First official photo of an American president

[justin_rebbert1]

<p>I was just looking over a list of American presidents at Wikipedia, and noticed that President Obama appears to be the first president whose "official presidential portrait" is an actual photograph, not a painting. I remember when his official photo was first released that it was taken with a Canon 5D (I forget it was a Mk. II or not).</p>

<p>Now of course I know that there have been photographs of some kind or another taken for most presidents. I can find them going all the way back to John Quincy Adams and that's without looking hard. But I am speaking about their official presidential portraits.</p>

<p>Am I correct in this, that our current President is the first whose official presidential portrait is a real photograph and not a painting? I was quite surprised when I first noticed this.</p>

<p>If I am correct, then it is interesting to note that since Obama's official portrait is digital, one entire system of technology for making portraits (film photography) was completely bypassed for official presidential portraits. They went right from painting to digital.</p>

[justin_rebbert1]

<p>Well I feel kind of dumb now. Just after posting this, I decided to do a bit more research, and learned that for many years, the official presidential portrait <em>while in office</em> has been a photograph, but this is replaced after the president's term with a painting that will forever thereafter serve as his permanent official portrait. The same will be true for Obama.</p>

<p>I cannot find (yet, although I might after posting this, lol) who was the first President whose in-term official portrait was a photograph, though. Anyone know that?</p>

[jim_momary]

<p><a href="http://askville.amazon.com/president-photographed/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3649391">http://askville.amazon.com/president-photographed/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3649391</a><br>

Not very definitive tho ...<br>

Jim</p>

[kevin_b.2]

<p>i remember hearing obamas was the first photo taken with digital however.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The "real" official portrait was the red/blue poster version about which there was so much controversy pitting the artist against the photographer. :)<br /> I'm afraid that all the painted portraits of our beloved leaders have been in academic style with maybe a quasi-impressionist brush stroke here or there. No cubists, no post-impressionists, nothing stylistically newer than the late 19th c.</p>

<p>As opposed to the Socialist Realism which it closely resembles, one critic called the style "Heroic Materialism".</p>

[KenPapai]

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>i remember hearing obamas was the first photo taken with digital however.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>"Hearing" ? Equipment doesn't matter unless you're a geek. Wow, this is SOME news.</p>

[justin_rebbert1]

<blockquote>

<p>"Hearing" ? Equipment doesn't matter unless you're a geek. Wow, this is SOME news.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would you question the choice of the word "hearing"? Is it so inconceivable to you that he might have actually heard it with his ears? Or are you completely unaware of the expressive form of that word which means "to become aware of"?</p>

<p>In any event, your post is doubly worthless because your second comment is clearly trolling. If you want to argue how important equipment is or isn't, go start your own thread about it. The fact is there is some cultural significance to the news that Kevin B. heard, and which I also commented upon in my original post</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Actually Justin -- I was referring to Kevin's extreme lack of grammar, punctuation, and proper annotation more than anything. Saying "hearing" is like pronouncing the word as "pitchurs" instead of "pictures."</p>

<p>Who are you anyway? Definitely new. Why so defensive? I wasn't putting you down or anything. </p>

[justin_rebbert1]

<p>Are you familiar with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law">Muphry's Law</a>? Yes, Muphry's, not Murphy's. Muphry's Law states that when you write a criticism of another person's grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc., you yourself will make some kind of error. Your errors, Ken, are that you left out commas in "Actually, Justin..." and in "Who are you, anyway?" By the end of this particular reply, I'll probably have made a mistake, too. In any event, the only thing you questioned in your comment was the choice of the word "hearing". That's what putting that one word in quotation marks indicates.</p>

<p>To be honest, questioning a person's grammar, spelling, etc., or calling the person out on his or her errors, is pretty much a worthless waste of time for all involved. You aren't going to make the person a better writer, first of all, and secondly, it doesn't matter. You understood what he was communicating, did you not? Yes, you did. I know you did because you didn't ask him what he meant. Furthermore, it contributes nothing to the conversation. Finally, just about any book on etiquette will tell you that pointing out someone else's mistakes in public is just about the rudest thing you can do.</p>

<p>By the way, I'd like to compliment you on your editing. I saw what you originally wrote, and I came here prepared to say I wasn't the one who wrote "hearing". Good catch on your part.</p>

<p>You are correct that I am new. New to posting here, that is. My first post was in February of this year, and I have eight posts here total. What does that tell you? I've been reading photo.net for years, but I haven't had much to say. What does that tell you? I've been posting on online message boards since 1998, and have over 100,000 posts combined on about two dozen message boards. What does that tell you? I used to own and operate my own online message board. Over the course of a few years, it had over a quarter-million posts from a few hundred members. Nothing in comparison to here, of course, but it was a privately-funded, non-commercial site. What does that tell you?</p>

