The Times ARE Changing - Digital Pres. Portrait

holy bejesus that's awful even by intro to lighting standards.
the shadow from the nose is going up... unnatural
there's a shadow being cast in the opposite direction of the main light on the (viewer right side) shirt being cast from the jacket.
you got double catchlights in one eye and 1 plus barely a quarter of a catchlight in the other.

i won't get into artistic qualities since the end use of this image isn't for anything but a simple portrait for whatever press release or whatnots and by that measure is completely acceptable artistic-wise.

but good god....using an umbrella and getting the histogram close doesn't mean you have an understanding of simple lighting.
 
Rick, the portrait is at best lousy. And I don't care if the subject is green, black or brown paper bag, so maybe by your logic this photographer is not competent.
 
tmfabian said:
holy bejesus that's awful even by intro to lighting standards.
the shadow from the nose is going up... unnatural
there's a shadow being cast in the opposite direction of the main light on the (viewer right side) shirt being cast from the jacket.
you got double catchlights in one eye and 1 plus barely a quarter of a catchlight in the other.

i won't get into artistic qualities since the end use of this image isn't for anything but a simple portrait for whatever press release or whatnots and by that measure is completely acceptable artistic-wise.

but good god....using an umbrella and getting the histogram close doesn't mean you have an understanding of simple lighting.
Click to expand...

Thank you, TM, I wish I could have put it that eloquently.
 
I don't understand really why not use a medium format camera. If your doing a sit down portrait with someone as important as the President....:rolleyes:


To me this just speaks of the downward spiral, sacrificing quality. I guess the next Pres. will be done in HDR.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
I agree, you have to do a bit of balancing, specially when there's a whole gamut of users out there on the Internets.

I'm curious (genuinely) if my attempt looks better on your monitor.
Click to expand...

On my monitor (a calibrated Lacie monitor to theoretical press standards on a Mac), the original image posted looks best by far. Yours on my monitor looks over saturated with reduced DR. That doesn't mean it's not right or my monitor is wrong... the joys of web colour management huh :) Easier when people saw a print!
 
Sarcasm Alert

Sarcasm Alert

gb hill said:
I don't understand really why not use a medium format camera. If your doing a sit down portrait with someone as important as the President....:rolleyes:


To me this just speaks of the downward spiral, sacrificing quality. I guess the next Pres. will be done in HDR.
Click to expand...

Presidential portraits should be done in oil on canvas, not film or digital...
 
"To me this just speaks of the downward spiral, sacrificing quality"

i'm not so sure i would be prepared to judge the image after it has been presented in a format for the masses on the internet. would it serve to support an agenda! sure would... is the print anywhere close to the compressed internet file? doubt it. if you click on the "full size image" link you will notice in your browser header the suffix .jpeg
jpeg, as we all know is a compressed file which somewhere along the line involves detail/info being removed. even if the image was shot on a medium format film camera the end result being flogged about on the net would suffer the same "flaws" due to necessity. i think 120 drum scans are up at about 95-100 gigs... remove enough info to have the same file size we are looking at and the shadows would be blocked up as well.
if i am correct a full raw file from the 5d is about 25.5 megs. the file we are looking at is 14... a lot of information has been discarded.
to judge the photographer and the complete image without actually seeing a print or the full file on a calibrated monitor would be a tad premature.
there is no downward spiral... you just need to understand what we are all looking at (i mean that in the nicest way possible).
 
Obama has such a great portfolio of photos from the campaign, it's a shame to have this one get so much play. It looks like he went to Sears or J.C. Penny and got the free 8x10.

One observation that has been reported is that at the newsstand Obama's skin tone is darker on the covers of Ebony, Jet, Essence, etc. than on Time, Newsweek, etc. So maybe his photographer needs to shoot high-key skin so he'll be able to adjust the skintones up or down to suit the president's audience?
 
Al Patterson said:
Presidential portraits should be done in oil on canvas, not film or digital...
Click to expand...

Actually, they are still done in oil on canvas. In fact, I think Obama has been sitting for his this week.

I'm wondering what the previous photographer used. I would think that it would have been a medium format camera, and I would have thought that for the PoTUSA it would have been one something with a high-end digital back. But, that might be overkill. After all, we'll just have to look at it for the next four years and every time we walk into a post office or government office.

BTW, here's W's OP (film-based different photog):

President-George-W-Bush-Official-Portrait-thumb.jpg

.
 
actually W's portrait (lighting wise) is pretty good...just a little spill onto the shoulder from the hair light...but i just have to question that jacket haha.
 
tmfabian said:
actually W's portrait (lighting wise) is pretty good...just a little spill onto the shoulder from the hair light...but i just have to question that jacket haha.
Click to expand...

Well just remember the answer to the trivia question: "Who's the last President of the United States of America to have his official portrait made with film?" W and film linked forever.

edit: either that jacket is seriously "moire-ing" or he's wearing a sweater.
.
 
Pete Souza Named Obama's White House Photographer

Pete Souza Named Obama's White House Photographer

Here are the details about Pete Souza.

http://www.petesouza.com/

http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/01/souza.html
[Press Release from National Press Photographers Association, Jan. 4, 2009]

"Souza currently works using Canon 5D's and he says that he hopes to upgrade to Canon 5D Mark II bodies soon, as well as Leica M8.2 bodies. He says the work of the Obama photography office will be mostly digital, but maybe sometimes film if needed. The White House photography office made the transition from film to digital photography during the George W. Bush administration."


Mark
Quito, Ecuador
 
tmfabian said:
holy bejesus that's awful even by intro to lighting standards.
the shadow from the nose is going up... unnatural
there's a shadow being cast in the opposite direction of the main light on the (viewer right side) shirt being cast from the jacket.
you got double catchlights in one eye and 1 plus barely a quarter of a catchlight in the other.

i won't get into artistic qualities since the end use of this image isn't for anything but a simple portrait for whatever press release or whatnots and by that measure is completely acceptable artistic-wise.

but good god....using an umbrella and getting the histogram close doesn't mean you have an understanding of simple lighting.
Click to expand...

You nitwit, with your elitist knowledge of stuff :angel:



(disclaimer for the sarcasm-impaired: I agree with his assessment)
 
Jezzem I guess that means if you draw a government paycheck for photography your quality control goes right out the door... Bush's portrait has gnarly yellow teeth -- I doubt any local yokel portrait studio would let one that bad get out.

Our tax dollars at work... keeping the mediocre employed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom