Is Easy Bad? [Jill Greenberg and John McCain]

[reverend jay]

This certainly does not help the media's credibility since photos are so easily edited these days. The photoshop job she did was hackney at best and in poor taste. If she had just taken pictures of McCain at an event as just a person in the crowd so to speak and then photoshopped them for her political agenda then it would have been no big deal. The fact that she was hired to do a professional shoot and then turn around and do something like this is just childish really.

I suppose this is to be expected from someone who takes candy from babies and then photographs them crying.........(actually that's pretty funny really, but still)

 

[reverend jay]

BTW for those that have still not seen the photos you can check them out here.

http://www.theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

 

[Anscojohn]

The old lab rats who helped me learn photography had some really way out images, some straight "bloopers" others manipulated in the darkroom. I vividly remember one of a 1950s female celebrity (this was Atlantic City), taken at lower than Rolleiflex level, and showing some underwear between the legs. Somone etched out the neg so that the area printed black. Nyuck, nyuck. It was a big hit------in the darkroom where the boss rarely went.
The big deal now (notwithstanding contract obligations and ethics), it seems to me, is that a manipulated image placed on a website can go global in seconds.
Regarding Arnold Newman's portrait of Alfried Krupp---I am willing to bet money that Krupp regarded himself in the same light and may have been flattered.

 

[Dave Wooten]

A few years back (maybe someone can recall the case) a "noted" female wedding photographer, endorsed by hblad, was sued by a couple because one of their wedding photos showed up in a discount store as the ad photo in some of the picture frames. She of course had the standard release etc. however if I recall the courts ruled against the photographer and the couple hiring the photographer were compensated.

 

[jd callow]

Yeah, great... she dumbs down the political debate with her childish antics, and, in the process, will in effect make it harder for every single working magazine photographer to own the rights to, and resell to others the work they make as freelancers.

Good post and exactly how I see it.

She said nothing relevent, artistic or enlightening with her manipulations (in fact is was downright childish) and injured her industry. I would have had far greater respect (not respect but less disdain) if she had gone out on her own w/o pay and got the images of McCain. I can just imagine what future contracts to her and others shooting for The Atlantic will look like.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

To go back to the original question: Yes, Easy can often be Bad. When you don't put any effort into making a statement, when you don't focus on a proper target, and when you just hurl feces randomly, then you're worth feces.

This is not to say that good things HAVE to be hard, but casual, offhand efforts seldom bring about worthwhile results. And that's valid for photography as it is for political satire.

 

[gr82bart]

The unethical thing would have been to help mccain by presenting him to the public in a normal light when she felt otherwise. At least she had the guts to show how she really felt. She didnt let herself be used to advance the career of a politician she dislikes.

Say I get hired by a magazine to take images of you, or your wedding or whatever. I take the images, but I don't like you, your values, your religion, whatever. I doctor all the images to MY liking (and believe me you would NOT like my likings) and post them on Facebook, MySpace or on my website, or any one of my public portfolios - here on APUG for example. Just expressing my freedoms, I guess. Right?

Regards, Art. (And people wonder why there is a massive hate on of photographers ... )

 

[jd callow]

Casual, offhand and even the accidental, from the perspective of the viewer, can be art. Greenberg's work is not art. It is political satire, but not very successful and I think the effort involved is immaterial.

 

[Dave Wooten]

Who knows what is true and not true, maybe Obamas ears are not that big! I might just go and check it out for myself since he is only a few blocks from the house.

 

[Dinesh]

.....I might just go and check it out for myself since he is only a few blocks from the house.

Spearmint Rhino?

 

[Dave Wooten]

Spearmint Rhino?

