and please use their services
Photographer harshly criticized for shoddy Olympic portraits
- Thread starter gm43uk
- Start date
cuthbert
Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew Me Dibble and Grubb
- Messages
- 1,444
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i have to say, i can't quite understand the sensitivity towards others offering a critical opinion on another photographer's work.
I understand they are not here to 'defend' themselves, but there are people in society who are paid to offer critique on other types of artistic expression where the author can't respond or justify a creative decision - think film and tv critics, hardware/software reviewers, food critics and so on and nobody jumps on them believing they have no right to offer such an opinion. i'd like to think we live in a society where opinion and discourse is encouraged, even if it isn't what we want to hear at that given moment, i can only ultimately be enriching.
but looking at the photographs (and looking at them again), i can only assume what we are looking at here is a creative decision (even if it could be argued, a poor one) and not a lack of technique or skill.
I understand they are not here to 'defend' themselves, but there are people in society who are paid to offer critique on other types of artistic expression where the author can't respond or justify a creative decision - think film and tv critics, hardware/software reviewers, food critics and so on and nobody jumps on them believing they have no right to offer such an opinion. i'd like to think we live in a society where opinion and discourse is encouraged, even if it isn't what we want to hear at that given moment, i can only ultimately be enriching.
but looking at the photographs (and looking at them again), i can only assume what we are looking at here is a creative decision (even if it could be argued, a poor one) and not a lack of technique or skill.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,096
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Firstly how is snobbery? Feel free have a pop BTW, as your opinion is the only one that obviously counts!
What I meant by my comment that we have become accustomed to the way certain things are presented to us and when something is out of the norm, we (I include myself in this) tend to dislike it, avoid it and shun it rather than try to understand it, it is simple human nature.
Photography is a prime example of this. Today it is not a good photo unless pin sharp and perfectly exposed, the image content comes secondary to many. Many will say anything that is not sharp is not a good photo. It is simply because we have become used to it. Look at some of the most famous images, a lot of these today would not pass for acceptable because of this hang up on the technical. I am not saying it is wrong, it is just there is another side to photography which many will not appreciate. It is the change of photography to a science rather than an art.
If you look at the images and the ripped seamless, which is one of the most referenced points about this set of images. A class of 14 year olds with an hours training can remove the rip, creases etc. so it is obvious they were meant to be shown in this way. A pro retoucher could easily get something most would describe as good from the RAW file.
How many images of athletes do we see where they are presented perfectly, processed so they look flawless etc. what would be the point in doing that set of images again?
Personally, I think he is a photo journalist and presented this image in the same way as a photo journalist would. No retouching, no nothing an honest photo. It shows them as people rather than an untouchable robot superhuman they constantly get presented as. I could be wrong and he just messed it up.
He has not made a statement yet and until he is it is just rumour mongering and complaining about how most could do better. Next time you are in the presence of the whole olympic team, a position you get based on your work, then you will have the chance to show us all.
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
point is though that these shots arent (alledgedly) on brief , and in the comercial world thats how you judge a good shot - ie did it fulfil the wishes of the client , it can be the most artistic or honest photo you want - but if the client isnt happy you havent done a good job
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
there is being different (which is good) and there is being utter pants however. those images are not "different" they are plain bad
- Messages
- 4,096
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
His client must have been happy as they released the images, otherwise we would not have seen them.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,096
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In YOUR opinion.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
do you think the images are good Carl?
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The excuse about having a light fail is nonsense - a job that important and he has no back-up kit?
- Messages
- 4,096
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
joescrivens said:
Yes. I do, while not technically perfect they show the athletes in a different light, to me they are much better than another carbon copy set.
The uproar and the fact he is being called "un-American" shows the power that an image can still have.
Last edited:
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What about the creases in the white background for example, how does that make the image better for example?
- Messages
- 4,096
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
joescrivens said:
To me it makes them seem more honest. It shows them as people not the Image of athletic perfection, there is no tweaking of their bodies, it is exactly how they look, not what their photoshop doll looks like. Just my opinion and I can see why people don't like them, but to say the photographer is crap because of them is insulting. Some of his work is stunning! As I said it is easy to PP out the "problems" so it was a choice he made.
- Messages
- 456
- Edit My Images
- No
Maybe he thought that if he made them look as awful as possible, and then blamed it on the conditions, he'd get the chance to re-shoot them in better facilities and with more time?
