Her work is highly stylized by design. Her business site, The Manipulator, makes this entirely clear. If a subject poses for a known caricaturist, the subject better expect a caricature. Certainly the candidate and his handlers were fully aware, or had the opportunity to be aware, of the artist's style in advance of the shoot. To call the process unethical, either on the part of the photographer, the magazine or the candidate seems way of base to me.
Sam tran wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Can we please stop with the absolutely pointless comparisons? This has nothing to do with weddings, nothing to do with preserving someone's memories, nothing to do with documenting an event.
The only entity which could have a problem with what Greenberg did was The Atlantic. McCain can't complain (let alone sue) about an unflattering image or digital manipulation as he's a public figure. The Atlantic hired her to do the job. She produced the image they wanted and which they used on the cover.
This is a sign of times and also shows that because of our military and officials, we have the right to express our opinion in any fashion we see. I never discuss politics or opinions on matters that seem to draw everyone out of the wood works. I personally think she hurt her self more than any one else. I think her efforts would be better served helping the homeless, less fortunate or doing something to bring a smile to our troops. No one ever agrees with all things that go on around us but we take it through the proper channels thats what makes us a civilized nation. Freedom is priceless and this is a fine example.
Greenberg epitomizes the odium of a so-called “progressive.” No surprises here. She manipulated her client and her subject in order to propagate her hate. This isn’t “change you can believe in” – it’s the same old, two-faced liberal crap and she’s proud of herself.
it is one thing to tell the client that you want a shot using lighting from below and then let the client decide if that is ok, in this case Jill told her client that the beauty dish to the side would be the source of light but had the strobe at the bottom go off instead. That is clearly a distortion of the truth. Some of you here are saying he should of known better because of her stance on politics, so does that mean i need to be aware of everyones political stance before using them i.e. the city bus driver, an airplane pilot, a pressman printing a magizine. Come on here this is not creativity but just plain out right wrong.
Mike Ganz wrote:
Are you privy to McCain's vetting procedures? If so, please elaborate. Or are you just spewing left-wing talking points? If you can't elaborate on his vetting process (and I surmise that you can't), keep your political talking points to yourself.
You are correct, I do not know precisely what McCain's vetting process was, but as evidenced by the things that have come out about Governor Palin since her nomination that might prove to be political liabilities to McCain, it does suggest a lack of thoroughness. Here are just the items that are quite well substantiated. I left out the more frivolous items.
- Troopergate (active investigtion)
- Pregnant minor daughter (which I only include because of the hyprocritical way the campaign is handling it.)
- Misrepresentation on position of 'Bridge to Nowhere'
- Misrepresentation on taking of 'earmarks' for her state and before that her town
- Misrepresentation on her Middle East trip (didn't actually enter Iraq)
- Misrepresentation on her trip to Ireland (only refueled)
- Lack of understanding of basic foreign policy (i.e. not knowing Bush Doctrine)
- Husband was a member of Alaska secessionist organization
- Anti-Semitic religious affliations
So it struck me as amusing that it seems homework was not done about this photographer. I seem to have struck a nerve with you. I'm sorry to have offended but needed to reply as you made assumptions about me. My original comment was just a little joke that you obviously did not find funny. Lighten up.
I think what bothers me most with this incident is The Atlantic clearly stated they didn't vet her on her political views and affiliations but on her professional photographic skills. As it should be. Apparently McCain nor the campaign did not vet her as well. But should they? Do we really want our clients to evaluate us on our personal political beliefs and affiliations or on our abilities as photographers and artists?
Now I wonder if I and other photographers must endure the scrutiny of our political beliefs and affiliations with future clients because of her her inability to separate business from politics. Honestly our personal political views should be of no concern to anyone but ourselves. However, some clients may now feel the need to protect themselves from possible abuse and unjustly make decisions based on criteria other than our abilities simply because she could not control her compulsion to express personal bias.
Razzo Peloso wrote:
Greenberg epitomizes the odium of a so-called “progressive.” No surprises here. She manipulated her client and her subject in order to propagate her hate. This isn’t “change you can believe in” – it’s the same old, two-faced liberal crap and she’s proud of herself.
To argue that the conduct described above is a progressive feature indicates your own ignorance of the facts. And I think "hate" is a pretty strong word, considering some of the positions endorsed by elements of the New American Right.
