General Forum

There was a time when the shots were pretty much all the same. Head shots, posed with a bat, etc. Heritage captures the essence of that pretty well. I find those boring. when action shots became more prevalent in the 70s it was a big deal. As time evolved the shots did get better, but yes, not all of them. There are plenty of sets, '16 Topps BB for example, where they wash the back out and that does make it disappointing. But, for baseball, they have done a decent job of capturing some great shots without doing too much damage post-processing. Some of the include Kiermeier's (yes, I spelled it wrong) great catch up against the wall, 2 of Beninitendis' catches, Bautista's bat flip, etc. 

I'd like to thank Billy for posting those hockey shots. It's one of the reasons why I started collecting hockey. First, it was the vintage runs of the 80s I was trying to complete. Seeing the modern sets makes me almost drool. I've picked up a few of the Overtime insert sets (Shoot out for example) just because of the great shots. I like the Canvas insert set because it's a new shot of the player with a different feel. UD could have just plastered the base card on the new texture, but they went for a new shot and they are just as interesting and great as the base cards. Portrait...meh..

I guess it depends on what era you're comparing to. I've been putting my 1969 Topps baseball set away. I love the cartoons on the back, and the blurbs, and the stats. The pictures on the front? Not so much. Spring training shots. Boring head shots. Hokey poses. Blacked out hats. Nothing interesting at all in the photography. 

While there are flaws, the 2010s Topps sets have action shots that are often quite stunning. I admire the photography on those much more. 

So I can't agree, at least for that comparison.

v3

Your action shots of the 70s comment brought back something I was thinking about a few months ago, specifically with Topps Heritage. 1973 Topps was when the action shots really started to become more common, and I am hoping that when Heritage reaches that set in a couple of years they emulate the wide angle greater distance action shots, with the same "primative" camera technology prevelant in that set like these.

jimetal7212 wrote:

There was a time when the shots were pretty much all the same. Head shots, posed with a bat, etc. Heritage captures the essence of that pretty well. I find those boring. when action shots became more prevalent in the 70s it was a big deal. As time evolved the shots did get better, but yes, not all of them. There are plenty of sets, '16 Topps BB for example, where they wash the back out and that does make it disappointing. But, for baseball, they have done a decent job of capturing some great shots without doing too much damage post-processing. Some of the include Kiermeier's (yes, I spelled it wrong) great catch up against the wall, 2 of Beninitendis' catches, Bautista's bat flip, etc. 

I'd like to thank Billy for posting those hockey shots. It's one of the reasons why I started collecting hockey. First, it was the vintage runs of the 80s I was trying to complete. Seeing the modern sets makes me almost drool. I've picked up a few of the Overtime insert sets (Shoot out for example) just because of the great shots. I like the Canvas insert set because it's a new shot of the player with a different feel. UD could have just plastered the base card on the new texture, but they went for a new shot and they are just as interesting and great as the base cards. Portrait...meh..

Action photos are the best. After all, sports is all about the action of the play. If you pose for a photo in better be funny in some way to catch the eye. Other than that they look like the old posters in the post office. Anyone remember when they use to put up the most wanted at the post office.

I think Topps at least -- because that's the only modern company I buy -- has tried for a bit of a compromise. No or few boring face shots. Plenty of action shots. But the other players are edited out, so the focus is on the player whose card it actually is. I have mixed feelings about this. I like the examples provided above, where you can really get a feel for the game, but there are times when it was hard to tell who was actually being featured on the card, as in the Dave Nelson and Bobby Bonds cards above. I do think the actual player should be the focus. 

v3

All valid replies. I, personally luv the 1957 Topps set ,  the backgrounds just have never been duplicated. Simple white borders, name, team, position are not detracting. Just me, but it is my favorite set of all times. The only thing is, way too many headshots.

Understandably, people have different preferences. I just find most shots (action or not) are close-up shots with the background often faded out, which I find very boring. I love seeing interesting backgrounds (ads from times gone by, old stadiums, people, scenery sometimes) as they add "atmosphere" or something. I personally love the spring training shots that someone here said they don't like. I do agree the 1973 Topps set has soem great shots (I never noticed before). I was just admiring the 2015 Gypsy Queen which I find have very different photos than the other Gypsy Queen sets and I think they are awesome!