<p>The facts that I'm fairly new to posting here, but am not new to message boards in general, don't tell you a damn thing. Neither my lack of participation here nor my extensive experience elsewhere have anything to do with my ability to recognize a jerk or a troll. I will speak up in defense of <em>anyone</em> I perceive as being unfairly attacked, not just myself. Now, this reply of mine will be the fourth reply in this thread, starting with the first of yours, that has nothing to do with the topic and contribute nothing to the conversation. I sincerely hope this will be the end of this foolish nonsense, but to be honest, I will be extremely surprised if we don't hear more from you in this thread...</p>

[dan_south]

My grandmother was an English teacher. I am pedantic about grammar and usage. I don't see a single flaw in any of

Justin's posts. From what I'm hearing I don't believe that he's been given a fair hearing on the matter. I am also a

composer and a musician, and my hearing is quite good. ;-)

[rebecca_l]

<p>Except that the periods at the end of his sentences should be inside the quotation marks. What did your other grandma do? </p>

[justin_rebbert1]

<p>I only placed periods outside of quotation marks when I referred to the word "hearing". Note that I did the same thing again just now. This is because I was not quoting what a person said; rather, I was referring directly to the word itself. It is coincidental and irrelevant that both references came at the ends of sentences. If I refer to the word "hearing" in the middle of a sentence, like this one, note that there is still no punctuation inside the quotes, and note that there is no comma before the opening quote. The actual rules for use of quotation marks allows them to be used in this way. Furthermore, rules for using punctuation around quotation marks vary by culture and language. Even within the same language, rules can vary; for example, the British preference is for punctuation, in general, to be outside of quotation marks. On an internet site that can be used by people from around the world, one should not necessarily assume that everyone else knows or conforms to one's own local standards of punctuation, speech, grammar, decimal separators, spelling, etc. This is yet another reason why pointing out perceived errors is a worthless endeavor.</p>

<p>Ultimately, I continue to maintain my earlier point that it is a waste of time to point out these kinds of errors in text written by others on internet forums. If you can understand what is being communicated, then let the mistakes go and just participate in the conversation. If you can't understand, politely ask for clarification.</p>

[rebecca_l]

<p>I'm not buying any of those excuses. You've punctuated incorrectly. It's not that big of deal.</p>

[justin_rebbert1]

<p>I'm not selling any excuses. I offered one explanation. You can choose to ignore reality all you want, but that won't make it go away. I respectfully suggest that before you bother to reply again, you take a few moments to actually educate yourself about what you're talking about. You might <em>start</em> with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark, but be sure to follow up on the relevant references for confirmation and further clarity.</p>

[justin_rebbert1]

<p>Oh, just for the record, I agree that punctuating incorrectly is not that big of a deal. If you would have pointed out any actual mistake, I might have laughed it off and said, "I told you so," referring to my own prophecy that I, too, would fall victim to Muphry's Law. But what <em>is</em> a big deal for me is being told I'm wrong when I'm not wrong. Furthermore, coming back to state that you willfully choose to remain ignorant does not incline me to leave the matter alone.</p>

[rebecca_l]

<p>Gosh. It's that hard for you to admit when you're wrong? Or...were you <em>really</em> using British style?</p>

[justin_rebbert1]

<p>I believe I have already indicated how easy it would be for me to admit to being wrong, were I actually wrong. Do try to keep up; I don't like repeating myself.</p>

<p>As for your other question, no, I was not using British style. Now, I've already provided you with a link and invited you to educate yourself; I had hoped you would find the "Use-mention distinction" section, but apparently my hope was in vain. I shall now endeavor to explain the matter directly, and I recall to your mind that what I'm about to explain could have been learned at the link I already provided, as well as through the references provided therein.</p>

<p>Now, on to the fun stuff.</p>

<p>A word like "hearing" can be referenced in the middle of a sentence. Note that there was no comma after the word "like", nor was there one after the word "hearing" inside the closing quotation mark. This is because the quotation marks were being used to reference a word, not quote speech.</p>

<p>Now, note that in the second sentence of the preceding paragraph, the comma that separated the two clauses was outside the quotation marks being used to reference the word "like". Again, this is correct, because although the word "like" was a word I had previously written, in this context it was not a quotation of what I wrote; rather, it was a reference to the word itself. The comma that separated the two clauses of that sentence was a punctuation function of the sentence itself, and not part of the word being referenced; this is why it did not belong inside the quotation marks.<br>

<br />Finally, note that in the first sentence of the preceding paragraph, the word "like" came at the end of that sentence, but again, as it was a word being referenced, the sentence-ending period went outside of the quotation marks.<br>

