I was just thinking how photography has evolved in terms of sports.

As a child, I would collect NHL hockey cards, and would stare for hours at a good shot of my favourite player.

Now, however, the same incredible shots can be found by the hundreds with a quick trawl through Google Images.

The idea that a photographer can take thousands of shots – indeed, dozens in a matter of seconds – in a game without wasting film must surely mean that sports photography in general has improved beyond measure. And yet, the art of the old shot is flippin’ amazing.

So for example:

This is a nice shot, capturing the puck still in flight before it hits the back of the net, everyone still swarming the net, and the goalie still reaching for the now-lost puck. But compare it with this image of the great Bobby Orr flying through the air:

One try for that. One click, and that moment is captured forever. Astounding.

I find it’s equal parts amazing and slightly depressing to be honest. With regards to bikes, I remember buying magazines (for the articles obviously) but I used to love the pictures. Dirt in particular was just a joy to look at, and the level of photography in it was simply stunning. Later as things progressed and the internet became more prevelant I remember scouring the net for inspiring images of mountain biking, Sterling Lorence in particular being a big favourite of mine. When I found a good high res one I’d save it in my folder which was specifically for these rare gems.

Now, when we have an EWS or DH world cup the level of photography online is simply staggering, and yet utterly disposable. I love being able to see all the awesome images from these events, slideshows on Dirt and Vital, photo blogs on Pinkbike, even following the photographers themselves on Instagram. The level of photography, and the amount of stunning photographs is overwhelming. I’m glad that I have access to these images, but I lament the fact that I’m just glancing at them for a few seconds and then on to the next one, when really they should be on a wall, or in print or……I dunno. Rambling now 😳

the level of photography online is simply staggering, and yet utterly disposable.

I agree.

Whoever took the shot in the second image has got in a much better angle than the person in the first image.

Similar height to the subject, close to the action, better position in relation to the goal line, crowd in the background.

In the ‘olden days’ would they have had a Perspex barrier? The black & white pic looks to be taken by someone who could get in whatever position he wanted & wasn’t encumbered by barriers; probably a press photographer or similar?

That black and white one could still have been taken on continuous shutter. Not sure, but I think 5 fps was achievable on film SLRs.

At the end of the day, the composition is much more important than the technology.

At the end of the day, the composition is much more important than the technology.

Totally. The first hockey shot looks like a “someone in the crowd” shot, 2nd one a pro. One thing I learnt quickly was most players facing the camera in any shot.
I take about 500 and upload 30-40 when I do rugby matches.

With respect the first of your photos is no better than an average iphone shot from a random in the crowd. The second is iconic, and I don’t even like ice hockey. The point of view, the faces of the players, the crowd in the background. It’s great.

There is not enough deleting in modern day photography. And not enough shots composed for black and white too. Can’t beat B&W imo.

That colour photo is quite bland, isn’t it? It doesn’t really convey any drama, whereas the B&W one works on many more levels; much more so than just merely capturing a micro-second of action.

I do sometimes wonder if the current culture where “everyone is a photographer” (due to smartphones, camera technology etc) is actually making photography worse, particularly journalistic photography.

Don’t get me wrong: There are still amazing photographers around, but I do get the feeling that people just accept a bit less these days.

Edit: Dammit!! Convert got there first.

I take about 500 and upload 30-40 when I do rugby matches.

Same for when I do events / races (which, to be fair, is only a few times a year).

I do need to do more B&W too.

Colour picture is crap.
B&W is ok.
Modern sport photography has been devalued by everyone having a camera. Good sport photography is still out there and is still good, it’s just a vast majority don’t recognise good photography and think it’s easy.
The second is that because there are so many photos out there and so many events out there, there is a huge turnover of quality images which are soon forgotten and very few truly iconic images.
Third and probably the most important is that, I think, the most iconic images owe a huge debt to luck rather than skill of photographer, of course there’s an element of skill.

it’s just a vast majority don’t recognise good photography and think it’s easy

I think there’s truth in this, for which we have the advent of decent camera phones to thank.

I say ‘decent’ – decent when viewed on Instagram due to amazing processors and filters, arguably less so when blown up as an A3 print.

One try for that. One click, and that moment is captured forever.

It’s still luck.

Don’t forget that you’re cherry picking that one shot from decades of matches. There’ll have been lots of boring plain shots from matches published in newspapers that have been forgotten.

Sports photography is about getting yourself in the right position, having the right expensive kit, and being lucky. Digital just reduces the amount of luck you need, as well as making it much quicker to get pictures out.

The art of photography is still essentially the same as it always was.

Sports photography is about getting yourself in the right position, having the right expensive kit, and being lucky.

I normally take approx 3000 for a 90 minute (field) hockey match and get maybe 30 good ones. Most wastage is I start shooting a sequence where I expect two players to clash and either someone gets in the way or one player passes / turns at the last moment and the expected clash never happens.

http://www.emilymaye.com bucks the trend (certainly in the bike world) of traditional ‘sport photography’

@flannol: Nice! Thanks for the heads up. I really like some what she has done there.

Yeah she’s awesome! Her work is definitely what got me into cycling photography, and (along with Ben Ingham of Rapha) has actually shaped cycling photography today. Everyone is now trying to emulate it.

I spent some time this season with Neon Velo http://www.nathanielrosa.co.uk/neon-velo-a-season/ – was never really interested in shooting during the race – much prefer the stories around it.

I completely agree with what everyone has said ^ I think the reason those ‘old’ killer photos feel so magical, and special, is because they are. 1) as everyone has said, it was much more difficult to get those kind of pictures back so when they were caught, they WERE revered. 2) They are all shot on film, and there are characteristics to film that cannot be reproduced in digital. Back when these pictures were shot, they would feel – to the audience who is used to seeing imagery like this – normal – much like what you see in sports magazines today is normal. But because they are DIFFERENT to what we see today as ‘normal’ – and because we all have a soft spot for the smooth, grainy, nostalgic feeling film look – they look epic. Doesn’t mean we aren’t taking epic pictures today, that will be looked back upon in 30 years the same way we look back upon these film prints.

It’s funny, that B&W shot I think would be considered far from perfect if it were taken now. In fact I dare say if it was, there would be 20 photographers shooting from the same corner, and chances are another, compositionally perfect shot would be chosen for publication. But that’s half of the problem with modern photography. It is so often perfectly polished. Almost sterile. And that B&W image IS a great shot, partly because of it’s flaws.

We look over modern photography with a much more critical eye, always looking for perfection. Maybe somewhere down the line we’ve forgotten about the real art. But I think JimJam nailed it. It’s like if you have a fridge full of food, it’ll be taken for granted. You’ll not even be aware you’re eating it half the time, and much of it will likely end up in the bin. Spend a week hunting an OX not knowing when you will next be fed, and you will worship it. We’re too spoilt to worship anything any more.

We look over modern photography with a much more critical eye, always looking for perfection. Maybe somewhere down the line we’ve forgotten about the real art.

Back in those days a picture was just to document what had happened, because there weren’t many cameras around. Now there are loads, the togs have to take the good ones.