That would be an easy call Dinesh! However, obama will be at Cashman field, free admission. The problem is I'll be tempted to stop on the way...for a big mac or Popeye's fried....my attention span is not what it used to be...
:confused:

 

[nsurit]

Then she shouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

To have done so would have shown both integrity and class. Both seem to be missing as exhibited by her actions. Bill Barber

 

[Aurum]

BTW for those that have still not seen the photos you can check them out here.

http://www.theonlinephotographer.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

I've seen better.
Its obvious and not that original

Google images search, John Prescott or Hazel Blears for something more effective

 

[nemo999]

Then she shouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

It really does seem that the US does not welcome the same kind of robust political debate we are used to in Europe. Here, photographers covering politics, particularly conferences and rallies, are positively encouraged to photograph politicos asleep, picking their noses, looking stupid, juxtaposed with comical signs, etc. It is hard to understand what the fuss is about - it has frequently been the case in Britain, for example, that the caricaturist Gerald Scarfe is commissioned by papers to produce a drawing to accompany a political report - I personally consider Scarfe (and for that matter, Greenberg and "Spitting Image") tedious and superficial, but the general attitude seems to be that being caricatured comes with the territory for politicians. Any suggestion that being commissioned to produce an image carries with it an obligation to be flattering we would find ludicrous.

 

[SuzanneR]

I don't think they were expecting Greenberg to produce a flattering image. I don't think she's ever made a flattering portrait. However, they expected her to behave professionally. Taking the outtakes from a picture made in a deceitful manner, and drawing red pixelated blood all over his mouth was well beyond the scope of the assignment. And yes, it's satire... just not particularly biting or illuminating. Just juvenile.

Cover assignments, especially for a staid old magazine like the Atlantic, are often far different in their intent than the grab shots photographer's make of politicians pressing the flesh on the campaign trail, and possibly picking their nose. Plenty of those tedious images make their way into newspapers and magazines and websites.

 

[keithwms]

Nemo, I think you're getting the wrong impression on a few counts.

(1) My impression (based on following the English, Dutch, and German media, as well as that in the U.S.) is that libel law is considerably more liberal in the U.S. than in Europe. The American 1st Amendment codifies free speech in a very broad way and makes it very tough to prosecute libel damages. Libel judgements are very rare in the U.S. It'd be very hard for McCain or The Atlantic to bring suit against JG, so this is really not about that issue of legality, unless it turns out that she signed a very specific contract (unlikely; she apparently negotiated out of specific embargo terms so that she could use the imagery prior to the election).

(2) Americans have welcomed spirited political debate for a very long time. Yes, it is unfortunate that the republicans haven't had much of an opposition to spar with for the past few years, but nevertheless... we have plenty of political satire in the media; we have plenty of caricatures; we have candidates constantly followed at all times by the media; we have two enormously popular political comedy shows that are far harder-hitting than anything I've seen out of Europe. And we have numerous media orgs that duel with each other constantly (currently it's Fox-MSNBC that are having the spats). And we find ourselves with a President and Congress with historically low approval ratings; this should tell you something about press freedom in the U.S.

This is not an issue of free speech, nor is it an issue of whether Americans tolerate political dissent (you bet we do). Nor is it an issue of whether anybody likes or dislikes McCain.

This is an issue of professional behavior, or the lack thereof.

 

[WarEaglemtn]

She is one who gives kids suckers and candy and then takes it away to make them cry so she can photograph them.

Ethics is only a word to someone like this.

 

[Dave Wooten]

misfits

I don't think they were expecting Greenberg to produce a flattering image. I don't think she's ever made a flattering portrait. However, they expected her to behave professionally. Taking the outtakes from a picture made in a deceitful manner, and drawing red pixelated blood all over his mouth was well beyond the scope of the assignment. And yes, it's satire... just not particularly biting or illuminating. Just juvenile.

Cover assignments, especially for a staid old magazine like the Atlantic, are often far different in their intent than the grab shots photographer's make of politicians pressing the flesh on the campaign trail, and possibly picking their nose. Plenty of those tedious images make their way into newspapers and magazines and websites.

Hi Suzanne,

I have to disagree, I think the "crying" portrait ( featured on the cover of FOCUS mag} is both flattering and beautiful. It is her own work and what she does.

