Hasselblad XPan shot on the cover of the NY Times

[david b]

Did not have a good look at it but the cover of todays Sunday Times has an XPan shot of Obama. Very cool

 

[dwdmguy]

Ya big tease. I coulda' stayed married for that.

 

[fotodudenz]

http://twitpic.com/4h7wr

 

[Jose A Martinez]

Well, I love that, xpan is one of my favorite.

 

[dwdmguy]

Thanks for the link. Wow.

 

[2F/2F]

Cool. I haven't been to the library to check it out in person yet. How did you find out it was taken with an X-Pan?

 

[fotodudenz]

You can tell by the notch on the upper right of the frame.

 

[canuhead]

Xpan frames have a little notch cut out upper right.

 

[2F/2F]

Thanks.

I hope somebody has the head/s of the editor/s who allowed frame edges to be published on the front page of the New York Times. What a joke! It is not entertainment or art, nor is it a weekly news feature publication, where this might make a bit more sense. It is daily A-section news journalism. Pictures there are supposed to exist to add to the readers' understanding of a story, not to be stylish.

 

[bill schwab]

What a joke! It is not entertainment or art. It is news journalism.

Yeah... a dying profession. Having gotten over the whole border thing and not a big fan of it myself, I for one really like the use of the border here and feel it adds to the graphic quality and compliments the image AND front page. I say give the editor a pat on the back.

 

[2F/2F]

Yeah... a dying profession. Having gotten over the whole border thing and not a big fan of it myself, I for one really like the use of the border here and feel it adds to the graphic quality and compliments the image AND front page. I say give the editor a pat on the back.

Sure. It looks good IMO too...if you judge it as a fine art photograph...which it is not supposed to be when used this way.

It *is* nice for the NYT to be back to good-ol' black and white on the front page...if only for a day. I vividly remember the first day they switched to color. To their credit, they did hold out for a good deal longer than most other papers. OK...call me a traditionalist...but that's how I likes mah news! Straight, by the book...and in black and white!

 

[bill schwab]

...if you judge it as a fine art photograph...

Your opinion. They are doing something somewhat fresh. The profession needs to adapt to survive and this is hardly a threat.

 

[2F/2F]

Your opinion. They are doing something somewhat fresh. The profession needs to adapt to survive and this is hardly a threat.

I don't recall stylistic freshness being one of the basic news determinants. Media are always changing, but fundamentals remain the same. If I want fresh and stylish, I will seek it out myself in some place other than a newspaper...like in a publication that ethically has the creative license to seek freshness and style. Every compromise of journalistic standards and ethics is a threat. The threat to newspapers is bad journalism that everyone can get for free, and the lowering of standards...not that the style of photographs is stale. You can't make up for these things that are causing big problems by using stylistic gimmicks as patches.

...and of course it is my opinion. It's certainly an interesting photo, and there is nothing wrong with a news photograph being dramatic. I just *do not* get the justification for the frame edges in any way, shape, or form. That's all. The purpose of the Times is to tell the news. They do this using words and photographs as media, not to exhibit photographs (or words, for that matter) for sake of exhibiting photographs (or words).

I wonder when the picture was taken.

 

[bill schwab]

Every compromise of journalistic standards and ethics is a threat.

Look, I realize you ride a pretty high horse when it comes to journalism and I repect that. However I will say it again, this is hardly a threat. A black line does not make for "bad journalism".

 

[2F/2F]

Thanks, Bill. As I said, I *like* it. I just don't *get* it in this context.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's the Sunday Times. The Sunday edition usually is a bit more leisure oriented than the weekday paper and has been that way for many years. I think it's a good photo, and a little more creative license is perfectly in keeping with the Sunday paper.

 

[2F/2F]

It's the Sunday Times. The Sunday edition usually is a bit more leisure oriented than the weekday paper and has been that way for many years. I think it's a good photo, and a little more creative license is perfectly in keeping with the Sunday paper.

You're right. To their credit, it does look like a more feature-oriented article (and perhaps it even jumps to a different section), and as you say, it is the Sunday issue, which usually leads with a feature unless there is big hard news going on.

