The Times ARE Changing - Digital Pres. Portrait

Just to jump in Pete's defense here. He's a news/documentary guy. He's not a portrait artist and never has been.

In addition, we have no idea how much control he was given, either for the setup or the final selection of which image to use and why. The white house press office is not exactly noted for giving carte blanche to anyone - even the "official white house photographer". Especially not, I'd wager, the press office for an image so carefully branded and controlled as Obama's.

I don't like this picture of Obama, either from a technical standpoint or an artistic one. But given how little we know about the circumstances, and decisions involved in making this image, it is hardly the barometer by which we should judge Souza's abilities.
 
Gallery of Rogues

Gallery of Rogues

Who had the best portrait, and who had the worst? (all hotlinked from Wikipedia).

These are all the color portraits, earlier ones are B&W.

Nixon and Eisenhower look pretty bad.

440px-Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg


453px-George-W-Bush.jpeg


459px-Bill_Clinton.jpg


519px-George_H._W._Bush%2C_President_of_the_United_States%2C_1989_official_portrait.jpg


479px-Official_Portrait_of_President_Reagan_1981.jpg


405px-Jimmy_Carter.jpg


408px-Gerald_Ford.jpg


480px-Richard_Nixon_-_Official_Portrait_%281969%29.jpeg


500px-John_F._Kennedy%2C_White_House_color_photo_portrait.jpg


481px-Dwight_D._Eisenhower%2C_official_photo_portrait%2C_May_29%2C_1959.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'll go ahead and agree with you about this (except the part about being pj/documentary giving reason for not knowing basic lighting) I think most professional photogs will agree that often times the people who pick out the image to be used, whether it be art/creative directors or whatever the whitehouse press folks have, pick an image that isn't the best of the bunch....who knows...this could've just been an early test shot working out the kinks.

rogue_designer said:
Just to jump in Pete's defense here. He's a news/documentary guy. He's not a portrait artist and never has been.

In addition, we have no idea how much control he was given, either for the setup or the final selection of which image to use and why. The white house press office is not exactly noted for giving carte blanche to anyone - even the "official white house photographer". Especially not, I'd wager, the press office for an image so carefully branded and controlled as Obama's.

I don't like this picture of Obama, either from a technical standpoint or an artistic one. But given how little we know about the circumstances, and decisions involved in making this image, it is hardly the barometer by which we should judge Souza's abilities.
Click to expand...
 
antiquark said:
Who had the best portrait, and who had the worst? (all hotlinked from Wikipedia).

These are all the color portraits, earlier ones are B&W.

Nixon and Eisenhower look pretty bad.

440px-Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg



459px-Bill_Clinton.jpg



479px-Official_Portrait_of_President_Reagan_1981.jpg
Click to expand...

Hah! Yeah, Nixon and Eisenhower are bad. They look like high school yearbook pictures of science or shop class teachers, but George senior's looks really bad. Excluding the background, I kind of like Nixon's pose though. He's a lot more relaxed looking than I last remember him from his final days in office. This must've been the 1st term portrait.

I like Clinton's, Reagan's, and Obama's portraits the best. I like the camera level and the closeness to the subject on the Clinton portrait.

EDIT: Like Gabriel, I like W's portrait, but I just can't...vote for him on anything. Sorry W fans.
.
 
Last edited:
What the hell is this? This white background behind Mr. Obama is horrible. Are those the photos you have to look at when you are in an official building/office?
Most of the photos are not really great portraits. A good reportage photographer sometimes has no experience with portrait work and light setup.

The picture of kennedy is interesting. Why did the press department chose a picture where he does not look in the camera? And then that guy with the arms folded in front of him (don't know his name). Can't believe it.

And you are talking about digital or film.....
 
Last edited:
The guy with his arms folded is Gerald Ford. IMO, a mediocre President, but the worst portrait here. There is a little too much light on Clinton and Carter. I'd vote for w as the worst president but the best portrait.
 
Al Kaplan said:
Well, I'm going to say it! Most of the white people I know here in Miami are darker than our "black" president. It's time to call Obama exactly what he is. He's the president. He's bright and well educated but he wasn't "raised black" and steeped in "black culture". He's an American. There are plenty of photographers around that could likely get a better shot than that one though. (Just let me know when. I already have the security clearance.)
Click to expand...

Hi Al,

Why would one need a security clearance to take a photo, even if it the P of the US of A? A clearance is only needed to handle classified information - right? Or do they do things differently in the US - meaning that to be close to an important political figure, one needs to be more "trusted".
 
I actually saw a report on the portrait this morning, on tv, they said he had four or five hours to set up (I forget exactly how many) but they only gave him 15 minutes to take the picture.

BTW, hunghang, I just bought an Orion-15 lens in LTM from Canberra - were you the seller?:D
 
So just to be clear, Obama is a Zone V? He's middle grey, so to speak, right? Or is he lighter?

I wonder if a nice black and white film portrait would be more pleasing to look at.
 
Along those lines, given his "cool" demeanor & slightly retro sartorial style, I think a starkly-lit B&W shot in the style of a Blue Note album cover, a la Francis Wolff, perhaps w/lit cigarette in hand (though I understand he's trying to quit), would work especially well.

russianRF said:
I wonder if a nice black and white film portrait would be more pleasing to look at.
Click to expand...
 
iamzip said:
I actually saw a report on the portrait this morning, on tv, they said he had four or five hours to set up (I forget exactly how many) but they only gave him 15 minutes to take the picture.

BTW, hunghang, I just bought an Orion-15 lens in LTM from Canberra - were you the seller?:D
Click to expand...

No, it was not me. I have been avoiding fleaBay recently out of principles :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom