Gambo and T_Wil1 Photopack

[tnfoto]

Facepack upgrade, pictured with the 1916 Senators.

[tnfoto]

Facepack upgrade, pictured with the 1942 Senators, courtesy of thecatspajamas.

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by 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 ....

In your user control panel (User CP link at the left of the black bar near the top of each page), check to see that you have private messaging enabled and PMs only from contacts and moderators disabled. That's the only thing I can think of that would keep you from receiving a PM from a non-admin member.

[tnfoto]

Facepack upgrade, pictured with the 1930 Indians.

[UKBaseballfan]

Originally Posted by 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 ....

Yes, this is the message I received when I tried to message you :-

"Jabez54 has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her.

If you are trying to send this message to multiple recipients, remove Jabez54 from the recipient list and send the message again."

[UKBaseballfan]

Originally Posted by tnfoto

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?

I agree with most of the above though I would like to emphasize that it is a facepack and was never meant to show action photos. In my own collection I have images by individual year and my own personal view that the ultimate way forward is the production of annual facepacks as pioneered by Ceej and his wonderful work. The criteria are very clear in respect of the facepack and I await to be corrected if I have it wrong.

Clarity (As stated by TNFOTO an identification tool)
Color over black and white.
Capped rather than bare headed
Major League where possible over minor League.
In uniform over street clothes
In the uniform of the team they are most associated with.
From playing days rather than subsequent duties as a manager or coach

That said I understand there is a need for images other than facepack images to be shown but the original purpose of this thread was to produce a facepack but I acknowledge it is to the benefit of the site that this purpose has expanded.

As a possible way forward I would like to refer everyone to the 1927 thread I have worked on to a large extent. Maybe we could have a thread for each year?

[hobbs11]

A nice suitable option from Topps Vault for someone that seemingly had few...at least for me. Perhaps it helps others on this forum...

[hobbs11]

I was able to locate these images from John's baseball-birthday archived Topps Vault files, and was curious if anyone had a "better", i..e clearer version. Thanks in advance!

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by hobbs11

I was able to locate these images from John's baseball-birthday archived Topps Vault files, and was curious if anyone had a "better", i..e clearer version. Thanks in advance!

Something like this, perhaps?

[hobbs11]

Originally Posted by tnfoto

Something like this, perhaps?

Why yes and hello Ken.....Thanks tnoto! By chance might you have the other one as well?

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by hobbs11

Why yes and hello Ken.....Thanks tnoto! By chance might you have the other one as well?

I'm sorry, I don't. Not in that size, anyway.

[DeweyintheHall]

Just over a month ago, I joined this forum. In that time, through the help of many, I have come a long way in improving my virtual collection of 1978 Topps cards. I will keep digging and will share any new images I come across. If you'd like, please take a look at my collection at One Man's Exercise in Narcissism
If you click on the "Images Needed" button, you'll be taken to a current list of the guys I'm still looking for.
Let me throw just one name out there now - I have yet to see a photo, even a bad one, of Gary Thomasson with the A's - he played regularly for them for the first couple months of the season before being traded to the Yankees - I have to believe there's a decent image of him out there somewhere in green and gold!
Thanks again, and keep up the good work!

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by UKBaseballfan

I agree with most of the above though I would like to emphasize that it is a facepack and was never meant to show action photos.

That is true, but there are still those who prefer (and substitute) action photos, which is why I mentioned it.

Originally Posted by UKBaseballfan

The criteria are very clear in respect of the facepack and I await to be corrected if I have it wrong.

1. Clarity (As stated by TNFOTO an identification tool)
2. Color over black and white.
3. Capped rather than bare headed
4. Major League where possible over minor League.
5. In uniform over street clothes
6. In the uniform of the team they are most associated with.
7. From playing days rather than subsequent duties as a manager or coach
(numbers added for referential clarity)

That's similar to the criteria I set out a little more than four years ago when I started managing the Facepack and still use today:

Originally Posted by tnfoto

My rationale for selecting images has been (in order):

1. Visibility/identifiability
2. Image resolution
3. Major League uniform
4. Color image
5. Baseball uniform

Originally Posted by tnfoto

One point I did not mention, but that I hold as highly important (probably #1.5 on my list) is playing career vs. coaching/managing/post-career images.

I do not directly consider your criteria #3 or #6. Colorizations/tints are also not a part of the criteria I specified and I still do not use that as a part of the mechanical side of determining which images I use for the Facepack. I suppose that I could really add a sixth, very subjective point, which would be aesthetics. When I see a colorization that I believe fits in the Facepack I add it, not based on where colorizations fall in the criteria list but solely on how I think that particular image looks and whether it feels like a good fit for the Facepack. I never add an image simply because it is colorized and the current Facepack image is B&W.

Originally Posted by UKBaseballfan

...my own personal view that the ultimate way forward is the production of annual facepacks as pioneered by Ceej and his wonderful work.
...
As a possible way forward I would like to refer everyone to the 1927 thread I have worked on to a large extent. Maybe we could have a thread for each year?

(note the link to the 1927 thread referenced above)

I like the idea, but a major piece is still missing: who is going to manage the collection, prioritization and organization of colorized images and publish the resulting colorization packs?