...but with such great freedom of the press, it is up to the public to be the watchdogs on such issues, so we have to at least consider the quality of information we receive. My point is that even though the photo itself is harmless, we should all take notice of the fact that it *is* taking a notable degree of creative license. The problems come when this is so common that it goes unnoticed and is accepted as the norm. *That* weakens the paper, IMO; the public not caring about standards. The NYT is one of the only papers on which I can rely for traditional news. I go out of my way to read it, even as a lifetime Los Angeles resident. I like them for their stick-in-the-mud formality and straight-ahead classic approach...though it is definitely softening. (Must be its old age! )

 

[PKM-25]

Xpan frames have a little notch cut out upper right.

Mine has the same notch...

 

[PVia]

OTOH, frame lines show that the subject was not skewed or biased in any way by cropping. If you look at it that way, it holds more true journalistic truth/function than one without, assuming they're real frame lines when you see 'em.

Food for thought...

 

[2F/2F]

OTOH, frame lines show that the subject was not skewed or biased in any way by cropping. If you look at it that way, it holds more true journalistic truth/function than one without, assuming they're real frame lines when you see 'em.

Food for thought...

Definitely something that comes to mind. However, I think this is only the case if it is assumed that the way the image was composed in camera provides a greater journalistic function than the cropped image. IMO, that is not a good assumption at all. Most photographers' images are at the very least improved, if not largely "made" by good editing. At least this is the theory behind editing; to improve, arrange, and clarify raw material for consumption (OR totally weed it out in some cases). Theoretically, if an image is being cropped at all, it is to increase its journalistic function; even if for no reason other than page layout considerations. No good editor crops an image "just because". The purpose of a journalistic image is not to comment on itself or to prove its own journalistic integrity, which is what you are talking about. It is to further the understanding of an event by the masses, and almost always as a supplement to text. Journalism should not have to say "Look! I'm proper journalism! See!" That is assumed when you pick up the Times. Whether this is a correct assumption or not...who knows? Certainly a better assumption than assuming this of the Daily News (sensationalism), the U.S.A. Today (idiocy), the Journal (propaganda), or other such rags.... Nothing is without flaw, but I don't think we really need to fear propaganda via cropping in any of these sources to the degree that showing frame edges is necessary to prove an "unmanipulated" image.

 

[Jose A Martinez]

IMO, using a Xpan to cover the asigment was a good choice of the photographer, I think that he give the readers a sense of place, and the decision of the editor to leave the frame suports the photographer deeds. I don't think that the staff at the NY Times expects that the general public knows that the photograph was take with that kind of camera, even a photographer that haven't seen a Xpan full frame in his/her life can't tell it's a Hasselblad Xpan. (sorry for the syntax)

 

[jd callow]

The verification border is symbolic of a kind of honesty -- even if it doesn't represent any truth in point of fact. I think it may be an affectation, much like bold headlines. but not as bad as headlines using invented contractions, misspelt words or bad grammer all done to fit the text to the column(s) width or to garner attention opposed to inform. Being up in arms that they used the film rebate as a border instead of a frame border in Quark or inDesign is akin to arguing over which end of the egg should be cracked. My preference is the film rebate. It tells me that there is a physical record of the image and that in having this record we can validate the integrity of the published image. This fits much better with the ethos of journalism than what I'm reading from 2f.

FWIW I didn't think the image was all that well composed or the best use of the format, but it does show forethought.

 

[jd callow]

On second thought and after reviewing the image, I think it is well composed and it does use the format very well. I think what is bothering me is that the head line is centered underneath.

 

[lns]

If I recall this photo, it was taken years ago, not to illustrate this particular story. It was taken when the President was a law professor at the University of Chicago. That was some time ago, obviously.

The New York Times does run, with some regularity, X-pan photos taken by one of their staff photographers. Angel Franco is the name that comes to mind, though I may be wrong here. Anyway, I always love seeing them. To me, a good photograph, or an arresting photograph, adds visual interest to the paper. That's part of what makes the physical newspaper an attractive product, at least to my mind.

-Laura