Who even reads that brain dead liberal rag anymore.I think circulation is down to the same group and number of people who read archie comics. Actully a good move on there part to bump up circulation. . Doug
I love Bachman & Palin!Hate John McCain.... I just can't believe there are so many liberals on this board!
And No, I'm not Joe the Plumber, I have a license. Tea Party Power!
I saw an interview with the editor [of newsweek] about this photo. She defended it saying they were trying to capture her "intensity" and the public perception of her as the "rage queen".
Bachmann says she did not approve or even see which one was being published until it hit the shelves. How this happens, I have no idea, but that's what she's saying. Bachman also said this shot was taken during what was supposed to be a lighting test, and that the photoshoot hadn't even started yet. Newsweek denied this claim, stating they have stand-ins they use for lighting tests. Newseek also says they sent Bachman a few shots, including this one, from the shoot they were thinking about using before going to print.
Does anyone here, a forum full of photographers actually think that a celebrity photographer like Chris Buck is still going to be doing "lighting tests" during the 10 minutes or so he was given to shoot? He probably had 2 or 3 lighting setups ready to go. Shoot at setup 1, move to setup 2 shoot some more, move to setup 3..thanks see ya later....I heard they shot 33 frames....not much IMO
Google Bachmann+photo and there will be a page of pictures of her with many of them, including her PR shot, look alot like the 'disturbing' image. That's her 'look'...
I don't know why this lame shot is offending so many people. they need to get a thicker skin.
As a former news photographer, here's my two cents.
1. The job of a cover photo is to get you to pick up the magazine and look at it. It appears to have been successful.
2. The photographer's client (assuming it was an assignment) was Newsweek or an agency, NOT Bachman. As a news photographer I would NEVER give a subject veto power over a news photo, even/especially a portrait. I would not even show the subject the take until after it is published. I know it happens in PR, but this wasn't a PR photo.
3. It is not the photographer's job to produce a flattering photo, it is his job to produce an interesting photo. This is news, not retail portraiture.
4.Had it been my photo, I would have absolutely delivered it to the client. Some news outlets want the raw take, much like a contact sheet so they can see the context of that particular frame, and have some comfort with it's authenticity.
Yup; out of probably over 100 captures of her, they picked this one. Talk about a biased agenda. Either that, or the camera person didn't know what he/she was doing, but I have to believe that not to be the case.
gpop wrote:
politics aside, this woman believes god is telling her what to do.
IMO, she is not sane.
"Your own, personal, Jesus
someone to hear your prayers,
someone who cares"
It is a curious sort of delusional egocentricity to think that you are so important in the grand, cosmic scheme of the universe that an omnipotent being would deign to PERSONALLY instruct YOU on your actions, and that in following its instructions, you are acting as a vehicle for its good deeds. Such a view holds an implicit belief that you are somehow special and deserving of being that messenger.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth."
Uber Goober wrote:
BubbaJon, I sure don't consider her to be a "contender." She's running for president, but there have been loonies and fringe types "running" in every election I can remember. Since she and her husband can "pray away the gay", perhaps they can also pray away my skepticism.
Yes. One actually slipped through the cracks. "How's that hopey-changey thing working out for ya?"
Photography does not lie. Unlike painting or drawing, the camera captures images as they are in real life. We may tweak up a detail or two in Photoshop, but the reality in a photo is what makes it a photo,
snegron wrote:
Photography does not lie. Unlike painting or drawing, the camera captures images as they are in real life. We may tweak up a detail or two in Photoshop, but the reality in a photo is what makes it a photo,
Twisties wrote:
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.
+1. For better or worse, it's just the way she looks.
Plumbergeek wrote:
I love Bachman & Palin!Hate John McCain.... I just can't believe there are so many liberals on this board!
And No, I'm not Joe the Plumber, I have a license. Tea Party Power!
14 seconds (posts) and counting
As an observer of US politics (who leads the US is very important to the whole world) I am heartened to see that a majority here do not support such radicals, even if it does get them branded as liberals.
Actully a good move on there part to bump up circulation. . Doug