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,661
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I am not going to debate whether or not he was taking deliberately very 'provoking' or just had a very bad morning headache...
Some points are just plain unbelievable even for a total beginner, like half-missing the background. It is interesting what motivated him to do that. And even then - why did he not get 'safe' shots before venturing into such extravagant avenue.
My real concern is how did the organisers accept this horror? Was there no brief? No guidelines? Total creative licence?
Some points are just plain unbelievable even for a total beginner, like half-missing the background. It is interesting what motivated him to do that. And even then - why did he not get 'safe' shots before venturing into such extravagant avenue.
My real concern is how did the organisers accept this horror? Was there no brief? No guidelines? Total creative licence?
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,826
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I haven't read all of this thread so forgive me if I'm saying something that's been said twenty times...
I may be missing something obvious here but IMVHO the style of these shots has been a deliberate decision and not down to incompetence.
I may be wrong but that's just how I see it.
I may be missing something obvious here but IMVHO the style of these shots has been a deliberate decision and not down to incompetence.
I may be wrong but that's just how I see it.
- Messages
- 6,914
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Things are normally seen a certain way because they are aesthetically pleasing. The 'normal' way leaves a lot room to be individual, and put across a certain style. When I say normal, I mean focused, exposed and composed in a pleasing way. If you do something out of 'the norm', then it should look like it was meant, and hopefully done for a reason.
A photo doesn't have to be pin sharp, and the subject can trump any technical aspect, but for 99% of images there certain technical things that make most images better, and not getting something 'right', or deliberately wrong, can be a 'style' choice. If it was meant.
I can't say that I've noticed images of Athletes being more 'perfect and flawless' than any other portraits. :shrug: If Althete images are so much more 'flawless' than any normal professional portrait, then don't do the extra work to make them flawless. I'm sure every Athlete, especially the ones from minor sports, and so not maybe famous, are used to seeing themselves not looking perfect.
But he's not doing Photojournalism, because the people are posing for him. If he had taken pics of the people just casually talking or walking around the studio, then maybe he would have been just being an observer. But if you pose the subject, then to not take time to take focused and well lit subjects seems stupid.
I'm sure all the different Photographers at that photoshoot were not all doing the same thing, and maybe this was just something different, but for most viewers, these images are just not very good, and have strayed too far from 'the norm'.
Makes for an interesting discussion though.
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
just because they are in a different light doesn't make them good (and judged on popular opinion in this thread it would suggest they are not good)
I dislike the carbon copy approach too and wouldn't want to see that either.
Some people will defend them just to prove a point that they 'get it' when in fact there is nothing to get.
There are 100's of ways the photos could have been created which are different that the glossy, over touched up expected shot but still have been good images.
- Messages
- 1,540
- Name
- Morgan Lee
- Edit My Images
- No
I think everyone is missing the point, even if he took crap photos he still got paid a bucket load for doing it and I'm sure millions out there aren't quite so fussy as the TP linch mob.
I should start making pitch forks and torches with TP stamped on the side.
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't think there is a point to miss and so what if he got paid well and so what if other people couldn't care less (they probably won't even see them).
This is a photography forum where people are very interested (obsessed) with photography so it should be expected to provoke discussion which is healthy. Why compare it to a lynch mob?
This is a photography forum where people are very interested (obsessed) with photography so it should be expected to provoke discussion which is healthy. Why compare it to a lynch mob?
- Messages
- 5,092
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
As a staffer at a press call, I doubt it was a very big bucket.
- Messages
- 7,928
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Popular opinion isn't a reliable guide to what is good or bad. It's solely an measure of popular taste. And taste has nothing to do with anything being good and bad.
What most people in this thread are saying is that they don't like the photos under discussion. They don't like them because they don't fit the normally accepted styles of athlete portraiture.
I think one or two are OK, not great, but interesting. I like the way they show bits of the set up in its tattiness - which is rarely shown in studio portraits. They certainly command more prolonged consideration than the 'perfect', clichéd shots I've seen from (if I read it right) the same session by other photographers. Although some of those are OK too.
- Messages
- 1,142
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If anyone has actually bothered to read the american version of the story they will know that this was not a photo shoot as such but just a meeting with the American team where photos could be taken, the set up was not a proffesional one and the togs were shooting from less than favourable positions.
There is athread on POTN that started out like this one, slateing the togs, then when the full story came out there were many posters with egg on their faces.
