I haven't the slightest desire to talk politics here on Fred Miranda, but I am interested in why this photo caused a firestorm. Is it a good photo? Why or why not? Clearly it stirred some emotions. Why is it so evocative?
Twisties wrote:
I haven't the slightest desire to talk politics here on Fred Miranda, but I am interested in why this photo caused a firestorm. Is it a good photo? Why or why not? Clearly it stirred some emotions. Why is it so evocative?
Why? Because she looks batsh*t CRAZY, that's why.
It's all in the eyes. She has the appearance of looking slightly down her nose--upper eyelids are fully open, but lower eyelids are raised. I mean, you can actually see the full upper half of the iris, yet she's looking right at the camera. It's an intense, crazed look. That's not normal.
But that's not all. The "smile" is not really a smile, more like a grimace. Her mouth is simply agape. It's a very vacant look, sort of a cross between "deer in the headlights" and "I had one too many cosmetic procedures done."
The overall effect is extremely unflattering, and if ANY human being were photographed with this facial expression, it would be equally disturbing.
If I had taken such a photograph, I would have deleted it immediately, as I regard it as a posing error. On the other hand, I have no way to know whether:
1. The photographer deliberately posed the subject in this manner
2. This is what the subject really looks like when she's told to pose for a camera
3. There were no better alternatives available
4. The editors chose to run this image despite more flattering versions existing
5. The photographer was unable to evoke a more flattering expression.
Because we lack this information about the specific circumstances of the creation and publication of this image, it is highly speculative and premature to make accusations about what actually transpired or the motivations behind the result.
Wow is that really the Newsweek cover? She looks crazy, thats probably why. Kind of like how Greenburg photographed McCain in 2008 for Time and used a lighting technique that made him look evil.
I find the theocratic politics very scary, but think wickerprints' has nailed it with
#4. "The editors chose to run this image despite more flattering versions existing."
This looks to me like a deliberate attempt by Newsweek to evoke "crazy" and controversial to increase publicity. Surely the photographer took better photos than this.
aporia wrote:
I find the theocratic politics very scary, but think wickerprints' has nailed it with
#4. "The editors chose to run this image despite more flattering versions existing."
This looks to me like a deliberate attempt by Newsweek to evoke "crazy" and controversial to increase publicity. Surely the photographer took better photos than this.
I thought I was being clear: there is no way any one of us could know this. To make such a claim is totally speculative.
Whoever this person is and whatever her politics, all I know is that:
1. This image is unflattering.
2. It is unflattering because of specific characteristics I mentioned.
Yes, we could engage in a debate over the intent of the photographers and editors, as well as the larger philosophical question of whether every portrait must be flattering to the subject, or if the photographer has an obligation to portray the subject in his or her best light. For all we know, this image could faithfully represent the substance of her character, in which case, would it still be misleading or inappropriate to use it in a journalistic context?
But despite having asked this question, I admit I am largely unconcerned with this specific instance, nor am I interested in discussing her politics one way or another.
knox wrote:
it may not be a flattering photo, BUT I have seen her many times on the news with this very same same look.
After reading the responses here I did a Google image search on her. There are quite a few images that come up on the first page with a strikingly similar pose and camera angle.
yes . . it's actually what she looks like . . I don't see the big deal. Her handlers have been trying to glam her up lately with the heavy eye makeup and false eye lashes, new outfits etc . . . but yes, if you go back before they began doing all that . . . this is pretty much what she looks like. She gives me the heebeegeebees. Of course if Newsweek wanted to find a more flattering photo, they could have. To me, she has that Scientologist / Moonie creepy thing going on and this photo shows it well
why do some people feel the need to say "end of conversation" after posts?. . . as if their viewpoint is so important that no other point of view is necessary and all viewpoints beforehand mean nothing *smile*
Luke182 wrote:
Given Newsweek's ideology, it's doubtful the publication looked far and wide for a more flattering photo. End of conversation.
This was a shot by Greenberg for "The Atlantic" magazine. Extremely talented photographer and this is one of the shots she decides to post on her blog:
charlesk wrote:
I detest Bachmann and think this picture is much more of an embarrassment for Newsweek and its photographer than it is for her. Shameful.
I feel the same way.
The surprising thing to me is that I thought these subjects usually had a clause in the contract that gives them approval over any photo used. Maybe I'm wrong, is that not common? As a politician running for president, I would expect that to be standard.
The surprising thing to me is that I thought these subjects usually had a clause in the contract that gives them approval over any photo used. Maybe I'm wrong, is that not common? As a politician running for president, I would expect that to be standard.
From what I have read of Bachmann she is very careful to control her image at all times. I would be amazed if she didn't influence the shot and approve it.
I don't shoot people photography, so I knew immediately I was missing the nuance in the image that set folk off. Which is why I asked the question the way I did in the OP. I have avoided giving my opinion until now as I wanted to see what the people photographers here thought. I have learned a lot, and accept that your consensus view of it is that it is unflattering and makes her look crazy.
But I have to say, both my wife and I liked the image. I still see nothing crazy in her eyes or fake about the smile, nor do I see the looking down her nose thing. I think she comes across as bright, determined, open, straightforward, focused and professional. I could easily speculate that she likes the image and saw it more as I do.
Mind you, I am not disagreeing with the consensus here. I accept it, I just haven't learned to see it.
Incidentally, it appears to me that she is not looking right at the camera, but rather at an object placed slightly above her eyes. I have the impression she is reading a teleprompter. The camera seems to be below her eyes. Both my wife and I see it this way. It seems odd that we are seeing it so differently.
Edit: And I don't see the slightest resemblance or similarity to the Manson shot.
Be scared people, terrible photo or not. 
