Photographer harshly criticized for ‘shoddy’ Olympic portraits

maybe there is a hidden hidden message and his statement is just to further confuse.

No, I don't want to kick off another discussion :)
 
Simon photo said:
Ahhh well, hidden messages, two fingers to convention, guess i was wrong but im not ashamed to admit it, we all speculated on the reasoning behind or the reason for their look but there you go.
I still like them though.
Click to expand...

Eh! you got it right, not wrong ..unless you changed your mind ...been a daft thread hey.

It was his intent to portray something different, just because he struggled with less than ideal lighting doesn't mean his intent changed.

They hired him for his art and his talent.

"We chose him because of his ability to see the world through different eyes, unconventional and more original. We wanted something different and we got it!"

:thinking: Am I confused?
 
Last edited:
he was evidently the first one to answer the Craigslist posting
Click to expand...
.

That sort of sums it up, doesn't it?
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Eh! you got it right, not wrong ..unless you changed your mind ...been a daft thread hey.

It was his intent to portray something different, just because he struggled with less than ideal lighting doesn't mean his intent changed.

They hired him for his art and his talent.

"We chose him because of his ability to see the world through different eyes, unconventional and more original. We wanted something different and we got it!"

:thinking: Am I confused?
Click to expand...

I take it all back, HUZZAR!
Right again
Lmfao
 
simonblue said:
So just a bad day at the office,I think we all had one of them :)
Click to expand...

Obviously he can afford to have more bad days than the rest of us... ;)
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
:thinking: Am I confused?
Click to expand...

I think you must be very confused.

He was expecting one set of conditions and got a very different one so tried to make the best out of a bad situation and failed. There was no preplanned intent, and no deliberate mess up to go viral - both of these are what a number of people in this thread were claiming had happened and have now been proved wrong. He just got very poor results because he came underprepared and expected something that wasn't there.
 
Last edited:
Apart from remembering to take the Lens Cap off, what other rules are there?
And who makes them?
 
Phil Young said:
Errr the rules of "don't let a studio portrait be seen with a ripped backdrop and expect it to look good" that kind of SIMPLE yet highly effective rule.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a rule, enforced by both AFP and Getty, regarding Photoshopping images and removing creases or tears in the backdrop would fall foul of it.....
 
Phil Young said:
Errr the rules of "don't let a studio portrait be seen with a ripped backdrop and expect it to look good" that kind of SIMPLE yet highly effective rule.
Click to expand...

There are no rules! That's the beauty of art.
Its just the masses of chumps that think you should have flawless images. Too much hive mind attitude and i can't stand it
 
Phil Young said:
All this time I thought they were portraits....seriously.

So wait...he's taken...what appears to be portraits...but they are not allowed to be edited???
Click to expand...

Essentially, no. He's a press photographer, the shots were taken at a press call. Ask yourself this, would there be any difference in editing the background or removing, say a spot or wrinkle on one of the athletes' faces?

Both materially alter the image....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Essentially, no. He's a press photographer, the shots were taken at a press call. Ask yourself this, would there be any difference in editing the background or removing, say a spot or wrinkle on one of the athletes' faces?

Both materially alter the image....
Click to expand...

Personally I think yes because the background in this instance doesn't matter...it's only use is to present the subject in good light.

But then my images don't go to the press so my opinion may not count.
 
Phil Young said:
Personally I think yes because the background in this instance doesn't matter...it's only use is to present the subject in good light.

But then my images don't go to the press so my opinion may not count.
Click to expand...

It didn't matter in the case of the golf shot either, editing it still caused the photographer's contract to be terminated.
 
Getty has a large collection of Ansel Adams pictures, all heavily edited. Capa, how many were real, how many concocted. Is it rules for some and not for others?
 
Rankbadyin said:
Getty has a large collection of Ansel Adams pictures, all heavily edited. Capa, how many were real, how many concocted. Is it rules for some and not for others?
Click to expand...

Adams was a landscape photographer, not a photojournalist, so it's not really a fair comparison. I'm with you when it comes to Capa, however his work has passed into "legend" and disproving the legitimacy if them is difficult at best.

I think you'll find the same rules apply for all nowadays, the Daily Mail excepted :lol:

harry3.jpg
 
I just didn't dig this cat's pics at all. This IMHO, wasn't his scene and the pics aren't great. As a photojournalist though he sure pulled a scoop with all the fuss about them.
 
Rankbadyin said:
Getty has a large collection of Ansel Adams pictures, all heavily edited.
Click to expand...

Indeed we do but we do not sell them as our own editorial photographs, which can not under any circumstances be heavily edited.
 
It looks like the decent part of the discussion of this thread has come to an end but I felt it was a very good discussion on taste, why some people like things, why others can't accept that some people like things along with snobbery, elitism etc, etc,.

Grayson Perry did a good 3 part show recently about taste where he spent time with working, middle and upper classes to explore what they liked and why. He presented it very objectively with no snobbery or judgement and came away with a very interesting show. He also created large tapestries to depict each class which were excellent (for my taste anyway :) )
 
ernesto said:
Grayson Perry did a good 3 part show recently about taste where he spent time with working, middle and upper classes to explore what they liked and why. He presented it very objectively with no snobbery or judgement and came away with a very interesting show. He also created large tapestries to depict each class which were excellent (for my taste anyway :) )
Click to expand...

That was a fantastic series. He invariably gets right into the nub of an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top