Where has the artistry of sport photography gone?

Calina

I find that the year reviews of sports photographers - the Examiner does one most years - have much more interesting photographs than I remember from the actual newspapers from the year. Also, if you follow bigshots on boston.com you get some stunning photographs.

A photograph does not have to be iconic to be artistic and I don't think it's fair to accuse sports photography of lacking in artistry. But it's possible I say that from the point of view of being one of those minority sports photographers who barely make their own webpage never mind the eyes of millions of people world wide. Take a look at number 15 on this page to get my drift. This would never make a newspaper but....Or number 19.

Iconic-ness is also linked to occasion and I think it's fair to say there are too many occasions and not enough really big occasions any more. I mean, you have golf on all the freaking time, football on all the freaking time on various sports channels. People who are interested watch the television; it's not a case of being camped out waiting for the morning newspapers any more for the big news. I mean, no one cares so much about the Monaco Grand Prix because its importance has diluted somewhat due to the ubiquity of motorsports related stuff.

humberklog

Well I don't really go with the idea that it's the sportsmen that are letting the side down re:iconic captures. For e.g: Henry's handball...where's the one defining photo of that moment? What I mean (in this situation) by iconic is a pic that captures and occasionally surpasses the viewers expectation of the moment. But one photo of the moment, one photo so good it renders all other photos of that moment irrelevant. That one photo is the one photo, all others pale to almost insignificance in the eyes of the great unwashed. The pic becomes a by-word of the moment, hand in hand with the moment through history it becomes the reference point.

There's been loads of cracking sporting moments...Liverpool's belter european a few year ago, Zidanes headbut, Henry's hand, Federer's run, Tiger's emergence, the majestic Phil The Power Taylor's streak...no one defing image...no iconic photo of the moment. Still struggling to come up with a global photo taken in the last 10years that incapsulates and brings further one sporting moment in time. And there are the performers and there have been the performances.

Blaming the sportsmen is the inverse of someone saying you must have a good camera when they like a photo.

I don't think it is pushing it too far to say that artistry is what's lacking...I haven't yet fully come around to being convinced that it's not. At the moment I'm resting its fault on digital and lack of artistry.

Saint_Mel

humberklog wrote: »

Well I don't really go with the idea that it's the sportsmen that are letting the side down re:iconic captures. For e.g: Henry's handball...where's the one defining photo of that moment?

By no means the defining photo of the incident, but this photo sums up that day for me:

Valentia

I'd need to be in the form to contribute to this wonderful thread. I am with the Covey. So much sports stuff is technically excellent but lacking creativity. I blame the photo editors. There are exceptions of course bet seem to be getting rarer. I'll return when I've thought about it a bit more.

In the meantime have a look at no. 14 here: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/12/2009_in_photos_part_1_of_3.html

Here it is:

KarmaGarda

humberklog wrote: »

Well I don't really go with the idea that it's the sportsmen that are letting the side down re:iconic captures. For e.g: Henry's handball...where's the one defining photo of that moment? What I mean (in this situation) by iconic is a pic that captures and occasionally surpasses the viewers expectation of the moment. But one photo of the moment, one photo so good it renders all other photos of that moment irrelevant. That one photo is the one photo, all others pale to almost insignificance in the eyes of the great unwashed. The pic becomes a by-word of the moment, hand in hand with the moment through history it becomes the reference point.

There's been loads of cracking sporting moments...Liverpool's belter european a few year ago, Zidanes headbut, Henry's hand, Federer's run, Tiger's emergence, the majestic Phil The Power Taylor's streak...no one defing image...no iconic photo of the moment. Still struggling to come up with a global photo taken in the last 10years that incapsulates and brings further one sporting moment in time. And there are the performers and there have been the performances.

Blaming the sportsmen is the inverse of someone saying you must have a good camera when they like a photo.

I don't think it is pushing it too far to say that artistry is what's lacking...I haven't yet fully come around to being convinced that it's not. At the moment I'm resting its fault on digital and lack of artistry.

I have to agree. The only one that comes to mind is Eric Cantona and infamous kick. But that was almost 15 years ago I think. Go back over 20 years and there's some classic McEnroe photos. In the last 10 years? I would be struggling too.

DotOrg

haven't seen on image up here yet that will be remembered for years to come no matter how good they are.

but funily enough, the image that will be remembered is the one below. And it's a screengrab, not even a photo. But that does represent the complete oversaturuartion of images and video that we all see every day. Everything is captured from 100 angles in slow motion, HD, 10fps, etc etc.... Too many images being created means fewer images that can stand out on their own

humberklog

Yeah KG the kick was caught well and indeed falls into the iconic...really struggling for the ten year bracket...and there must be a reason. Maybe a number of reasons. But there are more cameras capable of quicker shots than ever before.


