Gambo and T_Wil1 Photopack

[Merkle923]

...in camp with the Rangers, for whom he never played (they would send him to the White Sox for a second cameo in 1977)

[Merkle923]

Ken Crosby, 14 games out of the bullpen plus one start, 1975-76 Cubbies

[Expos 1969-2004]

Pitcher Gary Waslewski appeared in 36 games for the Expos over 2 seasons (1969-1970).

[Jabez54]

Originally Posted by keonleafs

Dear UK,

About 5-6 pics you have posted here have been colorized personally by John of the Baseball Birthdays Forum. I, for one, know that colorizing a B&W picture at John's level, takes a lot of thoroughness, preciseness and time. Like other great colorizers on this web site, I truly think they are all an asset to our hobby, and they should receive all the credit they are owed for their work of art!

Hmmm ... While it's a real privilege for these wonderful mates doing us a tremendous service of giving us the best photos, possible ... I didn't get or feel UK was taking the credit for providing us the updates, as if it was his own ... and again, thank you for leading us to the one who did these marvelous photos ...

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by keonleafs

Dear UK,

About 5-6 pics you have posted here have been colorized personally by John of the Baseball Birthdays Forum. I, for one, know that colorizing a B&W picture at John's level, takes a lot of thoroughness, preciseness and time. Like other great colorizers on this web site, I truly think they are all an asset to our hobby, and they should receive all the credit they are owed for their work of art!

Originally Posted by Jabez54

Hmmm ... While it's a real privilege for these wonderful mates doing us a tremendous service of giving us the best photos, possible ... I didn't get or feel UK was taking the credit for providing us the updates, as if it was his own ... and again, thank you for leading us to the one who did these marvelous photos ...

I don't believe that Keon was meaning to infer that UK is claiming credit for performing the colorizations he's been re-posting, but his point is valid. John specifically asks for attribution and/or a link to his website (Baseball Birthdays Forum - Index page) whenever his customized/colorized images are used. I believe that is a reasonable request. Likewise, when re-posting colorizations en masse, it is good form to at least mention the colorization artist(s). John is not the only one who deserves credit--I also recognize work from Sal1199 (dedicated thread here), ortforshort (dedicated thread here) and Krantzbucks (dedicated thread here) among UK's recent re-posts. I'm sorry to anyone else (FatJack?) I missed acknowledging.

[tnfoto]

Facepack upgrade, pictured with the 1911 Portland (OR) Beavers.

[tnfoto]

1912 St. Louis Browns.

[Jabez54]

Now, I understand ... point is valid!! ... Thanks for clearing this up with me ... and ... Many thanks for your major contribution to your wonderful site and upgrades ...

[tnfoto]

Facepack upgrade, pictured with the 1913 St. Louis Browns.

[lebby20]

After viewing today's round of Vault images, I started to wonder. When they had great images of players like these of Ed Crosby (Cardinals) why would they choose a crappy photo like this one for his actual 1973 card? I could site other players and years where a terrible image was used over a clear, crisp, one.

[tnfoto]

Facepack upgrade and 1921 A's uni.

[tnfoto]

Facepack upgrade and 1922 Indians uni.

[Merkle923]

Some of this is speculative, some of this is from my own recollections from the time as part of the then-tiny baseball memorabilia hobby, and some of this is from talking to Topps people then and later.

Firstly, it's important to remember that the dates put on the Topps negatives by the folks at Topps Vault are not necessarily correct. At the moment on eBay they have a shot of Dave Roberts, an outfielder with the '62-'64 Colt 45s. It's marked "1962" even though the background would be obvious to seemingly anybody as Shea Stadium, which replaced the Polo Grounds as home of the Mets in 1964. And yet it's being sold as "1962."

So one simple explanation for not using what seems to be a superior image on a given year's card is - the photo hadn't been taken yet. Although those Crosbys are probably from 1972, they could just as easily have been taken in 1973. 1973 would've been the first year Topps prepared all its cards for simultaneous distribution (it was an experiment limited to Florida and other selected regions, then became the nationwide method starting in 1974 and lasting until 1993). There are no 1973 images on 1973 Topps cards - the first year that was true.

Secondly, Topps apparently felt a lot of pressure to use more game action and "candid" shots in the early '70s. Other than special cards and background images, no photos actually taken in a game or even taken before a game without the player posing for it, were used until the 1971 series. The photography (especially the game action - see below) was so uneven as to be laugh-out-loud funny. In '72 Topps pulled back on the game action and gave those images a separate subset of cards ("In Action").

So in 1973, that candid Ed Crosby shot, taken through the side of the Cardinals' spring training batting cage the year before, was cutting edge. Also it's possible that's all they had of him and those nice posed Crosbys weren't taken until 1973.

