The photo of Hillary Clinton seems to me, to really be lacking in quality because someone decided to take what appears to be a 150% crop of a small photo and then enlarge it.
It's just sad to see this as being acceptable. If I were the photographer, I'd be unhappy that this public facing image is credited to me.
p.1 #5 · Is this what qualifies as decent photography these days?
nathanlake wrote:
For that type of story the photo is irrelevant.
I definitely agree with that. I used to work at Seattle Times, and knowing their process, an online producer selects, crops and enters the photo ID into their publishing system, and then the photo pushes out to the web. They are in charge of cropping, and manipulating the photo out of their image library, so I think the inclusion (in that incarnation) was deliberate.
To my eye, it looks like they might have taken the original photo and ran it through Noise Ninja about 20 times
I wonder whether Getty going private is going to change much, or whether the partners will just dismantle the parts of the company that don't manage to make a good profit.