Progressives, who admittedly are quite familiar with manipulating the truth before the public, hardly have a monopoly on such practices. The entire GOP convention, which focused on how Washington is "broken" and needed "Mavericks" to fix, blissfully ignored the fact that their own party has controlled two branches of this supposedly "broken" Federal government for six of the last eight years. Indeed, one of their own purported "Mavericks" has been in Congress for almost three decades. The "two-facedness" of the major parties running this election are so glaring; it is astonishing that any critically thinking person could attribute "truth fixing" to one side of the aisle or the other.
If photographers had a guild or licensing bar that endorsed the idea of zealous advocacy for a client, Greenberg might be sanctioned. As it stands, she chose to represent McCain a certain way, and really, McCain should've seen it coming. Was it unethical? Maybe... but when does a photographer's personality not seep its way into the subject he or she represents?
Here is the Editor's Note form the Atlantic Magazine
"Editors' Note
We stand by the respectful image of John McCain that we used on our cover, and we expect to be judged by it. We were not aware of the manipulated and dishonest images Jill Greenberg had taken until this past Friday.
When we contract with photographers for portraits, we don't vet them for their politics—instead, we assess their professional track records. We had never worked with Jill Greenberg before (and, obviously, we will not work with her again). Based on the portraits she had done of politicians like Arnold Schwarzenegger and her work for publications like Time, Wired, and Portfolio, we expected her, like the other photographers we work with, to behave professionally.
Jill Greenberg has obviously not done that. She has, in fact, disgraced herself, and we are appalled by the manipulated images she has created for her Web site of John McCain."
Sounds like the magazine feels it was snookered by Ms Greenberg. i guess they didn't do a lot of vetting either.
While I feel that her manipulated pictures of McCain are way over the top it's her opinion and her vision, like it or not. To say that you are going to check your ego at the door and never let your opinion influence your images is a good thing for wedding and portrait photographers dealing with private citizens or working at the DMV, but will such a neutral position help someone working at her level? At least the picture used by the magazine is well done and she didn't just deliver spooky lit pix.
I guess Newman forgot to check his ego at the door of the Krupp Iron Works.. (not that Krupp and McCain are equal, both photographers were using their talent to get their point across)
Shocked! Shocked to find out gambling is going on, er I mean shocked to find that opinions are being expressed by loudmouth political photographers working for political magazines taking pix of politicians.
...
ok, I saw some more of the manipulated pics and they are pretty awful. But am I missing something about the cover pic? They keep showing that on the news but it looks like one of her usual make the subject person/monkey/baby look weird.
i think as a public figure McCain would have a hard time sueing her, but the magazine would have case for not paying IMO although she did deliver the inoffensive cover shot.
If the offensive images were illustrations instead of photos would there still be a cry for suing the artist?
What I would like to know is how did she treat him as she was doing this? Did she tell him how much she disliked him as she shot? Did she explain how different lighting and different angles can have a drastic affect on how a picture comes out, and how low lit angles can make you look sinister? Did she argue with him on political issues? I doubt we will ever know, but one thing I am pretty sure of, she probably did not tell him she was taking shots for herself and would use them against him, because she is just too gutless to do that. She hid behind her contract with the magazine, just like she hides behind her art. Would she be willing to face him and argue point on point? Somehow I doubt it.
As for the arguement that "he should have known better or vetted her", can you imagine the screaming headlines if the major qualification for taking his picture was that you were a well heeled Republican? He has enough faith in professionals to assume that they do a professional job. Good for him for being so trusting. It's not his fault that she violated that trust.
Quite honestly, this says nothing about her politics. I have known many wonderful and sincere people on both sides of the political fence. This is about individual honesty, integrity and self respect, of which she obviously has very little. It's her loss.
Shame on her. If she doesn't like her clients politics she should just decline the job. Instead she took the job, with the assumption of producing a good product, and instead she delivered garbage. Some are saying it is McCains fault for not knowing her politics, but I disagree. Do we as photographers want to be grilled about our politics for every job. I don't. But if I don't like the job being offered I would decline it.
Exactly the point I was trying to make! She should have had the ethics to do a good job, or decline the job, but turning it into a "gotcha" session was unethical, and just plain wrong. I was raised that if you took a job, you did your very best, period. She didn't and thereby what the long term cost to photographers will be cannot be told yet.
WiPhotoguy wrote:
Shame on her. If she doesn't like her clients politics she should just decline the job. Instead she took the job, with the assumption of producing a good product, and instead she delivered garbage. Some are saying it is McCains fault for not knowing her politics, but I disagree. Do we as photographers want to be grilled about our politics for every job. I don't. But if I don't like the job being offered I would decline it.
