liamh wrote:
No, saying you think it is a horrible picture like you have said is an opinion, calling someone a moron is potentially libelous because it can damage the photographers reputation.
I've photographed leading politicians many times, indeed before the last general election here in the UK, I conducted a seminar to educate all the senior political aides of one of the national parties, on how to manage the media and avoid situations where they'd be made to look foolish.
It amazed me then how naive they all were about film, video and photography and quite frankly, I'm amazed that an experienced campaigner like McCain would be caught out so easily....Show more →
In the US we are entitled to our opinion. Calling a photograph horrible and someone a moron fit that bill. You DO have to prove damage.
I agree that it amazes me that McCain's staff let him get caught like this. As the candiate there is too much for him to keep track of, that is what the staff is for.
snegron wrote:
No matter how you paint it, it is mirsepresentation. McCain agreed to a photoshoot. He is seeking to enhance his image. He was under the impression that his self image would be enhanced as well as his message or political agenda. The magazine, maybe working on their own hidden agenda, decided to comission Greenberg. McCain would not commit political suicide by knowingly posing for an image that makes him look evil. Either the mazine should be held liable for mirepresentation or if Green berg acted solo, then Greenberg should be held liable.
SITE PRECEDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Otherwise shutup. Here, I'll do it for you:
"so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me."
-Jill Greenberg vis-a-vis that article
Andre Labonte wrote:
In the US we are entitled to our opinion. Calling a photograph horrible and someone a moron fit that bill. You DO have to prove damage.
Yes Andre, I agree and I said people are entitled to their 'opinion', but I don't think calling someone a moron is 'opinion', it's just offensive and a libel lawyer could have some fun with that.
Anyway, politics is rarely exciting let alone captivating and this year the US Election has been just that. I really hope you all can make the right choice, we're counting on you
I've been following this story since it broke, and I'm just a rec shooter, not a professional. But I'd like to think that if I had to take a photo of a sitting US Senator, regardless of their political orientation, I'd leave my disgust at the door and do the job.
And for my own edification, what is the going rate to hire someone for a shoot in a major magazine? I have no idea how that works.
Here's an angle, go and do that to Obama and see what she says......
This was done with malice, intent and poor judgment, from the perspective of John McCain supporters, however from the other side it was her right to do it and it is his fault. Kinda of like blaming the government for Katrina, not the weather.
This is far more about politics than about a good photographer making a statement, her clientele will support her and those who would have never used her will never, but I think the point of this thread was to show how the self driven acts of one can effect many others.
don mash wrote:
but I think the point of this thread was to show how the self driven acts of one can effect many others.
That's right.
With power comes responsibility. That's a good lesson for all photographers, shame you'll never teach that to a politician (sorry, I'm old and cynical).
Sep 14, 2008 at 04:39 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
With power comes responsibility. That's a good lesson for all photographers, shame you'll never teach that to a politician (sorry, I'm old and cynical).
Cynical or truthful? I share your view on this for both counts.
Though I still have a differing opinion on the lible idea
don mash wrote:
This is far more about politics than about a good photographer making a statement, her clientele will support her and those who would have never used her will never, but I think the point of this thread was to show how the self driven acts of one can effect many others.
It's not about politics, it's about selling pictures. She got access to a personality, secured a short embargo and rights to the pictures so she could sell the unused ones while he's still "hot." She put them on her blog and website as a marketing tool. Her politics are why she shot the pictures the way she did, but she's not irresponsible or unprofessional; rather, she's responsible to her own business, and professional (though on the edge of good taste) in the way she generates publicity and sales for her business.
fizzy wrote:
Had anyone in McCain's campaign ever read The Atlantic? Or bothered to look up Greenberg? Both are political opposites of McCain, to say the least. It was his own poor judgement agreeing to sit for the portrait, and complete lack of any smarts about controlling his image that he was supposedly trying to enhance. He apparently would commit political suicide, and not even realize it.
The Atlantic has no hidden agenda. They are unabashedly liberal. I don't believe there was any misrepresentation or unethical behavior. If you want to be President, and you can't even control a portrait photographer, then I'm grateful to Greenberg for pointing this out....Show more →
lol
...and what would have happened if McCain or his handlers put all kind of restrictions on the photo shoot, the photographer and the magazine? What would the media say to that? What would they say if he declined the interview and photo shoot altogether or refused to be photographed by Greenberg? They'd have a field day with him and his handlers.
McCain was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
...and what would have happened if McCain or his handlers put all kind of restrictions on the photo shoot, the photographer and the magazine? What would the media say to that? What would they say if he declined the interview and photo shoot altogether or refused to be photographed by Greenberg? They'd have a field day with him and his handlers.
McCain was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
Not really. Choosing who you shoot with or for and making appropriate contracts is standard practice.