Great pic Valentia...baseball has given the world some absolute belters. Funny enough for such a regional enough (in know japan, korea and a few other spots do it) sport that's not even all that broadly liked in the US either it has more than lent itself to the arts: photography, literature, film, juicey sports writers...it's up there with boxing.

humberklog

I was at the NY exhibition in IMMA earlier. There are a couple of sports photography, well baseball anyway. OK the images aren't iconic, well not on this side of the Atlantic but they may well be in the US. However the photos are artistic. There's one simple portrait of Babe Ruth that just oozes character, depth of character...feeling.
Even in this limited example of sports photography it has made it more evident to me that artistry is indeed lacking in sports photography in the last 10 years+.

If you haven't been yet the whole shebang is brilliant. It's also a great exhibit for ticking off big names that you'd have liked to have seen: Weegee, Bresson, blahblah.

kensutz

If you want to look at iconic shots. Then buy the Reuters Sport In The 21st Century. If none of those float your boat, then knitting or something like that would be more of an interest.

humberklog

kensutz wrote: »

If you want to look at iconic shots. Then buy the Reuters Sport In The 21st Century. If none of those float your boat, then knitting or something like that would be more of an interest.

I do. I did...thought they were ok. I'd recommend a few sports photographers to take up knitting, not for me though. Popping wheelies on my bike takes up my spare time.

mrboswell

humberklog wrote: »

I do. I did...thought they were ok. I'd recommend a few sports photographers to take up knitting, not for me though. Popping wheelies on my bike takes up my spare time.

If you want iconic shots take some of yourself on your bmx

humberklog

mrboswell wrote: »

If you want iconic shots take some of yourself on your bmx

One interest at a time me ol' flower. Mind you I have on occasion taped the camera to the handle bars and snapped around the city...nothing iconic or artistic for that matter was the outcome but it's just something I like doing.

Anyhoooows it doesn't really go that if you want to see artistic or indeed iconic pics then the advice is to go take them yourself. Sure if it was that easy I wouldn't be moaning about the lack of it as every jumped up monkey would be out taking them and I'd have loads to look at. Sports photography's not really something I've thought about doing but it is a genre I like to look at and admire.

Ballyman

Have a look at the first photo on this page (it's mine btw).
Is it iconic? Nope. Would it be iconic if it was the winning try in the last minute of the World Cup final? Prob not either but it would have more of a chance. Would I have gotten the shot if I was sitting anywhere else? Nope.

You need the iconic event before you can even attempt to have the iconic photo. You also need to be in the right place as all the iconness can happen somewhere else on the field of play!!

A lot of sports photography is luck. Luck that you were sitting in the right place. It's not difficult to catch the iconness if it happens straight in front of you!

humberklog

The event helps but isn't the B all and end all. The Babe Ruth pic at the exhibition is just of Babe Ruth sitting with bat in hand and looking directly at camera...no event.

Noono

Have to agree with Ballyman, a good percentage of capturing an iconic image is down to luck, but the really great sports photographers happen to be in the right place at the the right time to capture it. And you have to be able to frame and expose the shot in milliseconds as the moment is happening, something which sounds simple but only very few can do on a regular basis.
I think nostalgia plays a part in helping an image been awarded iconic status, i mean babe ruth sitting on a bench.....yeah im sure the photographer was thinking.. im gonna put every ounce of my soul and creativity that i've got into this shot, more like, there's babe ruth sitting a bench...snap!
I'm sorry humberklog but you clearly either haven't a clue about photography or you've been living in a cave for the last 10 years.

Ballyman

humberklog wrote: »

The event helps but isn't the B all and end all. The Babe Ruth pic at the exhibition is just of Babe Ruth sitting with bat in hand and looking directly at camera...no event.

But it's Babe Ruth.

My guy above is Drew Mitchell.

Who??

Exactly.

Now imagine it was Brian O'Driscoll. Scoring the winning try in the World Cup Final against the All Blacks, with 10 seconds left on the clock.
Big difference in what the shot is and means.

alb

Posts in the thread seem to be jumping between the topics of iconic and artistic, which as far as I'm concerned are two completely different things. The Maradona hand of god picture OP referred to is iconic, but not artisitc. It's a photo that basically just documents exactly what happened in an ordinary shot. The photograph itself is not creative or original. What makes it iconic is the fact that it's famous, instantly recognizable and what many people would think of when they think about the event.

The Henry screen-grab will be just as iconic to Irish people as time goes on, just like any football fan will think of "the photo" of the Bonner penalty save against Romania. I don't even need to link it.

As for artistic sports photos, I would this to be ones that fans of photography can appreciate without necessarily knowing anything about the sport itself, any sports people that might be in the shot or even what event it was. I would consider the baseball shot earlier in the thread an example. Can you appreciate this shot, for example, without even knowing who the guy is. I think so.

Now, is it true that there is not much artistic photography or is it that journalistic photography is at odds with it so you just never see it in the media? Media usually seems to prioritize impact, emotion, relevance to important events and time-constraints. The best of these for the most important moments are most likely to become iconic, but maybe these days video clips are more likely to be remembered.

