Play ball...Editorial vs OP-ED

Since the web offers the potential to get feedback from a large audience, I thought I would throw (pun intended for the post to follow) out a "survey question" about sports photography. To build on the promise of the previous post, editorial baseball coverage will be used to illustrate the question.

I am not the first to say this, nor will I be the last, but there is fine line (in editorial sports coverage) between the distinction of "catching the moment" and "capturing the art of the moment"---and distinct camps on the preferred image.

What do I mean by this?

The idea of capturing A/the moment is to freeze it in time--a crisp image that shows the event, the participant(s), an object that relates the event and participant, and an emotion/expression to add the "metaphor" that allows the viewer to relate. (Mind you, these are qualifiers defined by me as I look through images to discern the better from the good.)

For example, in this image, you have Jason Veritek.

Obviously, Mr. Veritek is up to bat. We have visual cues that tell us this: a bat and a pitched ball (in frame)...and if you know absolutely nothing about baseball, you can discern that Mr. Veritek is perhaps swinging the bat at the ball. And, you can discern that the feet is a challenge (from the expression on his face and the concentration shown in his eyes). The events and actions are shown in crisp detail, frozen in time.

Or take this shot of Russell Branyon.

Granted, the viewer cannot see the players eys, but you can see the pursed lips, the power of his legs, the strength in his forearms--the bat and ball are slightly blurred, which conveys some sense of motion... (One can almost "hear" the bat hitting the ball).

Capturing the component parts is not easy--and I venture to say that the hardest shot in baseball is trying to capture the ball. Some people might balk because at 10 or 8 frames per second "you should be able to capture the ball" ---but what one fails to understand: the time duration between frames is 1/10 of second...and the (rough) average time for a ball to hit the catchers glove, after release from the pitcher, is 3-4/10ths of a second. So, it's about timing...you watch the hitter...and learn their timing....
...try to catch Griffey hitting a home run...

..or Nick Swisher pulling a pitch hard down the line...

...maybe Jorge Posada pushing one to the left-side....

In each image you can see an instant (frozen) in the game--the hitter at the plate, hitting the ball, and the skill with which the athlete performs.

...and it's great, right??? or is it? Is there something more? This is a sport, right? Struggle and triumph in motion??? ...but you don't really get a strong sense of motion from these pictures. (do you?) I was once told by an editor, "you use your skills to freeze the motion" and perhaps that is the purpose of editorial photography.

But how about is the "skill" is used to capture a moment AND the art of the motion (an OP-ED sports shot).

Where one tries to capture the movement of the batter (the bat, the arms), yet the head is still...such that you can see the concentration and speed of the action.

This shot of Ichiro is a "miss"...you can see everything except the ball...the speed of the swooshing bat and hands, the concentration in his eyes, the abated breath poised to strike the ball. (These shots are a challenge because the timing is altered, slightly, and the shutter speed has to be slow enough to capture the motions of the arms and bat, but fast enough to capture the face.)

My best attempt at this sort of OP-ED shot is of Mark Teixeira...

For me, it contains all the component parts of a "frozen editorial"...and the speed and motion of the sport---the path of the bat, the travel of the struck ball, the sheer hand speed--YET a poised and concentrated head. You can see the beauty of Tex's magnificent swing. ...and, one can see that Teixeira KILLED this ball--line drive right over the right-field fence.

Thoughts? Opinions?

stay tuned.