Getting the shot

<p>Having been a news photographer, I find that most of the photos are dull.</p>

<p>We were trained to antacipate the peak of the action.</p>

<p>I covered three high school football games with a Rollei and a 12 exposure roll of TriX film.</p>

<p>Multiple exposures will miss the peak.</p>

<p>It only takes one shot to get the peak of action.</p>

<p>You haven't seen any good sports photos since <A HREF="http://www.spacereptilesareyourfriend.com/images/4-Rocky-Marciano-Famous-Punch.jpg">Rocky Marciano mashed Jersey Joe Walcott's jaw out of whack</A>?</p>

 

<p>Hey, I love the TLR too, but I'm not sure it's the right choice for <A HREF="http://www.bluegraysky.com/images/3/weibel.jpg">football</A>, unless they let photographers shadow the referees.</p>

<p>When your toes are on the sidelines and chasing the action, nothing is more thrilling.</p>

<p>This was in the 60's. a step up from tth 4x5 Graphic.</p>

<p>I used to shoot from behind the first base coach when the Pitsburg was training in Fort Myers.</p>

<p>One of our other photogs was there and caught a foul ball on the inside of his right leg.</p>

<p>It left the imprint of the ball on his leg.</p>

<p>And by anticipating the peak of action, you of course caught this foul ball on film just as it was impacting his leg right?</p>

<p>Geez! That's the first I've seen of the photo, Lex. Nice find.</p>

<p>The first thing I noticed is how thin Marciano's gloves are compared to Walcott's heavily padded ones. Rocky might as well been bare fisted. Notice the teared opening in the left glove?</p>

<p>Marquess of Queensberry Rules #8...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The gloves to be fair-sized boxing gloves of the best quality and new.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Marquess_of_Queensberry_Rules</p>

<p>Glad I wasn't a prize fighter back then.</p>

<p>Those should be identical pairs of Benlee boxing gloves - you can see the emblem on the gloves and Jersey Joe's trunks. Until fairly recently most boxing commissions mandated identical gloves for both contestants, usually 8 oz. back then. The padding was poor quality and tended to clump and break up by the end of a fight, especially when the gloves got saturated from sweat and ringside water. Walcott's right glove looks messed up but the left appears the same size and weight as Marciano's.</p>

<p>I remember in the local and regional Golden Gloves matches during the '70s, by the end of the tournament the gloves they used for the high school and novice divisions were so soaked they were slimy and so heavy from water and sweat they weighed almost 2 lbs. each. It was exhausting to move your hands by the third round. Only the open class boxers got decent gloves.</p>

<p>Nowadays it's not unusual for the commissions to allow champions to specify the gloves and, in some bouts, even allow both contestants to choose their own brand of gloves. Defensive boxers or boxers with soft hands or prone to hand injuries may choose Grant, while punchers and guys with hard fists tend to choose Seyer. But the gloves have to meet commission regulations for weight, etc.</p>

<p>BTW, that's not even the most grotesque photo from the Marciano vs. Walcott bouts. <a href="http://www.campbells.org/BIG_FILES/r+r_Marciano-Wolcott%2823Sept1952%29-33.jpg"><strong>This is</strong></a>. But it wasn't even the punch that KO'd Jersey Joe.</p>

<p>We don't see photos like that often now. Not because photographers don't use 12-exposure rolls in TLRs, or Speed Graphics. It's because flash is no longer permitted. It takes more than a fast shutter speed to freeze action like that and emphasize the grotesque facial expressions.</p>

Damn, that's a sweet photo...

<p>I know, right! I love old school boxing photos. I know it's a potential safety hazard, but I'd sure like to see flash used again in boxing. When I was in amateur boxing in the 1970s they still used flash and I can't remember ever noticing during a bout. Most guys get tunnel vision and only see the guy in front of them. You don't even notice the ref until he's pulling you apart.</p>

<p>Which is what makes guys like Floyd Mayweather so incredible. He can outbox an opponent, joke with the reporters at ringside and check his bank balance without breaking a sweat or getting hit.</p>

<p>If there ever was a photo that showed what timing is about, you found it Lex....</p>

<p>But, back to OP.... I'm a bit stumped by "<em>Having been a news photographer, I find that most of the photos are dull</em>". Not all photos aim to show action, not all photos depend on the "exact right moment". Of course, you're free to dislike all those other photo categories (still life, portraits, macro, landscape), if they're not exciting you. That does not mean those photos <strong>are</strong> dull. The peak of action may well be what really counts for journalists, sports photographers, street and to some extend wedding photographers. But implying that is all there is, is cutting photography a bit short.</p>

<p>But odds are I am missing the point of the OP.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>But odds are I am missing the point of the OP.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

There certainly doesn't appear to be one. BTW, not all news photos are supposed to be exciting, either. Plenty are just there so viewers can see what something looks like. Not every news story is about a fight. I've had as much pickup on fairly static shots of boxers at a press conference as I have with fight shots.