Go to Arnold Newman at http://www.pdngallery.com/legends/newman/. Read what he has to say about portraiture. The go to the photographs and look up his pic of Alfried Krups, notice any similarities. But this is how Jill Greenburg lights everything so I don't think it was intentional.
Tom
Did you see the interview with Fox news today and the editor of the magazine? He says that she violated the terms of their agreement. He also says that it was the magazine that hired her to do the job and not McCain, he also stated that she has not been paid and will not be paid. They are looking into the legal side of the issue.
I personally hope that the legal system can get involved in this and they make her pay, not for her politics, but for her unprofessional actions. Hopefully this doesn't open pandoras box for future high profile jobs. (Not that I have any, or ever will) I would just hate to see another photographer get screwed in the future by her.
CRFTony wrote:
Can we please stop with the absolutely pointless comparisons? This has nothing to do with weddings, nothing to do with preserving someone's memories, nothing to do with documenting an event.
The only entity which could have a problem with what Greenberg did was The Atlantic. McCain can't complain (let alone sue) about an unflattering image or digital manipulation as he's a public figure. The Atlantic hired her to do the job. She produced the image they wanted and which they used on the cover.
I dissagree. The comparisons are valid. A bride and groom are clients who pay a photographer to capture them at their best. The magazine was the client who contracted Greenberg. Greenberg screwed the magazine (her client) by what she did.
As a wedding photographer I have been hired MANY times by parties other than the bride and groom (such as their parents and wedding planners). If I didn't get along with the bride or groom I would not even think about betraying the trust of my client (parents or wedding planner) by making the subject look bad.
Comparisons:
Paying client = Magazine, wedding planner, parents
Subject to be Photographed = McCain, bride and groom
I will make it even easier for you with yet another comparison; A parent comes into your studio to get a headshot of her child. Parent wants headshot for modeling/talent scout. Child is an obnoxious brat. You get the shot, but you dislike the kid so much that you take a few shots of him in bad lighting to make him look like the little monster you think him to be. Mom goes away with a semi-decent headshot she paid for, but you post the monster-looking shots of her little brat on your website then brag about what you did. Same unethical behavior in my opinion.
Didn't read all the replies but from what I've read it was not reported that she took pictures from the session, and altered them in *very* unflattering ways like putting sharks teeth in McCain and putting anti-GOP rheoric on them - then posting on her blog. She was under contract from the magazine who is considering a lawsuit. So it isn't the picture on the cover that she gloatingly bragged about hs bloodshot eyes and such - but rather the manipulating of photos from the session and used outside the context of her contract. I didn't have a lot of respect for her after it was revealed she made those kids cry - even less now. The woman is a rabid media whore.
tomm101 wrote:
Go to Arnold Newman at http://www.pdngallery.com/legends/newman/. Read what he has to say about portraiture. The go to the photographs and look up his pic of Alfried Krups, notice any similarities. But this is how Jill Greenburg lights everything so I don't think it was intentional.
Tom
Newman's work has been brought up as a comparison on several forums discussing this incident. Although Newman use similar lighting to portray Krups as a way to render his vision, he did not acquire the images under the false pretense to super impose sharks teeth and blood with a war mongerer slogan type faced on the image prio to publishing it for all the world to see. Not a fair or accurate comparison. I also don't think Newman applied a negative style of lighting on any president of either party.
Again, I don't think anyone would try to deny JG's right to her artistic expression of her political views. The bottom line I find troubling were her methods for the acquisition of the images. She intentionally accepted the assignment with the primary purpose to fulfill her personal political endeavor. Then to brag afterwards that McCain's staff were "not very sophisticated" because they didn't understand studio lighting and that her client, The Atlantic, was "irresponsible" to hire her because of her political views.
As she professes to be a "pretty hardcore Democrat" she apparently never used any of her other commercial clients as a vehicle to advance her political views. One of which is Philip Morris. I find it curious she had no compulsion to make a statement on the evils of tobacco use, yet she is willing to accept income from such a client and found no moral conflict in doing so or a desire to make an artistic statement.
Typical liberal 'hater'. They're mantra is that if you can't disagree with someone's politics logically and with reason, attack their person with anything and everything you've got. Hypocrites to the core - the whole stinking cesspool lot of them.
