twmeyer Posted January 20, 2009 Author Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>My problem is not with the photographer, it's with the photo editor. This was a bad match up. I like Ellis's list of alternates. Maybe in 2013 I'll get a call... t</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianhoke Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Critique is no more honest than flattery, but there should be a point to employing one or the other.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's an interesting point that I have to consider.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zedd_yo Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>These are horribly constructed photos. They look like something I would do (a rank amateur). Most of the people look unnatural both in their personal presentation and in the photo editing. And it looks like a LOT of photo editing was done...poorly. I also noticed that Hillary Clinton's bio does not mention BC. Very interesting in its absence.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>Technique aside, I found it an interesting series. Good work to capture all these people in one go.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p><em>That's not true for the American West portraits. The selective toning and bleaching is quite obvious. I went to the show three times when it was here a year or two ago.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>You saw the larger than lifesize prints, but most people have only seen the book size reproductions where all ofthe manipulations are not so obvious.</p> <p>On another blog, commenting in a thread aboutthe behind the scenes photos for this shoot, editorial photographer Robbie McClaren (http://www.mclaren.com ) points out that the print version of these portraits looks far better than it does on the web.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlwakefield Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>Tom I must congratulate you for bringing so many opinions about these pictures to discussion. Picture of the week does not get discussed so good. I think your points and many others are typical of professionals criticizing professionals. The general public either like or not what they, many like a change to see something different. Most knowing nothing of great photographers. My first opion was I liked the pictures. I would preffer eye contact of a sort as menstioned. But other than that no complaints. I am problably like many people, unaware of the work of the many great photographers. I think your points are valid but I think pictures are good and have done there job. With discussions like this probably better than could have been wished for.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>I don't think it's fair to compare to Avedon. He probably puts more work into a single portrait than this shooter did into the whole series.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_jackson4 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>Well, at least this post is in the right forum... These are just posed "fashion" shots (as are Avedon's, from what I've seen...). With different models this stuff wouldn't be at all out of place in any number of glossy fashion/lifestyle mags.</p> <p>It's just more marketing, with people as props... This stuff is everywhere these days, so I really can't see what all the fuss is about.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_jackson4 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>"Everyone has some sort of personality or character in them."</p> <p>True.</p> <p>"A good photograph captures that personality."</p> <p>False. Photographs capture expressions and other aspects of physical appearance/behaviour, nothing more. Are you gonna judge someone's mind from a photograph...? Really...?</p> <p>Damn, no wonder the politicians get away with so much these days... :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvy Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>i really liked some of the pictures. the white backdrop, especially the space above the heads. it really drew you in.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>The photo of Rahm Emanuel certainly captured his essence. That's not necessarily a compliment.</p> <p>Looking at the "back story" photos of the making-of the photos... I don't feel so bad now about my own blurry, meat-skin candid photos.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>Paul that is a good point in your post of 6:20am . It is a conceit, a false conceit, to think that a photograph "captures personality". At best a photo (or painting, sculpture, writing or drawing, etc.) expresses an opinion of the work's creator about the person, place or thing depicted. And the more strongly held that opinion is, and the more clearly expressed, the more we sense it. Avedon & Arnold Newman knew this, Irving Penn knows this. So does Annie Leibovitz, Greg Heisler, Mary Ellen Mark , etc. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>Check out this photo spread done by another photographer for Esquire by Andrew Hetherington :</p> <p>http://www.ahetherington.com/#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=2&p=1&a=0&at=0</p> <p>hmmm.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_clark___minnetonka_mi Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>He got the job. I didn't. Wish I did. </p> <p>I've had a few celebs. I've made pics. I don't brag about it nor do I show them anywhere. I respect their privacy. </p> <p>The quality of the images is debatable. Always will be no matter who makes them. Some like 'em while others don't. That's my choice and yours as well.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>The influence of Norman Mingo is so obvious.