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

[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.