 

<p>So, who took the Marciano photo?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, who took the Marciano photo?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Herb Scharfman.</p>

<p>Scharfman had a knack for timing. There's an interesting <a href="http://www.frameplay.com/archives/the-wrong-place-at-the-right-time-herb-scharfman/">anecdote about the Ali vs. Liston bout</a> where Scharfman was on the wrong side of the ring, but was captured by colleague Neil Leifer.</p>

<p>In the <a href="http://www.frameplay.com/files/2012/04/aliliston.jpg">larger view of that photo</a> you can see Scharfman, like another nearby photographer, was using a TLR with the non-optical peek-through-the-hood finder. This was typical of the previous era of Speed Graphic photographers who often used the non-optical wire frame guess-finder for action. And you can see that most photographers had by then switched to 35mm, mostly Nikons, though I've seen older boxing ringside photos of photographers using Leicas, Pentaxes and a few other 35mm cameras before Nikon virtually dominated sports photography by the 1970s.</p>

<p>And if you dig around the archives, via Google image search, you'll find many examples of uncropped, whole frame photos and contact sheets showing how much those 4"x5" and 6x6cm originals were cropped to zero in on the action. The photo of Jersey Joe's distorted jaw (from the Marciano right hand that *didn't* KO Walcott) was heavily cropped for most publications. Same with the famous <a href=" of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald, by Robert Jackson</a>, whose Nikon S3 photo was usually heavily cropped for publication.</p>

<p>I would say Bob Jackson's photo of the moment Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvy Oswald would rank as a good example of "getting the shot" more than any other photo I've seen.<br>

Of course these types of shots are always possible just by pure luck; perhaps dozens of photographers are clicking away and one happens to snap an unexpected moment.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Of course these types of shots are always possible just by pure luck; perhaps dozens of photographers are clicking away and one happens to snap an unexpected moment.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

Sometimes it's not just pure luck. In the image that Lex links to of Scharfman, the photographer who got the shot was on the opposite side of the ring. I've had that happen in both directions. My <a href="http://spirer.com/Fights/slides/mm22.jpg">best selling fight photo</a> shows action across the ring from me. Anyone shooting on the other side missed it. So even though it's not just a bunch of photographers shooting away, there's an element of luck involved.

 

<p>I would say Bob Jacksons photo of the moment Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvy Oswald would rank as as good example of "getting the shot" an any othe photo I've seen. <br>

Of course these type of shots are always possible just by pure luck, perhaps dozens of photographers are clicking away and one happens to grab an unexpected moment. </p>

<p>Jeff, <br>

First sorry about double post. My wife just changed our browser and if I back click instead of do return to thread, it will post again. </p>

<p>Yes, I agree with you. In the boxing photos refrenced the photographers are expecting something to happen, anticipating a peak of action. Whereas in the Oswald photo the action was not expected so there certainly is a difference in the circumstances surrounding each photo.</p>

<p>About the only time I remember really anticipating a event was in the 70's at Elkhart Lake race track, trying to catch the race cars catch a little air under their tires coming over a rise. I was shooting with a Olympus Pen F (2 stroke film advance) and had a lot of failures to get one good shot. Perhaps 15 or 20 to 1 failure rate. I just don't have fast reaction time I guess. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...anticipating a peak of action."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup. That's what makes great action photos. The sports photographers who consistently get great results know the sport and know what to look for.</p>

<p>One reason there are so many great peak action photos of Rocky Marciano is because he was relatively easy to anticipate, once you knew his "tells". He was predictable, but also inexorable so that eventually almost every opponent fell prey to the same tactics, even when he knew what was coming. You'll find similar photos in Marciano's other bouts, including against Ezzard Charles.</p>

