data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0dd29/0dd290eaf3ff0714a8017560cea37687e76c7c29" alt=""
This topic makes me smile, because it is something that I deal with on a regular basis in my job. Every photographer is different and each photographer will shoot according to what they've learned, but also according to their personality. Some provide straightforward sports action shots. Some provide consistently fantastic stuff. Some stray toward the artsy stuff.
Artsy is good sometimes, but in the sports world you're treading a fine line with that kind of shooting. Most sports followers want good, solid action photography, like the Hank Blalock card at the top of the post, which is a great shot. But "artsy" turns off a lot of folks. So sometimes we have to tell the photographer, "No, that's too artsy. What else do you have?"
I think that's what some collectors are saying with the arrival of Series 2. "It's too artsy. What else you got?"
Well, it's too late for a recall, so we just have to live with some of the odd shots. But really, it's in the eye of the beholder. Some people like those photos. So, what I have done is pull 10 cards from the Series 2 packs, which I bought Friday, that could be construed as "artsy." You tell me. Is it "artistry" or "too artsy"?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4f804/4f8041f8a79d9d998b271911cd6a649a254131d2" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc028/fc02803ff60d0d98da34b2f9643cc0f4ed1d14ea" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/46c73/46c73ac9c8d0ab4fda995577ebdae135d2f49337" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1f249/1f24930c722d604867400bc998752f78e7a39e57" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/844ca/844cad366a37cfa5879cc754053c08d44b7a31bb" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/854fd/854fde267a1c2764ea04a93e758ad91b663bd942" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/09944/09944df6bebfa6302eacfec5193f38aed4f6590f" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/04199/04199b7c7fe0744d2c63d3462f8de9f0f26afc64" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9f4c9/9f4c98bb085f8040a9bc9907edf23621e63cf79d" alt=""
What do I think? Well, the Giants photos suck. The rest I don't mind. Some of the shots are different, but that gives the set character, something to remember. I don't have a problem with people trying too hard. It's a lot better than not trying at all.
Comments
At the end of the day, it is still basic Topps we are talking about and it seems the images are never as 'crisp' as Upper Deck's, but the actual images of their 2009 version of their flagship brand have a unique quality to them that makes UDs cards kind of boring in comparison.