| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2009 04:47:38 PM · #1 |
Here's a NY Times Photo Feature of President Elect Obama's Staff
Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 04:54:16 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 04:58:40 PM · #3 |
Exactly the same thoughts I had when I viewed the photos of Obama 'backstage' on election night...I dont know how these people get the chance to take images of these things but, IMHO, they don't do a very good job.
So far, and I am only about half way through looking at them, I can't understand why they all have this weird grey (shadow?) outline on the white background and why the photographer has posed them the way has. Maybe I am wrong but I reckon there are plenty of photographers here that given the chance would have blown this guys work out of the water!
Edit to add: A few towards the end have great expressions/poses so I'll give them a 6 ;o)
Message edited by author 2009-01-17 19:05:37. |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 05:04:47 PM · #4 |
| Be glad he toned down his usual portrait style or the article would have been named Obama's People Viewed While Tripping. |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 05:09:10 PM · #5 |
| Many of them display a lot of personality. (Notice how many of them are holding cellphones and blackberrys?) Others are fairly plain and boring. In particular, I thought the one of Hillary Clinton did not flatter her at all. |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 05:15:47 PM · #6 |
I couldn't get past the Communications Director Ellen Moran. My screen locked up at that point and I got a cold chill. Apparently her eyes were built by Diebold when she was assembled at the factory.
Message edited by author 2009-01-17 17:16:36. |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 06:02:15 PM · #7 |
It's funny how in accompanying the commentary the woman say's how interesting it was how each individual occupied the space. differently. I, to the contrary found it incredible how the photographer robbed each individual completely of personality. I've never seen anything quite like it at a professional level.
I agree with yanko but Director Ellen Moran isn't the worst of it. Jackie Norris, Dennis McDonough, James L. Jones and Hilary should pool their efforts to off the guy for what he did to them.
Could be his last paying job and it's safe to say while Obama was very good at picking his staff he's rotten at choosing photographers?
Message edited by author 2009-01-17 18:04:17. |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 06:33:57 PM · #8 |
umm its just pictures of his staff...its not February's issue of Vogue
you might say that the 'image' matters
but it doesnt, cause if the 'image' of a politician is what persuades you, you probly shouldnt be allowed to even vote |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 06:46:26 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kolasi:
umm its just pictures of his staff...its not February's issue of Vogue
you might say that the 'image' matters
but it doesnt, cause if the 'image' of a politician is what persuades you, you probly shouldnt be allowed to even vote |
Surely every photographer wants to do the best with each photograph he takes? Just because it's "just pictures of his staff" doesnt mean the person shooting the images shouldn't take some pride in his work.
I don't feel this is an issue about voting for politicians based on what they look like in an image, this discussion is about the quality of the photographs...whatever your political view is put it to one side...maybe try and view the images as if you were voting on a portrait challenge on DPC...I know what my votes would be!! |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 06:48:20 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kolasi:
cause if the 'image' of a politician is what persuades you, you probly shouldnt be allowed to even vote |
So about 80% of those who voted for Obama... ;-) |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 07:03:19 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kolasi:
umm its just pictures of his staff...its not February's issue of Vogue
you might say that the 'image' matters
but it doesnt, cause if the 'image' of a politician is what persuades you, you probly shouldnt be allowed to even vote |
This project could have been done for Vogue as it's supposed to be a lighthearted, fun look at the incoming administration. And FWIW The New York Times Magazine is know for it's world class photos.
My comments weren't political in the slightest and I certainly wasn't judging the people in the shots. I'm not sure what gave you that idea...?
I was simply commenting on how bad I thought the images were and how dehumanized or uncomfortable he made them look. Most of the images were flat and some of them are downright scary.
I think the guy blew a Big-League opportunity.
Message edited by author 2009-01-17 19:06:16. |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 07:21:02 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I agree with yanko but Director Ellen Moran isn't the worst of it. Jackie Norris, Dennis McDonough, James L. Jones and Hilary should pool their efforts to off the guy for what he did to them.
|
Since when does a Clinton need help in that regard?
*runs!* |
|
|
|
01/17/2009 07:26:51 PM · #13 |
This photographer was obviously going for a theme, and the only one (IMO) who broke the mold was Eugene Kang with his little black book. His attitude? " ya wanna take my pic? Sure, I'm busy, but go ahead. Let me know when you're done."
Nearly all the people photographed have been photographed many, many times before, and unless specifically asked to assume such a pose, I very much doubt they would do it.
All that was lacking here was the height chart behind the (alleged) perps.
I certainly think the images were unnecessarily unflattering; fortunately, I doubt that hurt their performance in the campaign or will hurt in their upcoming responsibilities.
:-))
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 06:42:51 AM EDT.