Individual year threads also seem like a logistical issue, keeping in mind that we share this forum with roster, quickstart and facegen mods. Having 50+ threads dedicated to year-by-year colorizations, especially if they are being regularly updated, would not be acceptable to the forum users not participating in the colorization project. Perhaps decade threads would create logical groupings without unduly monopolizing the forum front page. If there was one thread for 19th Century and others for 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950-date, I think that could work in this forum.

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by DeweyintheHall

...
Let me throw just one name out there now - I have yet to see a photo, even a bad one, of Gary Thomasson with the A's - he played regularly for them for the first couple months of the season before being traded to the Yankees - I have to believe there's a decent image of him out there somewhere in green and gold!
Thanks again, and keep up the good work!

I don't know if it's any "good," but this is the only one I have.

[DeweyintheHall]

Thanks - considering it's the only image I've ever seen of Gary as an A, it is certainly good!

[UKBaseballfan]

Originally Posted by tnfoto

That is true, but there are still those who prefer (and substitute) action photos, which is why I mentioned it.



That's similar to the criteria I set out a little more than four years ago when I started managing the Facepack and still use today:



I do not directly consider your criteria #3 or #6. Colorizations/tints are also not a part of the criteria I specified and I still do not use that as a part of the mechanical side of determining which images I use for the Facepack. I suppose that I could really add a sixth, very subjective point, which would be aesthetics. When I see a colorization that I believe fits in the Facepack I add it, not based on where colorizations fall in the criteria list but solely on how I think that particular image looks and whether it feels like a good fit for the Facepack. I never add an image simply because it is colorized and the current Facepack image is B&W.



(note the link to the 1927 thread referenced above)

I like the idea, but a major piece is still missing: who is going to manage the collection, prioritization and organization of colorized images and publish the resulting colorization packs?

Individual year threads also seem like a logistical issue, keeping in mind that we share this forum with roster, quickstart and facegen mods. Having 50+ threads dedicated to year-by-year colorizations, especially if they are being regularly updated, would not be acceptable to the forum users not participating in the colorization project. Perhaps decade threads would create logical groupings without unduly monopolizing the forum front page. If there was one thread for 19th Century and others for 1900s, 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950-date, I think that could work in this forum.

In my opinion the most significant missing piece is the pool of colorizers that you mentioned that could be commissioned to undertake the production of images. Commissioned suggests payment and direction to me and in my experience any such contributors may well prefer to choose for themselves which images to produce. Personally I would prefer to steer clear of anything involving payment as it may compromise our efforts. In addition I believe this should be viewed on as a hobby and nothing more though I am guilty of using the term work , I do not mean it in a sense of financial reward.

I agree it makes sense to identify a need list in terms of color images , how that could be identified is open to debate. You mention a database I view the photopack as our database and if it does not include a color image then it should indicate a color image is missing. Our viewpoints differ here as you have highlighted that you do not view a colorization as an upgrade on a black and white image for the purposes of the facepack. Presumably our differences in interpretation indicate why your version of the images in the facepack differ from those I have recently posted.

Personally I have no issue with any thread that is being regularly updated on the site and I would wonder why others may find such a development to be unacceptable. In general though I agree that the differentiation of images into numerous threads is not necessarily beneficial. To my mind that would be the reason why you would start a new thread rather than include any such images in the main thread so in this respect I do not agree with your point.

[cheech411]

its dick billings!! sorry about that

[tnfoto]

Originally Posted by UKBaseballfan

In my opinion the most significant missing piece is the pool of colorizers that you mentioned that could be "commissioned" (quotes added) to undertake the production of images.

True, so IMHO the first task for the project manager would be to recruit a group of colorizers who are both interested in the era and willing to offer their services. Gambo was able to mobilize an excellent team for the facegen project. If you would like to launch a colorization project of similar scope, he may be a good resource to offer advice.

Originally Posted by UKBaseballfan

I agree it makes sense to identify a need list in terms of color images , how that could be identified is open to debate. You mention a database I view the photopack as our database and if it does not include a color image then it should indicate a color image is missing.

True, the photo pack itself could be the tracking list. I always prefer to have something that I can query and manipulate, which is why I mention a separate tracking database.

Originally Posted by UKBaseballfan

Our viewpoints differ here as you have highlighted that you do not view a colorization as an upgrade on a black and white image for the purposes of the facepack. Presumably our differences in interpretation indicate why your version of the images in the facepack differ from those I have recently posted.

Yes! This is something I've been trying to articulate unsuccessfully for the past few years. Thank you for summing it up nicely. It is simply a difference of opinion. I should also mention that your recent posts have prompted me to review the mid-1940s and during that review I've updated more than 50 images, including some colorizations. Thank you for focusing my attention on the needs in that era.

Originally Posted by UKBaseballfan

Personally I have no issue with any thread that is being regularly updated on the site and I would wonder why others may find such a development to be unacceptable. In general though I agree that the differentiation of images into numerous threads is not necessarily beneficial. To my mind that would be the reason why you would start a new thread rather than include any such images in the main thread so in this respect I do not agree with your point.

You're correct that this proposed project should have its own work area outside this thread. A reasonably small group of threads (5-10 active at a time) seems like a reasonable number. A large number of threads (one per year for the first 50 years of the 20th Century, for example), becomes too cumbersome to work around for the non-participating forum users.

[hobbs11]

Originally Posted by cheech411

Attachment 365094

Attachment 365095

Appreciate that Cheech, but if I'm not mistaken that's Dick Billings....

[cheech411]

oops !!! sorry about that!!!