Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Schewe on March 01, 2018, 06:38:42 pm
-
Politics aside, PJ's can produce some compelling images...(that tell a lot)
From Columbia Journalism Review...
A portrait of Trump’s mental state by photojournalists (https://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/trump-mentally-sound-photos.php)
(https://cdn.cjr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/GettyImages-660713944-1300x500.jpg)
Donald Trump outside the West Wing on March 30, 2017. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/Getty.
Interesting comparison of presidential photos by Pete Souza:
2 Million Photos In 8 Years Or What It’s Like To Be Obama’s Photographer (https://www.boredpanda.com/barack-obama-photographer-pete-souza-white-house/)
(https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/barack-obama-photographer-pete-souza-white-house-140-5763e48acde23__880.jpg)
Barack Obama And Ella Rhodes, Daughter Of Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes
Comments about the photography welcome...
-
While I am no fan of our current president, I consider Michael Shaw (who cites his own web site https://www.readingthepictures.org/) to be a complete crank.
He "reads" pictures in the manner of a Tarot reader, "finding" his own politics in every picture. Incidentally, his politics are are also MY politics -- Michael Shaw and I are on almost precisely the same "side" politically, so make of that what you will. Still, I maintain that regardless of where you stand, any thinking human being will be shouting at the screen after a few minutes on Shaw's main web site.
-
This is an unfair comparison, apples to oranges.
We can not make assessments on the contrast of Trump and Obama by comparing two different portfolios of the two where one was shot by photo-journalists with a clear agenda against Trump and the other by a photographer practicing portrait photography that was not only hired by the Obama Whitehouse but was in contact enough with Obama to get to know him intimately.
A fair comparison would be finding a right wing photo-journalist who documented Obama and comparing those images to the Trump pictures posted here.
-
Here's my favorite illustrative photos: ;D
Kent in SD
-
Here's my favorite illustrative photos: ;D
https://www.google.com/search?q=photo+of+obama+with+poodle+putin+with+tiger&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS779US779&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=R-Vf-CXdGgYmxM%253A%252CnfnvpNDJV4D0FM%252C_&usg=__UuxelYccEC5RXg7to4Eg8DnXKZU%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwja9czDrszZAhVnhuAKHdFJCBMQ9QEILTAC#imgrc=R-Vf-CXdGgYmxM:
Kent in SD
LOL
I saw this one today. It was in a negative piece about how China recently increased censorship due to public backlash for getting rid of term limits. Technically this diptic is meant to make fun of Xi Jinping; Winnie the Pooh has become an internet joke on Xi Jinping and is also censored.
(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02590/TIGGER_2590531b.jpg)
-
We can not make assessments on the contrast of Trump and Obama by comparing two different portfolios of the two where one was shot by photo-journalists with a clear agenda against Trump and the other by a photographer practicing portrait photography that was not only hired by the Obama Whitehouse but was in contact enough with Obama to get to know him intimately.
Not exactly accurate.
Context.
Pete Souza was hired by Obama, yes.
He got to know him intimately, over 8 years, by virtue of his job - Chief Official WH tog. Hard not to.
He was also the official photographer for Ronald Reagan.
So ?
Souza's style of photography has become notable thanks to his incisive captions. It's such a well-known style that The New York Magazine interviewed the photographer about it last year. Through a method of juxtaposition - sharing a photo of Obama on a day the current president Trump does something noteworthy (or questionable) and then comparing both .
https://www.instagram.com/petesouza/?hl=en
-
jeff, please get back in your hole, OK????
Kevin in CT
[Moderator: This post is abusive. Member is banned from posting for 7 days]
-
This thread is poised on a very fine edge. As soon as it veers into overt non-visual politics, it will be deleted
-
It's hard to assign any significance just to two fleeting moments.
In 1966, two researchers by the name of Haggard and Isaacs discovered, while looking at films of couples in therapy, what they described as "micromomentary expressions." They noted behaviors that would flash by so quickly they were difficult to see except by slowing the film down. A few years later, building on this earlier work and observing these same behaviors, Paul Ekman coined the term "micro expressions" while he was studying deception. Ekman later incorporated this into his book, "Telling Lies," which you really should read if you care about nonverbals.
