Photography: Greatest photographs not taken

[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.

[Steve D]

The picture of my grandfather playing in an exhibition game in San Diego, CA, against Babe Ruth.


Steve

[Jobu]

How about a professional photo of Ruth calling his shot in the 1932 World Series ---- or doing whatever other gesticulating the two grainy home videos shot from the stands show?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth%27s_called_shot

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by Jobu

How about a professional photo of Ruth calling his shot in the 1932 World Series ---- or doing whatever other gesticulating the two grainy home videos shot from the stands show?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth%27s_called_shot

You’re absolutely right about this—there are no news photographs of Ruth’s called shot. Having said that, it’s not possible to photograph something that never happened.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 just 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.

And we’ve come a long way... look at us now!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's certainly a part of it as well. The photographer probably had his assignment, and as much film as he felt he needed. I'm not sure how much film they'd have carried back then, 4x5 negatives in carriers are pretty bulky, Maybe 25? Maybe 50?

I can easily see him leaving once he'd gotten what he'd been assigned. The guy my friend met probably would have too, if the extra for getting the unexpected wasn't so much.


Back then there was also a bit of respect for peoples bad moments, so he might not have taken pics if he was there. That wasn't true for all photographers, some of the crime scene/accident photos they actually published would never make it to press today.

I met a semi pro photographer who claimed to have been at an airshow disaster. Supposedly he had the event in his viewfinder and couldn't take the picture, or any of the aftermath.

[steve B]

The photo I wish I'd taken but never got around to. Not a notable moment, and I had a few years to do it.


There was some pretty nasty grafitti about Stan Papi on the outside wall of Fenway park. On Lansdowne, past the gate for the bleachers.

It stayed there for years until the new owners had it removed.


To me it eventually came to symbolize just how lazy the old ownership had been. And how little the cared about the players.