There is athread on POTN that started out like this one, slateing the togs, then when the full story came out there were many posters with egg on their faces.
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Popular opinion is a very reliable guide to what is generally seen as good or bad. Peoples taste is what leads them to think something is good or bad so it has everything to do with it. Are you saying that they don't know or are not qualified to say what is good or bad?
And yes, most people are saying they don't like the photos, hoever it is not for you say why they don't like them. For example I don't like them because I find them displeasing to look at (lighting, pose etc,.) This has nothing to do with the fact that they don't fit the norm as I don't like the typical athlete shots either (even when they are perfectly executed)
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Indeed.
"The photos were taken for Getty and AFP at the USOC media summit by Joe Klamar. While other photographers at the event chose to shoot the portraits straight up, Klamar's had a different feel."
Doesn't excuse (IMO) the inclusion of ripped backgrounds but the guy was shooting in not exactly ideal conditions...
Last edited:
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
probably in the majority of peoples opinion TBF.
- Messages
- 7,928
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Popular opinion is a good guide to popular taste. That's all. And your statement supports that.
Taste has nothing to do with good or bad. That was the point being made earlier about Macdonalds. Lots of people like junk food, I do. That doesn't mean it's good food.
So, yes, I am saying most people aren't capable of distinguishing between good and bad. Most people restrict what they look at to what they like looking at. They don't study pictures they don't like to try and discern why other people do like them and why they might be good pictures. They are not willing to concede that a picture they don't like is a good picture.
It's the same in all the arts, most people won't venture out of their comfort zones.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was asking about the crease in the material background, not the pp on the athelete. How does a crease in a background make the athelete look more honest or less perfected. It's a white sheet in the background.
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
1. They are different.
2.Technically they are not perfect.
3.Perhaps that is what the chap was aiming to achieve.
4.He has not followed the crowd. ( Think of all those vile family shots you see with perfect white backgrounds and boring lighting)
5. He is obviously a talented photographer.
6. Nobody here knows the conditions nor arrangements he had to work with.
7. Some people really need to try and understand that what they like may not be what others like.
2.Technically they are not perfect.
3.Perhaps that is what the chap was aiming to achieve.
4.He has not followed the crowd. ( Think of all those vile family shots you see with perfect white backgrounds and boring lighting)
5. He is obviously a talented photographer.
6. Nobody here knows the conditions nor arrangements he had to work with.
7. Some people really need to try and understand that what they like may not be what others like.
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 1,220
- Edit My Images
- No
I visited the graduate show, free range, the other day. My brother was exhibiting there and there was a couple of other university's showing work so was a lot to take in.
I witnessed some truly outstanding work that was technically excellent but had little meaning, i also witnessed some awe inspiring work that was technically poor, the two never really met however, its all to do with the viewer. I much prefer work that has meaning, intent and honesty. I appreciate technical excellence but what is the point of an amazing image if it has no meaning?
But the next man might say "i don't get it so its a load of crap" and won't try to understand the meaning or the artists intent. And that's where the problem lies. So many people hooked up on excellence they miss the real reason people create.
I witnessed some truly outstanding work that was technically excellent but had little meaning, i also witnessed some awe inspiring work that was technically poor, the two never really met however, its all to do with the viewer. I much prefer work that has meaning, intent and honesty. I appreciate technical excellence but what is the point of an amazing image if it has no meaning?
But the next man might say "i don't get it so its a load of crap" and won't try to understand the meaning or the artists intent. And that's where the problem lies. So many people hooked up on excellence they miss the real reason people create.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
why are we talking about meaning for these shots though? There is no meaning, they are portraits of athletes - they are only to show who the athlete is and what sport they do. They don't convey any other meaning - they aren't fine art prints or photojournalistic shots. They need have no meaning
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So where do you get your definitive list of what is good or bad and who was on the board that agreed the list?
Why is McDonalds food bad - if people like the way it tastes it is not bad. It may not be healthy, it may not be the highest quality but that is irrelevant if people like it they like it and to them it is good.
- Messages
- 1,220
- Edit My Images
- No
joescrivens said:
If the photographer in question created this look intentionally then he has woven meaning into the way they look, if it was unintentional then fine im wrong.
Perhaps this is the new hdr?
Perhaps he didn't want to shoot them, did a crap job thinking cbs and getty wouldn't run them?
Who the **** knows