<br />The important thing to understand here is that when a word is quoted in reference to the word itself, no additional special punctuation is needed, as is the case when quoting speech. However, if the sentence otherwise required some kind of punctuation at the point where a referenced word is quoted, then the punctuation goes outside of the quotation marks, as the punctuation is part of the sentence structure, not part of the word being referenced.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Library of Congress has a portrait photograph of James Buchanan taken iirc while he was president.<br>

I suspect that might have been the "first" sitting president "photograph" although Lincoln certainly had several photographs taken... but then the camera and images became popularly accepted around that time.<br>

As far as grammar goes, given that the site has international visitors, some of whom have issues writing in English, maybe it would be gentlemanly to correct without rebuke? Unless you were unclear on the intended meaning? My foreign language skills really stumble around in the dark when it comes to attempts to express myself; as a result I tend to be less critical of others so long as their meaning comes through.</p>

[justin_rebbert1]

<p>The Library of Congress apparently has a photograph of James Polk taken in February, 1849, which was Polk's penultimate month in office. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004664042</p>

<p>A photograph was taken of John Tyler in 1845. Tyler was President until the 4th of March of that year. I cannot quickly determine when that photograph was taken, so I don't yet know if it was made while he was in office or not.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Excellent sleuthing Justin!<br>

I love the LoC... great resource (and already paid for).<br>

The Polk image is a Brady d'type but granted, without contacting the library staff, the most detail you'll find is "pre-1992" copy negative listed for most of these. (database info listed at MARC record link associated with the image)</p>

[rebecca_l]

<p>You're wrong, okay? You need to come to terms with that. This is something you should have learned in grade school. If you're using the word as an indirect quote of what somebody else has said, WHICH YOU ARE, you don't need quotation marks. If you insist on using them because you don't know this fact, WHICH YOU DON'T, then the period/comma goes inside the quotation marks unless you're using British style (WHICH YOU'RE NOT). This is not a difficult concept.</p>

[justin_rebbert1]

<p>The proof that I'm not wrong is as plain as day at the link I gave you, and the information at that link can be verified through the references provided therein. You have repeatedly chosen to ignore this. I can only lead you so far; I cannot make you learn, especially when you clearly don't want to. What is incomprehensible to me, though, is that you, knowing you have chosen to remain blissfully ignorant, keep coming back to proclaim your knowledge that you don't actually have.</p>

<p>Do you not yet realize the futility of your endeavor, Rebecca L? Do you not yet realize the idiocy of maintaining that I'm wrong when the evidence, plain as day at the link I've provided earlier, says I'm right? There's nothing I can do about it if you deliberately choose to remain ignorant, but I beg you to stop the foolishness you're perpetuating here.</p>

[rebecca_l]

<p>You're not using the word in the use distinction way, you're using it as an indirect quote. You are indirectly quoting that guy who's never heard that phrase and has decided to reveal his ignorance to the world. The period goes on the INSIDE of your unnecessary quotation marks. Are you this small of a man you can't just admit it? Fair enough.</p>

<p>And you should really keep banging on about <strong>Wikipedia</strong> being your go-to for general knowledge. That really makes you look good. Is that where you got the idea about Obama's portrait being the first photograph? What a scoop!</p>

[justin_rebbert1]

<p>You can interpret what I've written however you choose to do so. I believe your interpretation is incorrect. You can interpret the rules of using quotation marks however you choose to do so. I believe your interpretation is incorrect. These beliefs of mine are based on what I was taught. It is possible I was taught wrong. It is also possible that you were taught wrong.</p>

<p>It's interesting to me, though, that I have maintained my position politely and without resorting to insults or shouting. The same is not true on your end.</p>

<p>I have never "banged on" about Wikipedia being my "go-to for general knowledge". I never said anything of the sort. On the topic of this thread, some of my initial information came from Wikipedia. I also provided a link to backup my use of punctuation in conjunction with quotation marks. Referring to Wikipedia two times in one thread does not equal "banging on about Wikipedia being [my] go-to for general knowledge". I've posted information from other sources in this thread, did you not notice? Were you so keen on following our own little silly exchange that you failed to notice I've also posted information from the Library of Congress? Additionally, when I referred you to Wikipedia, I carefully noted that you should follow through with the references provided there. I know that Wikipedia is a user-created source, and as such, the information there can be of questionable reliability. I could create an article there explaining why the sky is red, for example. I know and understand about Wikipedia. Thankfully, Wikipedia provides the means to prove the information being presented in its articles. This is called "citing references". References are cited numerous times on the page to which I linked, including, among others, the Chicago Manual of Style. It really is quite ludicrous on your part to fault me for using Wikipedia when I've deliberately and explicitly invited you to confirm the information there with the more reputable and venerated sources that were used to create that article.</p>

<p>In any event, I once again invite you to stop this foolishness.</p>

[rebecca_l]

<p>Last word freak.</p>