Here's the state of non-posed Topps photography as of 1971. It's Bud Harrelson's card, but I remember even as a kid we thought it was bizarre that we had to pick him out of a crowd of two infielders, the baserunner, the ump, and Nolan Ryan in the foreground.

[UKBaseballfan]

Originally Posted by keonleafs

Dear UK,

About 5-6 pics you have posted here have been colorized personally by John of the Baseball Birthdays Forum. I, for one, know that colorizing a B&W picture at John's level, takes a lot of thoroughness, preciseness and time. Like other great colorizers on this web site, I truly think they are all an asset to our hobby, and they should receive all the credit they are owed for their work of art!

Please see the narrative attached to the group of photos I attached for the first year I posted.

Quote

I have available literally hundreds of alternatives to the images in the recently released facepack. In the main, but by no means always, these reflect my admiration to the skills of the many colorization wizards whose work benefits immensely those who visit this site. As an example I have posted my alternatives for those players who debuted in 1946. If there is a demand I will be more than willing to post alternatives for every other year.

On the left I post the current facepack image and the right an alternate image.
Attached Images

End quote

In that context I believe your criticism is wholly unjustified as I was paying tribute to the wonderful efforts of those who had taken the time to post their brilliant colorizations. In my opinion their efforts should have been rewarded by their colorizations being included in the facepack.
Your point would be valid if you were of the opinion that by making my posts I was bringing credit to myself not the images I was posting. I have no idea why you would choose to take that point of view.....

I am totally puzzled by the sentiments you expressed. It is clearly on record on this site, numerous times, the extent of my admiration of the considerable time and effort the creators of these images put it. Yet you choose to criticize me when I try and promote their work for inclusion in the facepack. Perhaps you can explain why it is not their omission from the facepack that you are criticising. If the colorizers take the time and effort to take the time and effort to colorize a black and white image then should not their efforts be rewarded in just the manner you express. I would have expected your support , or perhaps your belief is that their efforts should only be promoted with the appropriate accreditation. If so that would have to applied to everyone not just one person and I ask you to think through the implications.

There are a number of criteria for a photo being included within the facepack but simply put it should be the best available photo for that player available. If it doesn't then what is the point of this and other similar threads? We might as well stop our efforts and I for one would believe that would be very sad and show a disrespect for the considerable efforts of those who have brought this thread to where it is from inception. Should we attach to every image in the facepack a narrative identifying its source? If that is what we should undertake then I would suggest it would be an impractical concept. It is my belief that the majority of contributors do so with the concept of benefit to the common good being the objective not personal promotion.

In view of the criticism I have received I will just stop posting these photos as it seems the time and effort I have spent in doing so is not appreciated. My motive was to promote and encourage those who grace this site and others with their work not to take credit for it personally.

Maybe this is a matter of culture but it would be my expectation that the creators of these images seek mainly and primarily for their WORK to be promoted and appreciated not necessarily their names. I certainly do not seek to exploit their work with any desire for any benefit or personal ambition be it financial or otherwise. If I have caused them offence I apologize and I want to assure them I post their photos out of respect and a desire for their work to be made available and treasured to as many as possible.

My final point is that this and other similar sites work because the primary ethos is of sharing not ownership.

[bobb49]

[In view of the criticism I have received I will just stop posting these photos as it seems the time and effort I have spent in doing so is not appreciated. My motive was to promote and encourage those who grace this site and others with their work not to take credit for it personally.[/QUOTE]

UK, I understood where you were going with you initial posts giving a broad stroke of credit to those who do this work. I also felt it was an unnecessary waste of time to post that message with each post and for me to read it. I think perhaps we need to let offended parties bring their issues up with the offending parties privately so as to avoid what has happened here.

By the way UK (almost wrote a limerick), it would be a better world UK if you continued to post. Your efforts are not under appreciated. I, as many others have found, continually count on you to find many of the more obscure players from the deadball era. Please reconsider.

[brobby05]

Originally Posted by Merkle923

Some of this is speculative, some of this is from my own recollections from the time as part of the then-tiny baseball memorabilia hobby, and some of this is from talking to Topps people then and later.

Firstly, it's important to remember that the dates put on the Topps negatives by the folks at Topps Vault are not necessarily correct. At the moment on eBay they have a shot of Dave Roberts, an outfielder with the '62-'64 Colt 45s. It's marked "1962" even though the background would be obvious to seemingly anybody as Shea Stadium, which replaced the Polo Grounds as home of the Mets in 1964. And yet it's being sold as "1962."

