyen, or Burke.
That is where the biggest judgment of comparison will come into play.
The newby photos, I know, will not get the praises the established icons have already received, but because of same or similar content, how fairly can they be judged, even though they may or may not be exemplars for a Thompson or Burke, etc.....

[thecatspajamas]

A beautiful, crisp, finely-detailed photo will always be appreciated for its visual presentation, regardless of the photographer, subject, or ability of the viewer to put into words what exactly makes it a "nice picture."

That said though, visual presentation alone does not always translate to $$$ when a piece goes up for sale, which is the angle it sounds like you are approaching this question from. Subject matter is important, in that a photo of a HOFer will almost always bring more than a similar one of a "common" player, and all else being equal, photos shot by "known" photographers also tend to bring more.

I know you get all that already, but another factor to consider is the notoriety of the image itself. One of the reasons that everyone, even those who are not sports enthusiasts, will recognize Conlon's photo of Cobb sliding, or Fein's photo of Babe Ruth bowing out, is that they were recognized as being top-tier images from the start and have been used and reused and reprinted and seen over and over and over, so that the original works that those countless iterations were derived from have been elevated to iconic status. They are not just images OF icons, but rather the images themselves are iconic. That kind of notoriety takes time and exposure to imprint on the general consciousness. So while I think it would certainly be possible to find a new photo that SHOULD rival the old icons in terms of the "four C's" and notoriety of the photographer, I think any newcomer would have difficulty in challenging an original iconic photo in terms of price realized at auction.

That doesn't mean that they would be "judged harshly" or go unappreciated. I just don't think it would be possible for a new image to supplant one of the "old guard" in the public consciousness so quickly, if at all. As Mike's top pick illustrates though, you don't have to have the "best"/most-well-known photo to have a darn nice one that will turn the head of anyone who encounters it and/or bring a handsome sum on the auction block.

Just my 2 cents. And just so you know, you're killin' me, Bill

[71buc]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I know you get all that already, but another factor to consider is the notoriety of the image itself. One of the reasons that everyone, even those who are not sports enthusiasts, will recognize Conlon's photo of Cobb sliding, or Fein's photo of Babe Ruth bowing out, is that they were recognized as being top-tier images from the start and have been used and reused and reprinted and seen over and over and over, so that the original works that those countless iterations were derived from have been elevated to iconic status. They are not just images OF icons, but rather the images themselves are iconic. That kind of notoriety takes time and exposure to imprint on the general consciousness. So while I think it would certainly be possible to find a new photo that SHOULD rival the old icons in terms of the "four C's" and notoriety of the photographer, I think any newcomer would have difficulty in challenging an original iconic photo in terms of price realized at auction.

Interesting response Lance. Do you think the perception of a photographic image as iconic can be subjective as well? I would think not. However, I often see it used as a descriptor of photos in auctions.

[thecatspajamas]

Bill, sorry about assuming your questions were down to $$$, which wasn't the case. I'm not sure if that makes the questions easier or harder to address, but either way, it's fun trying

Originally Posted by 71buc

Interesting response Lance. Do you think the perception of a photographic image as iconic can be subjective as well? I would think not. However, I often see it used as a descriptor of photos in auctions.

I guess one's perception of an image as "iconic" could be subjective depending on one's level of exposure to the image, which could vary geographically, culturally, or even within certain circles of interest, depending on the individual. To me, "iconic" is equivalent to "most recognized." Based on that, a photograph would become "more iconic" the farther its general recognition reaches. (I'm thinking along the lines of baseball card collectors vs. sports enthusiasts vs. general population of the U.S. vs. worldwide recognition). I don't think that "most iconic" necessarily equates to "best" though, and I'm not sure the two should really be compared.

Another way of looking at it would be that while a photograph's visual quality (the "4 C's") is fixed from the moment the print is produced, its "iconic" status is not. Where one image went from the obscurity (literally) of a darkroom to achieve worldwide recognition over the years, an equivalent or better photograph may have been used once (or not at all), and languished unviewed in some archive without gaining comparable status. A lack of notoriety shouldn't lessen a photo's "worth" either in terms of appreciation, but we often can't help but heap greater praise on the "iconic" photo simply because it is easily-recognized.

And I would strongly agree though that the descriptor of "iconic" is overused in auctions, along with all the other flattering terms and puffery that is all designed to get the reader to loosen their grip on their wallet and bid with fervor. It's all part of the auction (and advertising) game, and I'm sure there are examples of images that have become "iconic" simply because they were described that way over and over.

[billyb]

Lance, understand and agree.


Exhibitman,
You are testing the magic fantasy genie with 5 choices. You covered the big 4 in sports and Boxing. I really like the first goal of Howe, my childhood Hockey favorite by far. I have had the pleasure of meeting and talking to Gordie on several occasions, one of the nicest men on the face of the earth.
I really don't believe in collecting autographs, but he is an exception and I do have his.