Jarle Aasland
Nikon SP/S2, Fuji X100
I'd be interested to hear some comments on the Magnum blog photo(s) of the week, seen here:
http://blog.magnumphotos.com/2008/02/photo_of_the_week_mitt_romney.html
What do you think?
Jarle
http://blog.magnumphotos.com/2008/02/photo_of_the_week_mitt_romney.html
What do you think?
Jarle
Last edited:
MickH
Well-known
Is that a spoof site? If not, the photgraphs that didn't make the grade must be bloody dreadful.
lZr
L&M
Read the Readers comments. They are smart
chikne
Well-known
The level in that agency has gone down since the death of Capa =)
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
I think the photo is brilliant. Here we have the candidate in a rare candid moment; not the staged, prepackaged, perfectly lit arena his handlers want us to see and the TV cameras only show. Bravo!
fbf
Well-known
Same here, i love the photos and I respect how the photographer reacts to criticism
Jarle Aasland
Nikon SP/S2, Fuji X100
My take
My take
Here's my comment, posted on Magnum's web site (approval pending):
My first thought when I saw this first photo was something like: "what the heck is this!?"
Then, thinking about it for a few minutes and reading the photographer's own comments, I fully understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the photos. Personally, I agree with many of the points made. I'm also sick and tired of all the staged pretty pictures we see every day.
That being said, my main concern with photos like these is that "most people" will consider them amateurish snapshots. If the photos don't appear "professional", why would the reader (I'm a newspaper guy) trust the written text that goes along with them? I'm afraid you'll get a "if they can't afford to send a real photographer, why would they send a real reporter. I can't take this seriously.."- kind of reaction. (In the real world, I'm not sure if people really cares that much about picture quality any more, but hopefully I'm wrong).
It's a good thing that Newsweek printed these photos, but I can't help wondering if they would have done so if they had been taken by some unknown guy that wasn't a Magnum photographer?
Finally, a remark to your comment that "a photographer is much more akin to an editorial columnist than a reporter". Not true, in my opinion. I'm a professional journalist - and a former photographer - and can assure you that you have to make the same editorial decisions as a writer. I agree there's
no objective photojournalism, but there's no objective journalism either. Not really. You always have to decide what to include and what to omit in a story.
Jarle
My take
Here's my comment, posted on Magnum's web site (approval pending):
My first thought when I saw this first photo was something like: "what the heck is this!?"
Then, thinking about it for a few minutes and reading the photographer's own comments, I fully understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the photos. Personally, I agree with many of the points made. I'm also sick and tired of all the staged pretty pictures we see every day.
That being said, my main concern with photos like these is that "most people" will consider them amateurish snapshots. If the photos don't appear "professional", why would the reader (I'm a newspaper guy) trust the written text that goes along with them? I'm afraid you'll get a "if they can't afford to send a real photographer, why would they send a real reporter. I can't take this seriously.."- kind of reaction. (In the real world, I'm not sure if people really cares that much about picture quality any more, but hopefully I'm wrong).
It's a good thing that Newsweek printed these photos, but I can't help wondering if they would have done so if they had been taken by some unknown guy that wasn't a Magnum photographer?
Finally, a remark to your comment that "a photographer is much more akin to an editorial columnist than a reporter". Not true, in my opinion. I'm a professional journalist - and a former photographer - and can assure you that you have to make the same editorial decisions as a writer. I agree there's
no objective photojournalism, but there's no objective journalism either. Not really. You always have to decide what to include and what to omit in a story.
Jarle
Jamie123
Veteran
I like the first one.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Here's how I would comment with one word to each of the 4 images posted on the blog:
#1 Interesting
#2 Classic
#3 Mundane
#4 Pedestrian
There ya go
Dave
#1 Interesting
#2 Classic
#3 Mundane
#4 Pedestrian
There ya go
Dave
Ming The Merciless
Established
Putting aside the photographers explanation as to his purpose in taking this shot, I think as a photograph in and of itself it is unappealing.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
emraphoto said:
I'm with him...I thought it was a great shot, and the photographers defense of it is well spoken.
Since everyone can do better then maybe you guys should be in magnum.
pesphoto
Veteran
Im not fan of flash, but that first shot is really cool. If youre gonna use flash you might as well use it to do something interesting and a bit over the top. He obviously pumped up the flash intentionally.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
It seems very similar to the way Bruce Gilden uses flash and I love it.
If I want to see generic pictures I head over to the canon forum and look at there photoshopped glamour shoots.
If I want to see generic pictures I head over to the canon forum and look at there photoshopped glamour shoots.
Ororaro
Well-known
The first shot is very, very good. The remaining three are only normal, even my mom could have shot them.
MickH
Well-known
lZr said:
I judged the photographs on their own merit as images which is what the OP requested (I think
) and I still think they stink. I may be satisfied with them if I had taken them myself and had come away from a tough photographer's scrum after having been told by my commissioning editor to "Get pictures of Romney, or your arse is in the kicking-frame!" - satisfied in that I had captured a rare image and kept the boss happy. Perhaps if I was responding to this sort of challenge I would look upon them in a completely different light.
On a slightly different tack, a blurry photograph of the Yeti would be a thing to treasure, but in itself not a very good photo.
I now will go back now and read the commentary on the Magnum website and probably retract everything I have just posted.
Cheers!
jan normandale
Film is the other way
sitemistic said:
lmao! Great comment! However the orbs look more like flakes.
The comments on that site regarding the photograph are fantastic.
Last edited:
georgef
Well-known
Pitxu said:
...but they are not of the news subject; I like these photos, and even though they are not "technique-sound" they nevertheless have that "decisive moment" feel to them.
Also, IMHO, I respect the guts of the photog and Magnum in issuing photos that stand different than the by now expected editorial photo standard. If the way of the perfect: exposure, flash, focus, levels, cropping should the standard, then there is no rooom for personal vision.
Larky
Well-known
Personally, I like the current one.
3js
Established
Me too, the photo is great. I don`t know what the sh*t is going on here, all these wannabees in here, why is it so difficult to understand that there are just more gifted photogs in the agency, why you try to put them down?cmogi10 said:
BillP
Rangefinder General
3js said:
...because we are expressing our opinions, and exercising freedom of thought and of speech.
I've looked, gone away, come back and looked again. I don't regard myself as God's gift to photography, but I can honestly say that if I had taken any of these shots I would have deleted them immediately.
Feel free to disagree.
Regards,
Bill