Photography: Greatest photographs not taken

[prewarsports]

Again, the examples being shown are awesome but ALL Pre-Game images to my point above. Photographers basically did not stay for the actual games which is why the famous moments were not photographed. Many of these early photographers by all accounts were not even sports fans, they just saw business opportunities or were assigned to events by the paper. They might shoot the World Series one day and then not do another sporting event for weeks and cover local beauty pageants and politics (where they would also show up, take a few shots and get home for dinner).

[steve B]

I was doing some looking to see if I could find out about film speeds historically. I didn't find any clear answer, but most of the older films were pretty slow. Perhaps too slow to capture action shots reliably on all but the brightest days.


The point about not having the same resources as later photographers was the one I was trying to make with my 1970's example. There's a big difference in ability to capture a lot of a game between the 1920's press cameras with individual 4x5 negatives. a slightly later 35mm camera with a 24 or 36 exposure roll, and the 70's example of a 3000 exposure roll and the ability to push a button and take 2 frames a second. (Or today, where If I was doing it I'd probably just run HD video and screen capture what I wanted. )

[btcarfagno]

When do we actually start to see game action shots being taken? I have several from the 1912 or thereabouts time period.

[bgar3]

Tom, you are right about at least 1912, I once had about 60 from the World Series along with about 30 glass lantern slide, all action. Nearly all very excellent quality also.

[sphere and ash]

Fast shutter speeds capable of capturing on-field action became possible for press photographers when Graflex introduced its single-lens reflex camera in 1905. Below I’ve attached a Graflex ad from 1909 featuring Fred Clarke that stops the motion of a pitched ball as it crosses the plate; it’s pretty staggering that such images were then possible for so many photographers. And it makes clear that the absence of significant moments from 1905-October 1920 had little to do with technology.

Some photographers did succeed in capturing action prior to 1905, principally Edweard Muybridge, who captured successive stages of a batter’s swing as part of his Animal Locomotion series in 1887. There was also a horse racing photographer named John C. Hemment, who worked on taking photo finishes, and who took photographs of the Giants warming up around 1890 (by the way, I would like to buy any Hemments you have; I know they’re out there).

[sphere and ash]

See that guy on the right holding the very large camera? He took the first photograph of a memorable moment on a ball field in October 1920 when he captured the Wambsganss triple play.

The camera is his own invention—it’s a Graflex whose bellows has been extended. It’s based on the cameras he used while working in aerial reconnaissance during the Great War.

This was the final piece of the puzzle for capturing on-field action. Baseball photography would never be the same.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

Fast shutter speeds capable of capturing on-field action became possible for press photographers when Graflex introduced its single-lens reflex camera in 1905. Below I’ve attached a Graflex ad from 1909 featuring Fred Clarke that stops the motion of a pitched ball as it crosses the plate; it’s pretty staggering that such images were then possible for so many photographers. And it makes clear that the absence of significant moments from 1905-October 1920 had little to do with technology.

Some photographers did succeed in capturing action prior to 1905, principally Edweard Muybridge, who captured successive stages of a batter’s swing as part of his Animal Locomotion series in 1887. There was also a horse racing photographer named John C. Hemment, who worked on taking photo finishes, and who took photographs of the Giants warming up around 1890 (by the way, I would like to buy any Hemments you have; I know they’re out there).

There's a big difference between shots taken for camera publicity and normal game action photos. Looking at the graflex image, see how shallow the depth of focus is, and that he's not actually batting. (Unless he's way way out of the box. ) Fast camera, optimal conditions, fast film, and maybe extra lighting or special processing. And there it is. A nice, but not usual photograph.

It's not shutter speed, but film speed, and the speed of loading, and how much film the photographer could carry that allows more to be captured.

The portability/usability of the camera also helps.

Muybridge used an array of 24 cameras, all set up and fixed in a small building.




Hement would have also used a stationary camera for photo finishes.


The difference with both is that the area to focus on is at a fixed distance, allowing the photographer to use a very wide aperture, (If the camera had an adjustable one) and fixed focus in a pretty narrow range.


When faster films came along, that allowed tighter apertures and deeper fields of focus, making it possible to quickly change from a nearby subject to one farther away.


The extended camera is pretty cool, it's also technology, and with that long bellows would have had a deep field of focus.

[sphere and ash]

Steve—I agree on Muybridge. His methods are not compatible with on-field action. I was just trying to give a short history of action photography.

My point was that by 1905 photographers had everything they needed to capture plays at home, first or third. Things got a little harder in 1910 when Lynch barred photographers from the field in the National League, but Conlon was still able to capture Cobb sliding into Jimmy Austin at American League (Hilltop) Park that same year.

Better technologies would have increased the probability of capturing a memorable moment, but only if photographers were there and trying to capture those moments.

Why didn’t anyone capture Ray Chapman as he lay stricken, minute after minute, or as the umpire shouted to the stands asking for a doctor, or as Chapman was carried by Speaker and Wood? All of the technology existed. The New York Daily News had a photographer there. It’s almost certain that he left before the beaning. The primary reason no memorable moments were photographed before October 1920: there was no demand for them. That changed with the birth of the tabloid press.