What Haggard and Isaacs, as well as others, found was that our faces often reveal hidden sentiments that are being intentionally concealed. This was obviously useful in detecting issues during couples' therapy. Unfortunately, over time the term "micro expressions" grew to include too many things; failing for instance to differentiate between the truly miniscule, the small, and the larger facial distortions. There was also a failure to differentiate between the behaviors that were fast and those which were super-fast, but which had little to do with being "micro" or small. Lastly there was a failure to differentiate behaviors that are asymmetrical or that oddly freeze in place such as when we hold a tense smile at a snarling dog.
Consequently, because so many things have been lumped under the appellation "micro-expression" it is often difficult to determine what someone means, especially when they substitute "micro-expressions" for plain old body language or nonverbals. So let's see if we can add some clarity here to help you better understand behaviors of the face, which are often lumped under the term "micro-expressions" or worse they are ignored completely.
There are behaviors, gestures, or expressions of the face that do occur without conscious prompting which leak or reveal our true feelings or sentiments. Some of these behaviors or expressions flash before us very quickly (1/15, 1/25 of a second) and others loiter there seemingly too long. Also there are behaviors that are difficult to observe because they are so tiny (twitching muscles just under the eye for example) while others are quite large or as "large" as they can be given the size of some small facial muscles.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201112/body-language-vs-micro-expressions
-
A fair comparison would be finding a right wing photo-journalist who documented Obama and comparing those images to the Trump pictures posted here.
Actually, another comparison would be Pete Souza (https://www.instagram.com/petesouza/?hl=en) (Obama's photog) vs Shealah Craighead (Trump's photog) although that would be somewhat unfair since Shealah has only had a year to shoot. Her Instagram photos are more personal but she does post to Twitter @ @shealahdcphoto (https://twitter.com/shealahdcphoto) Only the second female WH shooter. The Woman Behind the Lens: Meet White House Photographer Shealah Craighead (https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a15338513/shealah-craighead-chief-white-house-photographer-interview/?src=socialflowTW)
I was impressed with seeing Shealah running around with a big backpack of cameras and what appears to be a Canon 70-200mm (although sometimes I think it's a 100-400mm).
So, let's see if we can keep it about photography....
-
Actually, another comparison would be Pete Souza (https://www.instagram.com/petesouza/?hl=en) (Obama's photog) vs Shealah Craighead (Trump's photog) although that would be somewhat unfair since Shealah has only had a year to shoot. Her Instagram photos are more personal but she does post to Twitter @ @shealahdcphoto (https://twitter.com/shealahdcphoto) Only the second female WH shooter. The Woman Behind the Lens: Meet White House Photographer Shealah Craighead (https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a15338513/shealah-craighead-chief-white-house-photographer-interview/?src=socialflowTW)
I was impressed with seeing Shealah running around with a big backpack of cameras and what appears to be a Canon 70-200mm (although sometimes I think it's a 100-400mm).
So, let's see if we can keep it about photography....
Yes, I would say that would be a fair comparison as well, after she has had time to build that portfolio as you point out.
And that is certainly not a big backpack, more average IMO. Now this is a big backpack! (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1140972-REG/lowepro_lp36875_pro_runner_bp_450.html?ap=y&c3api=1876%2C%7Bcreative%7D%2C%7Bkeyword%7D&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlpKW5tzN2QIVgYjICh2gYAnlEAQYAiABEgKLt_D_BwE) I ordered one of these not knowing how big it is and had to send it back. You can fit a 4x5 rail camera in there with a few lens, couple boxes of film, at least a dozen film holders, a backup MF system.
-
It is unfair to anyone to be characterized solely by tiny moments made static by our cameras, whether good or bad.
-
It is unfair to anyone to be characterize solely by tiny moments made static by our cameras, whether good or bad.
I guess that's a true enough statement. But how do we reconcile that with the various (journalistic) photographs that are widely thought to have had considerable impact. I'm thinking of the photo of the Vietnamese girl running away from napalm, or various photos taken during the depression, or the soldiers raising the US flag on a beach, or of the screaming woman bent over the body at Kent State. Some photos just seem to become iconic.