So one simple explanation for not using what seems to be a superior image on a given year's card is - the photo hadn't been taken yet. Although those Crosbys are probably from 1972, they could just as easily have been taken in 1973. 1973 would've been the first year Topps prepared all its cards for simultaneous distribution (it was an experiment limited to Florida and other selected regions, then became the nationwide method starting in 1974 and lasting until 1993). There are no 1973 images on 1973 Topps cards - the first year that was true.

Secondly, Topps apparently felt a lot of pressure to use more game action and "candid" shots in the early '70s. Other than special cards and background images, no photos actually taken in a game or even taken before a game without the player posing for it, were used until the 1971 series. The photography (especially the game action - see below) was so uneven as to be laugh-out-loud funny. In '72 Topps pulled back on the game action and gave those images a separate subset of cards ("In Action").

So in 1973, that candid Ed Crosby shot, taken through the side of the Cardinals' spring training batting cage the year before, was cutting edge. Also it's possible that's all they had of him and those nice posed Crosbys weren't taken until 1973.

Here's the state of non-posed Topps photography as of 1971. It's Bud Harrelson's card, but I remember even as a kid we thought it was bizarre that we had to pick him out of a crowd of two infielders, the baserunner, the ump, and Nolan Ryan in the foreground.

I would agree that the posed ones are 1973. They got a new polyester uniform before the 1973 season that would then have a V-neck jersey versus the crew necks that were from 1971-72. Also the outseam stripes were changed in order. The 1971-72 had the red ones in front and the 1973+ had the dark blue ones in front. In Spring Training, I was told, they could mix and match and wear previous years' ones. I got my info from Bill Henderson's Game Worn Jersey Guide, Version 6.


Thanks,


BRobby05

[Jabez54]

By the way UK (almost wrote a limerick), it would be a better world UK if you continued to post. Your efforts are not under appreciated. I, as many others have found, continually count on you to find many of the more obscure players from the deadball era. Please reconsider.

I, totally agreed ... I love seeing what others have found or made an upgrade to former photos ... It's like a real treasure hunt ... as long as I have been playing Baseball on PCs, the mates from the OOTP's World is an absolute - the best hunters, ever ... many thanks to all that contributed and helped make my collection, the most complete as I possibly can get ... without you, mates, the Game would not have been made richer ... again, thanks ...

[UKBaseballfan]

Jabez, I attempted to send you a private message expressing my appreciation of your comments but unfortunately your filters prevented me from so doing.

Thank you

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by UKBaseballfan

...

In my opinion their efforts should have been rewarded by their colorizations being included in the facepack.

...

Perhaps you can explain why it is not their omission from the facepack that you are criticising. If the colorizers take the time and effort to take the time and effort to colorize a black and white image then should not their efforts be rewarded in just the manner you express.

This is something I have advocated for many years, though in a slightly different manner than UK suggests. The Facepack is used by many people with many different opinions about what makes a photo "best." There are those who prefer action photos, those who would rather have a bust-style portrait and those who want closely-cropped face shots. Many prefer to have photos of players in a different uniform based on their various major league teams. Some prefer B&W, others colorization. In assembling the Facepack I try to take each of these interests into account, weighted, perhaps too heavily, by my own identification-centric interests: crisply-focused, forward-facing portraits with both ears and any other distinct features visible.

Many users here have created their own photo packs (Pegasus27, jwisenberg, okcochise, WrightWing and Cheech411 just to name a few) but as far as I know, nobody has undertaken the project to produce a fully-colorized pack.

Unfortunately I have too much on my plate to add another project and when I have mentioned this apparent omission in the past I have not found anyone willing or able to take it on. As UK mentioned it would be a good way to spread the work of the colorization artists to a broader audience and provide an excellent alternative for those Facepack users who prefer colorized images over B&W. I'll throw the invitation out there again: is anyone willing to create and manage a colorized photo pack? The project would likely include collecting the colorized images already available, choosing the best (by the pack manager's own standard) available colorization for each player and soliciting colorization artists to fill in the missing players.

If someone here would like to take on this project, the Facepack is a good starter both in format and content. Using that as a starting point, as Cheech did with his photo pack, colorized photos could be easily inserted in the place of B&W images. I am willing to provide a database that can be used to track which players are already colorized and which remain B&W. UK has shown that there are already many images available to launch the pack. Perhaps even an era-specific pack such as the one okcochise has put together for the 1950s-70s would be a good start. Going that route, the Conlon era (by Sal1199, among others) and War Years (by ortforshort, also among others) are already well-covered and either would seem to be a natural fit.

Any takers?

[Jabez54]

UK ... even though I have been around ... I still couldn't figured out what filters I had implemented to screen out the others ... I have nothing to show that I did ... anyway, Thank you for your kind remark ....