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookitsanthony87 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>i think its very easy to have strong opinions about these types of portraits, not everyone was a fan of Avedons work either, but none the less is was meaningful work otherwise we never would of heard of it. like was said before, i dont think the meaning of this project was to flatter the subject, but to catch as real of a look as possible. youll notice most of the subjects appear to look as if they just walked into the door. im truly a fan, and i recognize that everyone has their own opinion, but im def a fan.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsfbr Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>I think the images overall are not great. There are a handful where the subject is presented well, but they are a minority. I think the repeated use of the looking off to the side and up is not successful in any way. Frankly, I'm not sure I understand why the NYT ran this. I suppose after the fact one has to run it - you aren't going to get those folks back for a reshoot.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_watson Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>Thanks, Tom. They're eerily taxidermic--a quality I never see in Avedon's sometimes monstrous shots of the powerful. But maybe that's what's missing in the Kander gallery--power. These people haven't really been tested, steeled, and traumatized yet by the burden of power. While they're not lacking in experience, few have played for long--if ever--in the major league. They're full of opinions but not necessarily much knowledge. That's the quality that Avedon always sought in political portraits.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_carleton Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>Imagine them in black and white. But then, everything is better in the imagination.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert lee Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p>But maybe that's what's missing in the Kander gallery--power. These people haven't really been tested, steeled, and traumatized yet by the burden of power.</p> </blockquote> <p>... and that's why I really like this series. It is well done. The personalities behind the images come across - whether something real, or intentionally telegraphed. Look at the portraits of Emanuel, Summers, Power, Axelrod, Sunstein, Jones, and even Clinton.</p> <p>For better or worse, this <em>is</em> the incoming class and they will have impact on our lives for the next four years. It is not about flattery.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>1) I'm surprised how unaware many here are of Avedon's multiple approaches to photography (the least known approach involved a Minox....at a mental hospital..In The West had certain connections). Ignorance about the sophistication of Avedon's technique is downright shocking here.<br> 2) New Yorker and NY Times are not related publications. New Yorker has certainly used Platon, but they've already used someone else who's knocking off Platon's affected style. It's already mundane, a hack style, like Holga work or "street " when applied to non-"art" purposes.<br> 3) I'm bothered by the intentional overlooking of standard portrait details...Rahm Immanuel's faulty colar, the belt lines/tuck-in of fat guys, out-of-place neckties, poorly lit jewelry, exaggerated neckties (like advertisements). <br> 4) I wonder what's going on with the various shadow colors. They look like careless dodging/burning, but are probably digital phenomena...like the waxy, blown-out skins.<br> 5) Many of these individuals are handsome middle-aged professionals. Several of the women are actually beauties, even in old age. You may not like them as individuals, but of course you don't know them..do you? Did this photographer show basic professional respect?</p> <p>I withheld judgement initially, repeatedly viewed them all. I tried to appreciate them. </p> <p>In the end, what we're seeing is European "PoMo" (postmodern) posturing. Intentional pretense that there's no such thing as a value and no such thing as professionalism.<br> NY Times usually does a great job with photojournalism but a ghastly job with fashion. I think these photos were edited by someone fashion-oriented.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weddings1 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>There is something very interesting about the technique used in the shots. However I can not believe with the experience Hillary Clinton has in having her portrait taken that she was unaware how this pose would make her appear. Samething with Alexrod. They had to know thru exp. that these were not flattering images and for image and media savy people I can only imagine the pitch that they receieved in order to get them to pose for this images. I think that may be the real power of the images.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert lee Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <blockquote> <p>I'm bothered by the intentional overlooking of standard portrait details...Rahm Immanuel's faulty colar, the belt lines/tuck-in of fat guys, ...</p> </blockquote> <p>So in an incoming administration as media savvy as this one, and from as a progressively bent publication as the NY Times, what does that tell you about the portrait subjects, and the messaging?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>Norman Mingo's most famous portrait:</p> <p><a href="http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/08/02/comics-should-be-good-top-50-countdown-30/">Portrait</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upsman Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 <p>Suddenly I became "older"!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now