I have a strong opinion about this essay in the NYT "Obama's People"

<p>Another disappointing log entry. But I am surprised only by it's presence here. I mean, why bother, Paul? I do care about the people I photograph, they are infinitely more interesting to me than your fecal matter. You can have your broken teacups, they resonate with your own priorities. You are, by your own observation, wasting your own time. If portraits, and this discussion, mean so little to you, feel free to do yourself a favor and discontinue your engagement here.</p>

<p>Scott, thanks for your remarks. Before I compose the serious reply I want to attempt, I need some time away from this scatological marking... t</p>

<p>as an interesting contrast, lets see who can detect the difference in the way <a href="http://www.peteryang.com/">Peter Yang</a> works a plain white sweep... t</p>

<p><em>I think it's interesting how many of us become distressed, and even hostile to the point of grotesque typos, when others of us comment negatively on a photographer's work.</em></p>

<p>A negative critique is a far cry from most of what we've seen here:</p>

<p><em>I think they look the images were made with a copier machine</em><br>

<em>some of the worst portraits I have ever seen</em><br>

<em>This NYT photographer failed in my humble opinion.</em><br>

<em>Avedon was one of America's greatest photographic artists and these images are pathetic in comparison.</em><br>

<em>They look like over processed, slightly mis-timed drivers license photos made under copy lights with no consideration of the subjects, only a slavish adherence to the process, regardless of the effect</em><br>

<em> I've seen similar startled faces on kangaroos in the headlights whilst driving through central Queensland at night</em><br>

<em>Perfect driver's license photos</em><br>

<em>They are Horrible!</em><br>

... and on, and on, and on.</p>

<p>In fact, most of this is just inflammatory junk commentary that riles people up because, regardless of anybody's opinion, these photos got a large spread in the New York Times magazine, which means they're obviously *slightly* better than driver's license photos.</p>

<p>They also show none of the standard side-effects of traditional "bad-portraiture," such as on-camera flash, motion-blur, poor focus, under-exposure, etc.</p>

<p>Such ridiculous commentary that flies so starkly in the face of reality is mildly irritating, and provokes people. I wouldn't be surprised, if I were you.</p>

<p>-Paul B. Davis</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I love the series. Yes to some they are unflattering. As a series this stands out. Really rather good.<br>

I started out reading all of the comments, but since they were openly hostile and there were a lot of them, I just went ahead and posted what I feel looking at those portraits.<br>

They are 'honest' 'real' and radically different from standard political shots. If this is the standard for your driver's licence shot, I need to come to the states and have mine done over there.</p>

<p>Tom, I'm sure you care about the people you photograph... I don't, naturally. And yeah, I'm still struggling to see why people should be all that bothered about some cheesy publicity shots of this current batch of politicians.</p>

<p>I guess these photos are more interesting for a certain US audience, who've dutifully gobbled up all the media gubbins that comes free of charge with a new President these days... But nah, personally I don't know many people who are all that interested in pics of politicians just, erm, standing around for the camera.</p>

<p>Anyway, after chuckling my way through the following puke-worthy drivel, I think now is the time to cheerfully piddle off down the pub and give me tubes a good clearout... :)</p>

<p><a href="

<p>FFS.</p>

<p>To me the message clearly given by the photoshoot was " We're not good looking and slick like the guys who just bilked you out of billions of dollars on Wall Street... just read our bios and you'll see... we're here on <em><strong>merit</strong></em>. " </p>

<p><a href="http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/01/16/nadav-kander-and-the-ny-times-magazine-the-real-behind-the-scenes/">And here's (I think) my last word</a> , and it's not from me... t</p>

<p>Tom: Brilliant, even if it's not from you :-)</p>

<p><a href="http://marktucker.wordpress.com/">more brilliance... t</a></p>

<p>and NYT shooter <a href="http://men.style.com/gq/features/campaign08">Jeff Riedel's excellent work for GQ</a> , some of which shows how he might have worked this gig... t</p>

<p>it's also insightful to down load the PDF of the Image Magers / Image Takers interview with Kathy Ryan on Mark Tucker's site (linked above)... t</p>

<p>Hey, but the David Axelrod shot makes up for all the others! Too bad they didn't post one made with him stuffing a cookie into his mouth.</p>

<p>Great thread, Tom.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>