You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Politics within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. I found this to be very interesting.
Very left leaning photographer gets hired for and takes pictures of McCain for a left leaning magazine. Then sets up a second batch
Very left leaning photographer gets hired for and takes pictures of McCain for a left leaning magazine. Then sets up a second batch of shots for her own personal collection with lighting that would show McCain in the worst possible way, without telling him with lighting that would allow her to show McCain in the worst possible lighting she could so she could manipulate it for her own uses later.
and then she brags about how ignorant they were about how she was setting up her lighting and puts the blame on the magazine: "Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me.”
Just about as unethical and unprofessional as McCain playing the POW card in response to every situation where he has nothing else to say.
__________________
"For if once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." Thomas DeQuincey, 1700's
so you condone her behavior as professional and fully support what she did?
I think it's hilarious. You would think that someone within McCain's advisory circle would look into what the photographer is doing. Anything that knows two ****s about photography knows it was obvious what she was doing. If I lit myself that way, I'd look like a fat slob with a big nose. But that's besides the point.
Fact is, it's their own fault. I condone her actions. It's certainly not fair and not professional by any means. But I find it more humorous than offensive.
I think it's hilarious. You would think that someone within McCain's advisory circle would look into what the photographer is doing. Anything that knows two ****s about photography knows it was obvious what she was doing. If I lit myself that way, I'd look like a fat slob with a big nose. But that's besides the point.
Fact is, it's their own fault. I condone her actions. It's certainly not fair and not professional by any means. But I find it more humorous than offensive.
It was sarcasm. Actually, I know of many famous female Jewish photographers.
I guess what gets me about this and why I find it humorous is that it would actually work. It sounds too juvenile to actually work. I don't see how something like this would have gone unchecked. Was no one looking with the photographer to see what angles she was shooting at?
As a photog myself, I often try to play practical jokes on friends by asking them to pose in perculiar poses or ask to photograph them from slightly weird angles... For example, I have a wide angle lens and I always ask my girl friends to let me shoot them from a close distance straight-ahead. Usually the shots I take will show them with big noses, huge cheeks and tiny ears. I'm just surprised something at McCain's level would have actually worked and his people would have allowed him to be duped by this photographer. It's just god damn funny that it could happen.
more fake outrage. Republicans are upset because their old ugly candidate is getting exposed as such. Maybe put Palin on the top of the ticket next time?
It was sarcasm. Actually, I know of many famous female Jewish photographers.
I guess what gets me about this and why I find it humorous is that it would actually work. It sounds too juvenile to actually work. I don't see how something like this would have gone unchecked. Was no one looking with the photographer to see what angles she was shooting at?
As a photog myself, I often try to play practical jokes on friends by asking them to pose in perculiar poses or ask to photograph them from slightly weird angles... For example, I have a wide angle lens and I always ask my girl friends to let me shoot them from a close distance straight-ahead. Usually the shots I take will show them with big noses, huge cheeks and tiny ears. I'm just surprised something at McCain's level would have actually worked and his people would have allowed him to be duped by this photographer. It's just god damn funny that it could happen.
my reply was sarcasm on top of your sarcasm.
practical jokes on "friends" is a key phrase here. I'm amazed it happened in a professional environment, regardless of whom the target was.
Nothing wrong with what she did. She asked him if she could take some additional photos and he consented. She didn't say "I want to take some photos that are touched up to make you look thoughtful and heroic. I promise, you'll only be shot from your right side so that you cancer surgery scar won't show and I'll be sure to bath you in a halo of soft light to make you look younger and sympathetic."
So she photographed him and he ended up looking like Boris Karloff. Are these photos any less "true" than the touched up ones? I've got an idea. Why don't McCorpse's handlers tell him to quit grinning like a ghoul [edit] after he delivers jokes and applause lines in his speeches?
Last edited by Leonidas; September 15th, 2008 at 04:01 PM.
Why don't McCorpse's handlers tell him to quit grinning like a [SIZE=\"4\"]gool[/size] after he delivers jokes and applause lines in his speeches?
Um... it's Ghoul. What you wrote is offensive to us. That word(Gool) has kept my people in invisible prisons for centuries. Please show some class when referring to us non-living americans(Undead also offensive).
Being such a master of light that Greenberg is, I am surprised at how tame the bad shot is, it just looks like a bad photo. Not well lit (even for the intended purpose), and out of focus.
Here is how you do it, ala Vanity Fair:
This to me seems like a case of a poorly read over model release by McCain's people. When such a high profile subjects sits for a shoot, you make sure your contract is bullet proof. That said, I doubt she will ever be offered the opportunity of shooting a presidential candidate again.
Regardless of what your political views are, it is total lack of respect and very unprofessional. Do the job right or don't do it at all.
I can't believe some of you think this is funny. This is why the dems are going to lose another presidential election.
BTW, The Atlantic donated $28,500 to Obama's campaign.
She did her job. The Atlantic got its cover shot. McCain consented to the rest of the shots.
Any Republican talking about "lack of respect" and "unprofessional" after the lies the McCain people have run about Obama and "sex education for kindergartners before they can read" is just more self-serving dishonest scum.
What's it got to do with Obama losing? What do you think, God will take revenge or something?
Do you have a link for the claim that The Atlantic gave $28.500 to Obama or did you just pull that out of Sean Hannity's butt?
Since you wingnuts on the board love to whine about what an terrible source for info The Huffington Post is I thought you might enjoy this little ditty about the horrible atrocity committed against McScary by the photographer who wasn't sufficiently deferential and kiss-assy.
nosoupforyou
Jill Greenberg's photography of John McCain - 