-
I guess that's a true enough statement. But how do we reconcile that with the various (journalistic) photographs that are widely thought to have had considerable impact. I'm thinking of the photo of the Vietnamese girl running away from napalm, or various photos taken during the depression, or the soldiers raising the US flag on a beach, or of the screaming woman bent over the body at Kent State. Some photos just seem to become iconic.
I think it is important to give context. For example, that image of Trump looking out of the oval office has an odd desperate look to it. But in reality anyone could have looked out a window like that with that expression. So, in the end, without the context of what was going on inside, which the photographer would have no idea of, that image is kind of meaningless.
However, sometimes you may see a rather innocent or jovial image, but the context can make it pure evil. For example, the image below; looks like a few guys enjoying themselves. Only this was taken after they murdered three civil rights activists and decided to celebrate their deed.
(http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/CP&RAINE.jpg)
-
Of course. In photographs, sometimes context is vital. In other cases, though, the context is evident.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/19/article-0-16956D10000005DC-993_964x632.jpg)
If we deny that images have impact, we all need to turn in our cameras.
This one certainly impacts me every time I see it.
-
Whatever your politics or views of the current and previous presidents, drawing any conclusions about them or their policies by comparing the two shots Jeff first posted is spectacularly silly.
Jeremy
-
While pictures do have impact, they do so as part of a larger social system.
A photograph is shot, cropped, edited. It is selected, and placed next to other photographs, to text.
It is published.
We might, observing the results, say "the photographed intended to smear so-and-so" or whatever. but in reality there is the photographer, the photo-editor, the publisher all in play. If, collectively, they are truly taking a position, as often as not they are simply reflected a position that already exists. Perhaps they are amplifying it. Perhaps not.
We see pictures, we read text, we talk to people. We form opinions and develop ideas. Pictures and words simultaneously shape and reflect those ideas, in a fractally complicated system of feedback.
My favorite touchstone here is Nick Ut's picture of "Napalm Girl"
This is often thought of as a turning point in the Vietnam conflict, but it is not. It was shot very late in the conflict, the drawdown of US troops was well underway. That the US was bugging out was well established at this point.
The photograph was selected and published not as some sort of "game changer" but as a reflection and amplification of the already existing zeitgeist. The picture is not "we should get outta there!" but "we were right, leaving is the right thing to do."
So, if there truly IS a pattern to the way Trump is photographed, the reasons for that pattern are probably pretty complex. Part of it surely is related to nothing more than the different style of access each president grants the press, holding them at arm's length in this context, excluding them from that, and embracing them in another.
Part of it is surely personal style. Trump seems to rarely smile, for example, while Obama smiled a lot. I think. This, again, COULD be a reflection of slanted media, but could also reasonably be simply a difference in the mannerisms of the two men.
And then, of course, there are the biases possessed by the staff who deliver these pictures to us, AND the biases of the population they are striving to reflect, as noted above.
And finally, we have weirdos like Michael Shaw cherry picking pictures and then writing his own bizarro interpretations of them, unsure even himself (or at least unclear) as to whether these represent some reality or Trump's mental state and political position, or whether the pictures illustrate some coherent political statement by the media team, or are merely accidents.
ETA: Worth noting, most of the cited tweeted pictures are in fact @readingThePix product. This Michael Shaw literally quoting himself as evidence. He does disclose this in fine print at the beginning, but the method is profoundly disingenuous. He should just include the picture inline and repeat the "analysis" rather than treating himself as a source of quotation.
-
I am no fan of our current President. I think Jeff is missing the bigger story of how the various media outlets select images (including film clips) to coincide with their own confirmation bias. Liberal outlets select very unflattering images that portray what appears to be someone who is unhinged while conservative outlets (I have much less familiarity with these because of my own confirmation bias) do the opposite. Not so sure this has much to do with the person who captured the image(s).
-
@AndrewR and texshooter. I have deleted your posts
and
this thread will be deleted when it veers from photography
-
Note to Moderators:
Ilma Gore was blocked on Facebook , result:
'.. the portrait became a hit, with already 50 million views and 260,000 reposts ..'
Not convinced the LuLa 'block,lock i& delete' policy will produce similar results.
Just sayin' ..
-
@AndrewR and texshooter. I have deleted your posts
Actually, Chris - you've deleted mine too. Why ?