She accepted a "commercial" assignment, was paid, delivered, it is the out takes and their use that is in question.....if you hire me to photo your child, portrait or bar mit. or whatever or your wedding....do I run my own bank a Vegas term) and shoot for myself etc. and produce for my own benefit and political sway additional product? Even one which is disrespectful of one's client? Is their any feduciary respect expected?:confused:

addendum: I posted questions (LF forum) on the ((to Me)) clever use of ring light on the Crying portraits , with questions on the total lighting etc. QT seemingly has pointed in the right direction...subsequent inquiry suggests "fodder for the lounge" etc... I am not interested in "fodder for the lounge". The first I was introduced to the photographer was on both forums (the political commercial contract) and the current issue of Focus cover, a coincedence......look at the lighting in the crying photos and the animal photos, from what ever venue and shed some light on the question...thanks.

interestingly enough the lighting on the Political promo and the personal work are different, or is the commercial also personal....not in style or technique, but in attitude, persuasion, .....

is it the same as the neck tie i have with andy whols marilyn? help me here
thanks, that tie is a favorite of mine.

center light is a ring light positioned low (?) on the animal and crying portraits....what are the sides...umbrellas? they are so hot they nearly blow out...and a beautiful effect...look at the catch lights....my bifocals and magnifying glass will not give me the answer.
thanks and cheers...come to town and the first one is on me.

 

[accozzaglia]

Equivocal double standards: during the 2000 U.S. election campaign period, Rolling Stone magazine was largely off the hook for digitally manipulating a cover photo of Al Gore. The decision was by the editors, not the photographer.

One could argue that the editorial decision to manipulate Gore was an allegory of cutting his virility down to size to reflect the view by his opponents that he was not man enough to sit as a chief executive. But because the digital post-production was a weak effort at hiding his, uh, package (obvious enough that people took notice to something being altered in that area), it not only looked photoshopped, but also, aside from a few editorial jabs and guffaws, people largely didn't let it bother them. Why?

We accept the reality we want to see in photography -- whether the image is manipulated or not, accurate or not, skewed perspective or not, interpretive or not.

Further, under this rubric, the public granted the editors creative licence to alter the photographic image, while for the Atlantic Monthly, the editorial alterations were Jill Greenberg's own. The Rolling Stone made it "official" (and thus sanctioned) by publishing the doctored photo on the cover. The Atlantic Monthly, however, did not.

By allowing one alteration (photographic work for Rolling Stone) over the other (photographic work for Atlantic Monthly), does this mean we confine ethical authority of digital manipulation and only allow it to be filtered by the person or persons wearing the "editor" hat, rather than the photographer as well?

 

[2F/2F]

I love the "ignore thread" feature on this Website!

 

[Dave Wooten]

Think I found my lighting question answer. On youtube is a short seg of a Greenberg photo shoot-the bear....what I could nt figure out was the large dark spots in the center of all catch lights....set up was pretty much as QT described, umbrellas on side and front ring...

Interestingly the ring light - center and lower in some photos but not all, is not on the camera, ring light is mounted on a light stand---the two side umbrellas are silver and 4 feet or more,,,the dark center is due to the maybe 11 inch aluminum reflector on the strobe bouncing into the umbrellas, the obverse is painted black and the strobe bodies are black, giving a black circle in the center of the catch lights not unlike the closer placed ring light..

Camera is hand held and appears to be an RZ. Ofter the camera is BELOW the ring light-lens long macro.

Dave Goldfarb has posted a vid on LF forum of a shoot with Lebron James....camera is different but the ring light is there if you look...in this shoot it is higher and on a boom arm. Thanks again Dave.

 

[Early Riser]

I'm no fan of John McCain but she really crossed a line. She was hired to shoot an editorial photo for a magazine. McCain agreed to be photographed assuming that the magazine and it's photographer would act in a professional manner. Greenberg's access to McCain was solely for this purpose. If he had known that his image would be manipulated he would not have agreed. The magazine has suffered a blow to it's integrity and people will now be wary about appearing on it's cover. She in all likelihood has removed herself from the list of photographers that magazines will ever consider.

 

[jd callow]

She in all likelihood has removed herself from the list of photographers that magazines will ever consider.

There is an upside.

 

[mcfactor]

No, it has made her even more famous and thus more desirable. She may not work for a republican again, but i see no problem there^^

 

[jd callow]

I can't imagine a publicist or manager of anyone who has an image to maintain (or any class) allowing their client to be photographed by her. I can't imagine any respectable publication hiring her. Those magazines and celeb's who crave attention of any kind may hire her.