<p>The two classic photos I linked to were of identical situations - Marciano was a vicious body puncher and very good at feinting. As fights wore on he'd stalk low, pawing with the left, as if he were about to deliver another right hand body shot. The opponent would react by lowering his left, leaving the jaw open for a right over the left shoulder. When you watch the videos of the action leading up to those still photos, it's easy to see how a ring savvy photographer could anticipate the peak moment. Even the best photographers probably took several duds of Marciano right hands that missed or were blocked by Walcott's outstanding defensive skills. Keep in mind that Walcott busted up Rocky's face throughout those bouts, so they weren't easy by any means.</p>

<p>It's also fun to watch the flashes to see which photographers had the best timing. That's harder - nearly impossible - to do now that flash has been banned at ringside.</p>

<p>Anyway, I understand the point Willis was making. But I don't see any point in sticking to old methods when a photographer with good timing who is familiar with a particular sport *and* has access to cameras capable of shooting 7 to 60 fps could use the best available tools.</p>

<p>And it's entirely likely that as video post-production evolves, still photography may become passe for sports. It would be relatively easy, using facial recognition and programming in some typical scenarios, to program editing or even in-camera tools to quickly select several ideal candidates from video to publish as stills. All it takes is adequate processing power and savvy programming. I've used my Nikon V1 in scene auto selector mode to photograph boxing off the TV, and it shows plenty of promise despite the huge disadvantages of testing such technology on an old fashioned CRT screen. If a camera that's basically a point and shoot on steroids can come close to matching my own reflexes and knowledge of the sport, it's likely that we're only a few years away from video and smart tech virtually eliminating still photography from most professional sports journalism.</p>

<p>I don't know much about boxing, but once had the honor of meeting, in a gallery, a well-known sports shooter by the name of Neil. I said I had a question about one of his photos, I don't remember which, but Ali was fighting. I pointed to a photographer with an odd-looking camera, and asked, is that a Hulcher camera this guy is using? He started grinning, yes it is, and started to reminisce about using them, pointing out that the lack of flash meant you couldn't freeze motion as with single shot cameras.</p>

<p>I've done a little sports shooting on a Rolleiflex, too, back at a time when most people had moved to 35mm SLRs (I couldn't afford them). You just had to work within the limits of what you had. While going to school, I was doing stringer work for the local newpaper. I vaguely recall one high school basketball game, down to a few seconds with the home team down a point. They're on a time out before they bring the ball in. They're circled around the coach, who's tracing a play on the floor with his finger. I didn't have too many good shots, so I walked over and got a shot of coach through all the legs. If they win, this could be a usable shot, otherwise just a wasted frame. They won, so this was among those that I printed and dropped off that night. Next afternoon, I stopped by the paper to see if they had any more work for me. Several guys were hanging around the sports editor's desk, and when I got close, one pointed toward me and said "There he is now!" I'm thinking, oh, oh, what'd I do now? The editor holds up the paper, with my 'through the legs' winning play shot, and asks, "HOW did you get this shot?" "I just walked over and took it." I guess they were impressed because it seemed unusual to them, but to me I'm just scrambling for shots within the limits of my camera. Today, there would probably be a hundred people getting better shots from their seat in the stands.</p>

<p>"Trained news photographer" or not, this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Multiple exposures will miss the peak.<br /><br />It only takes one shot to get the peak of action</p>

</blockquote>

<p>is demonstrably and self-evidently untrue: a combination of anticipation <em>and</em> a high FPS rate will <em>always </em>beat anticipation on its own when it comes to getting <em>the </em>shot.</p>

<p>Here you go, Willis:<br /> <a href="/photo/17523247">one of yours,</a> <br /> <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/moto-x/moto-x_cambois_20.jpg">one of mine</a>.</p>

<p>Did I not "get the shot"? It was one of several in a burst - <em>and </em>the others were just as good.</p>

<p>How about <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/croft_1200_10a.jpg">here</a>?</p>

<p>Or <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/_sigma/short_eared_owl_cramlington_1.jpg">here</a>?</p>

<p>Or <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/bridlington_may_2013/kittiwake_bempton_1.jpg">here</a>?</p>

<p>Or <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/btcc_croft/ginetta_jr_2_croft.jpg">here</a>?</p>

<p>Or <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/bridlington_may_2013/gannets_bempton_2.jpg">here</a>?</p>

<p>Or <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/reports/andy-taskers-crash">here</a>?</p>

<p>I wouldn't have any of these without "multiple exposures" and the ability they provide to pick the best possible shot from a selection of several.</p>

<p>Here is one example of what I meam.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17554481">http://www.photo.net/photo/17554481</a></p>