Don Mash: No if it was Obama who was in the same predicament I'd think he'd be played for the same kind of fool. This isn't a partisan opinion. It's a professional one.
Has anyone gone to Jill Greenberg's website? Or note the name of it? Manipulator.com.
Manipulator. She is a master manipulator of photographic images using posing, lighting and extensive software. She does things with photoshop that most of us can only dream about. But publishers, clients and media hire her because what you see is not what you are going to get in the end. She will manipulate a photo through her own mind and creativity. She's famous for doing her thing. I have seen examples of her photo shoots and she is going to take lots of photos for the data base. That could include some under chin photos that might look ghoulish. She might trick a politician, or a child, or a celebrity or a gorilla into posing in a certain way.
So if one is going to hire Jill Greenberg to take a photo, better be ready to be "manipulated." It's very clear. It's very stated. Nothing is hidden. She put it out in the word of her website for the entire world to see. THIS IS WHAT SHE DOES! Manipulate. And does it extremely well. Lots of people like it. She is an in-your-face kind of creative artist. These shots are hers to do as she wishes. Subject beware! But, lots of very famous people are very willing to submit themselves to her highly manipulative photo art.
So what's the big deal? McCain got Jill Greenberg'd. He did it. He showed up. He got manipulated. This is what she is famous for. You can't sue someone for something that everyone knows they do. Why would McCain even think about suing the great photographic manipulator? And indeed, the McCain crowd is probably getting a good chuckle out of it and perhaps enjoying the publicity. It's funny. LIke he is trying to be Boris Korloff. Or Humphrey Bogart.
This is nothing. Not a big deal. How many are going to go the the website and see it. And how many are going to even care on the way to vote. It's laughable. Silly. And if anything, it makes McCain look very real. And that is going to be to his advantage. Publicity is publicity. And the more human McCain looks – even if he used a bad word to describe his wife – the more people will accept him. The guy makes beer, swears a little, posed funny so everyone could get a good laugh, and has a good old country gal for a running mate. How All-American is that?
You called a professional photographer a moron on a photography forum frequented by professional photographers. That is potentially libelous and whilst you may well be right, it's not the sensible thing to do in this litigious society we find ourselves in.
He's a photographic artiste, they have a right to say what they want, don't they? Thats what she did, didn't she? Oh, thats right-he wasn't masquerading as a professional who actually just had a political agenda she wanted to get across. He'd better watch out...
I guess I have a different view of 'professional'. I may not ever be 'famous' but I wouldn't want it if I have to do it by demeaning and demonizing folks who don't share my views (by deceptive means as she has demonstrated).
transoptic1 wrote:
Not really. Choosing who you shoot with or for and making appropriate contracts is standard practice.
This wasn't a contracted session between McCain and Greenberg. It was a 15 minute editorial shoot as part of an interview. Not only did McCain not sign any contract, as a public/news figure he didn't even sign a release. The man didn't know what hit him...
I think the poster who asked how any of us would photograph Hitler or Saddam Hussein got it right: if we photographed them for a magazine and made them look great, there would probably be cries of outrage. So it's not accurate to say that to be a professional, one must always make their subject look great.
Every image that is photographed and published has a point of view and is an editorial decision, post-processed or not. Every lighting decision, even when using natural light, whether the image is sharp or soft, the pose and the expression, whether purposeful or accidental are all editorial decisions. What she did was her job and what she is known for - she took a very strong editorial position. The Atlantic is not a news magazine. It's an opinion magazine. And that opinion includes the cover.
Jill is obviously extremely biased against McCain. And as others have posted, McCain's staff are idiots for not controlling this situation (makes you wonder how they'd run the country). Controlling how you are portrayed by the media has been a "rule" ever since Nixon debated Kennedy on TV with a five-o-clock shadow. Those who heard that debate on the radio thought Nixon won. Those who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won. Kennedy won that election by only 112,000 votes. If Nixon looked better for that debate, it's arguable that he would have won the 1960 election.
For those who think she's an artist and can do whatever she wished with the image she captured but forget about the basic aspect of human being: ethnic/moral. Just imagine that she was asked to do a wedding event, and for some reason that she hated the bride, just because the bride is Palin-look-a-like, or perhaps the bride's favorite Obama, or was a beauty queen/popular in the same H.S., etc... she went out to make sure the bride look pretty bad, completely ignore the couple's long lasting image of their - one in life time - moment of happiness. I will tell you this, no matter how "professional" or "artistic" you're, it's ignorance and a self-pity. For the logic of making Hitler's image look like evil, to depict of what he truly was - this is too, just another ignorance excuse, since if you know what Hitler was all about, no matter how "pretty" or impressive you tried to make him looked like, the world already know it - except you, of course.
Too bad nowadays, I've seen many people making decision on their emotion, particularly the so called "artist", forgetting that their head on top of their heart, not buried in you-know-what.
