Sports photography question

[MooseDog]

This thread is making my brain hurt, but in a good way...

Cameras back then had one focal length. You could switch lenses but it took some time. Also, photographers were right on the field "in play". From the two pictures that are fully visible, you can tell from the Holland Coffee sign that the camera was in two different positions (closer in the top shot) from those two shots so clearly could not have been the same pitch.

Now, to seal the case, you can use a little simple geometry and check the angle of the shadows in each picture.

Just saying how, not going to do it myself.

[billyb]

Moose,
LOL.....Didn't mean to make your head hurt. It looks like a runner on second in one photo and not in the other, plus the ump in one picture and not the other. Unless he moves like Ricky Henderson, it is two different photos.
I like reading the advertisement in the background. Holland Coffee looks cool. Why does their advertising look so much better than what we have today?

[billyb]

oops

[steve B]

The angles are very different. I hadn't noticed that.

While not quite as nice as 4x5, 35mm even as movie film can produce excellent results.

Steve B

[billyb]

Yea, I hadn't noticed the difference of the angles either, until pointed out.
Again, what do you think? how many times , or how many games do you thing he attempted that precess, before he got all four positions correctly.
I guess the photographer could have used photos from different games within the 3 or 4 game series also.

[steve B]

Hard to say. I wouldn't mind seeing the other two in the series.

The shadows all look like they're at nearly the same angle, so maybe the same at bat? The pairs also look really similar. Maybe he was holding two cameras and hit the shutter just a bit apart? Hard to tell really.

I know how it was done in the 1980's though. A friend of mine worked in a camera shop that handled film from one of the globe photographers. He used a 3000 shot roll of 35mm and a camera with auto advance. If I remember it right a Canon AE-1. He had a list of assigned subjects for each game and would just hold the shutter down and let the auto advance do its thing when a player on the list was batting or whatever action they wanted that day. A typical game was 5-6 full rolls, so 25-30,000 images he figured at least one would be usable. Milestone games or important games like the 78 playoff or Yaz 3000hit or 400hr were two cameras and more film each.
He also had a good feel for some special things and caught a lot of great stuff that wasn't on the list. Players first hits, or first appearances and minor milestones that were unexpected.

I wonder where all those pictures are now? The Globe only took the ones they liked, I think he said 30-100 per game.

Somewhere I have almost an entire home movie reel I took of Yaz grounding out and popping up I went to something like 12 games in a row and he got hit 3000 the night my parents said enough was enough.

Steve B

[billyb]

Steve,
25 to 30 thousand pics????? Talk about headaches, could you imagine going through all those to find the ones you want to keep. It does sound like he has a lot of great pics though.
I wish I had the rest of the photo, it was the only copy I have. The photo belonged to someone I knew, I will see if I can contact him again. I am researching what photographer took that photo, I have an idea it was VanOeyen, as the photo came out of a collection that had other VanOeyens. I have contacted the Western Reserve Hist. Society, said they will get back to me.

[steve B]

And that's 25-30 thousand per game. Times 81 home games. That's a bit over 2 million just for the Red Sox. Since he worked for the globe he also did all four pro sports, college, plus a few highschool events and things like the marathon and rowing. Probably other stuff too. So figure around 5-6 million photos a year?

Hard not to get a few good ones doing it that way.