It depends on the moment though, both the Henry and Maradona cases have a single instant (though 2 in Henry's case!) when the ball touched the hand that was important. Other great moments like goals, is it when it's kicked? when it passes the line? when it hits the net? a video clip does better justice in these cases maybe?

I'd say there's more artistic sports photography than ever, but you'll have to go and look for it, like going to a gallery like the OP did. Personally I've seen the sports section of the World press photo exhibit a few times and I thought (from a photographers POV more than a sportsfans) that they were the highlight of the exhibition and very artistic.

humberklog

Ballyman wrote: »

But it's Babe Ruth.

My guy above is Drew Mitchell.

Who??

Exactly.

Now imagine it was Brian O'Driscoll. Scoring the winning try in the World Cup Final against the All Blacks, with 10 seconds left on the clock.
Big difference in what the shot is and means.

Well only to a point and that point being somewhere in the US as Babe Ruth really means nada in this region of the world and in this place of time too. It is a pic of Babe Ruth but that is largely irrelevant here and now. But the photo is an artistically executed portrait of a sportsman. Something I'm not seeing these days.

As for the thread popping in and out of iconic/artistic...sure that's grand as I think that while they are different they can often cross swords successfully. It's great when the two do combine. Fine and dandy in their own worlds too. But, for me, something I'm not seeing (or "getting") in recent years.

Ballyman

There is a pretty nice shot in the racing pages of the Indo today of silhouetted horses at sunset during racing at Downpatrick yesterday which is a departure from the "normal" racing type shots you see.

Don't know who took it as the name isn't in the caption.

humberklog

Noono wrote: »

I'm sorry humberklog but you clearly either haven't a clue about photography or you've been living in a cave for the last 10 years.

Don't be sorry mate...clearly I couldn't give a fiddlers of your opinion.

Yep I've no clue about photography but know what I like (and why) and yes I have been living in a cave for the last 10 years. But there's doors and windows in it and I get to stroll about too.

On a point of photography ways...there's a skill in snapping and getting the look required. I put little faith in this system of luck some are advocating. Luck or skill? I'd plump for skill. Putting a good shot down to luck is so dismissive of someone's skill.

Eirebear

Sorry for the bump, but the image below made me think of this thread.

Im not entirely sure if its a sports photo in its truest sense, but it is sports related.
American players Maurice Edu and DaMarcus Beasley sitting in a glasgow cafe with two rather stereotypical looking glaswegian women sitting behind them.

I think its a cracking image, somehow managing to tie in American sensibilities (think back to some of the 70's american photographers) and yet it still screams Glaswegian at me.

ThOnda

Those are women? :eek:
Now again, who is who. The players are on the right, right?

Eirebear

ThOnda wrote: »

Those are women? :eek:
Now again, who is who. The players are on the right, right?

lol, youve been to Glasgow Thonda...we love our fried foods!

humberklog

Y'know, that is a cracking image but it's nearly making my point. It's not a cracking photo. Sure it's got all the nuts and bolts but they're not all assembled beautifully or correctly. Weird crop, not close enough, ffs a little to the left was the shot. My point (and yeah I'm being fussy) is that bingo: he got the image but missed the picture.
It's good. It could have been great. It should be better.

Eirebear

humberklog wrote: »

Y'know, that is a cracking image but it's nearly making my point. It's not a cracking photo. Sure it's got all the nuts and bolts but they're not all assembled beautifully or correctly. Weird crop, not close enough, ffs a little to the left was the shot. My point (and yeah I'm being fussy) is that bingo: he got the image but missed the picture.
It's good. It could have been great. It should be better.

I agree, the crop is quite offputting.

But could that be down to certain dimensions needed for the website http://assets.espn.go.com/i/mag/blog/Wish(1)576x324.jpg meaning that its down to the picture editor rather than the photographer?

gerk86

i know it isn't your typical sports photography but 'Olympic portaits' by Annie Lebowitz has incredible action shots in that book.

DutchGuy

To me this is the only sports image I could think of in the last ten years and is as close to iconic as I could think of (for me anyway), whether non-basketball fans will agree is a different matter I suppose. In case you're wondering they guy being jumped over is about 7ft2.




Still it doesn't beat this from :

mrboswell

DutchGuy wrote: »

To me this is the only sports image I could think of in the last ten years and is as close to iconic as I could think of (for me anyway), whether non-basketball fans will agree is a different matter I suppose. In case you're wondering they guy being jumped over is about 7ft2.




Still it doesn't beat this from :

Neither are near iconic - you probably like them because its your sport but its always going to be subjective to the individuals' taste.

There are probably 100's of more "iconic" sots of Jordan out there

humberklog

mrboswell wrote: »

There are probably 100's of more "iconic" sots of Jordan out there

Sure, but not with as much natural artistic structure.

sprinkles

Don't mean to be dragging up old threads but saw this gallery on the Guardian website and some of the pictures are excellent - really capture the moment, especially the gymnast and the shot of Tiger Woods.

Link