There was zero political - I queried the bizarre use of the word 'queer' in relation to the artist in the BIF article.
So one can't even discuss 'Use of English' in the Coffee Corner now ... ?
-
Actually, Chris - you've deleted mine too. Why ?
There was zero political - I queried the bizarre use of the word 'queer' in relation to the artist in the BIF article.
So one can't even discuss 'Use of English' in the Coffee Corner now ... ?
In the absence of the deleted posts your reference to "Forget about the manhood, I doubt that there's a picture in existence that depicts Trump as being so 'svelte'." made little sense
-
Apologies: the actual photo I posted and deleted by Chris was actually the 2nd image captured on my new iPhone X at the time, using the new Portrait Mode and unprocessed other than default settings in Apple Photos. Natural light, handheld, auto WB (skin tones to my eye are visually close to the subject). This camera is a major improvement over my previous iPhone 6!
-
Well that's what I suspected , though the thought did come to me that you'd used a Cambo Actus but not sure which SonyAlpha cam was mounted on it. My suggestion is that for certain subjects where resolution is all important, it's still advisable to use a 5x4.
-
Apologies: the actual photo I posted and deleted by Chris was actually the 2nd image captured on my new iPhone X at the time, using the new Portrait Mode and unprocessed other than default settings in Apple Photos. Natural light, handheld, auto WB (skin tones to my eye are visually close to the subject). This camera is a major improvement over my previous iPhone 6!
Well, entre nous, it was the apparent use of silk-stocking diffusion that caused the trouble
-
Give it a rest, Jeff!
-
Bud, the moderators specifically and directly asked that this sort of thing not happen. To be frank, your post appears to be a deliberate attempt to get the thread classes.
Chris will delete it (or be accused of deleting a post with an actual photo in it the other day)! :o
-
@BudJames. Please let's keep overt politics away from this. I have deleted your post.
It is possible that a new moderator will allow political discussions but until that time, stay away from the subject.
LuLa staff currently do not have the time or desire to referee those discussions. This may change in the future if discussions remain civil.
-
Does deleting controversial or offensive comments from the Coffee Corner actually gain or preserve LULA subscriptions or sponsorship? If no, why bother?
-
Does deleting controversial or offensive comments from the Coffee Corner actually gain or preserve LULA subscriptions or sponsorship? If no, why bother?
Because it will help to preserve at least a veneer of civility. It is true that courtesy is something which appears to be in increasingly short supply these days, but that is no reason why it can't be maintained here. We are adults and, for the most part, professional people. We should behave as such.
Jeremy
-
I hope that LuLa's policies and procedures are driven by more than "what will increase revenue" and I think there is evidence of that.
-
Perhaps the Coffee Corner needs a companion forum: the Snake Pit. Just saying.
-
Actually, another comparison would be Pete Souza (https://www.instagram.com/petesouza/?hl=en) (Obama's photog) vs Shealah Craighead (Trump's photog) although that would be somewhat unfair since Shealah has only had a year to shoot. Her Instagram photos are more personal but she does post to Twitter @ @shealahdcphoto (https://twitter.com/shealahdcphoto) Only the second female WH shooter. The Woman Behind the Lens: Meet White House Photographer Shealah Craighead (https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a15338513/shealah-craighead-chief-white-house-photographer-interview/?src=socialflowTW)
I was impressed with seeing Shealah running around with a big backpack of cameras and what appears to be a Canon 70-200mm (although sometimes I think it's a 100-400mm).
So, let's see if we can keep it about photography....
Two difficult assignments:
Photo editor to photog: " We need a photo essay on Kansas. Make it look mountainous."
Photog: "Oy vey."
Trump to Shealah: "As my photographer, I expect you to make me look intelligent, knowledgeable, and sympathetic."
Shealah: "Oy vey."
-
Two difficult assignments:
Photo editor to photog: " We need a photo essay on Kansas. Make it look mountainous."
Photog: "Oy vey."
Trump to Shealah: "As my photographer, I expect you to make me look intelligent, knowledgeable, and sympathetic."
Shealah: "Oy vey."
Harry Benson: "Only if I keep the copyright! Okay then, Jimmy?"