Forums > General Industry > This is why the photographer never sends...

Photographer

London Fog

Posts: 6770

London, England, United Kingdom

She's has thunder thighs, and deffo not as pretty as the general dumbass public make her out to be...it's that simple!

Feb 09 13 11:05 am Link

Photographer

RKD Photographic

Posts: 3265

Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

London Fog wrote:
She's a fatass, and deffo not as pretty as the general dumbass public make her out to be...it's that simple!

LMFAO...
And not particularly nice with it, apparently... But then what successful businessperson is these days?

Feb 09 13 11:06 am Link

Photographer

London Fog

Posts: 6770

London, England, United Kingdom

With her http://assets.modelmayhem.com/images/smilies/scary.pnglooks, redwood tree thighs, and Rhianna's giant wall of a forehead what a bunch of fucked up pretend (R

Feb 09 13 11:10 am Link

Photographer

Dan Saul Knight Imagery

Posts: 3357

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Gary Melton wrote:
I don't remember ever noticing her being that muscular...looks like a weight-lifting guy in drag...

Koryn Locke wrote:
She is not typically photographed with lighting meant to show off musculature.
Most people seem to light her for glamour (curves), or she is photographed in relatively generic lighting, therefore inadvertently softening the appearance of muscle lines on her physique.

For women, unless body fat is very, very low, definition easily disappears in photographs, or is flattened by non-specific lighting.

Snicker tongue  Hey Gary, a model is teaching you about photography yikes  Funny, I've never seen one do that before neutral RIGHT!!!!!

Feb 09 13 07:02 pm Link

Photographer

Ralph Easy

Posts: 6426

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

In the back of my mind... Beyonce will never look the same... oh! dang that concert!

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr03/2013/2/7/14/anigif_enhanced-buzz-9591-1360264484-5.gif

Khaa...Mhe...Hameh...Hhhhaaaahhhh!!!

.

Feb 10 13 10:16 pm Link

Model

Karlieh G

Posts: 48

Auburn, Kentucky, US

ForeverFotos wrote:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYaBEh87MA7_1J6-z5XzPECrPmCEmo3fv1es85xiGjl3acl3uE

hahaha.... +1

Feb 11 13 09:20 pm Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 9309

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Koryn Locke wrote:

She is not typically photographed with lighting meant to show off musculature.
Most people seem to light her for glamour (curves), or she is photographed in relatively generic lighting, therefore inadvertently softening the appearance of muscle lines on her physique.

For women, unless body fat is very, very low, definition easily disappears in photographs, or is flattened by non-specific lighting.

Shot dancers who complained that my lighting did not show enough definition.

Feb 12 13 01:20 pm Link

Photographer

TrianglePhoto

Posts: 582

Chicago, Illinois, US

Feb 12 13 01:35 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Walberg

Posts: 43183

Salinas, California, US

These horrible images of Beyonce were discussed at length on a concert photographers forum I belong to.  The general consensus is that photographers don't generally put such atrocious looking images out there.  I've shot concerts as far back as 30 years ago, and I would NEVER put pieces of crap like that out there! 

Every person on this earth can take a bad photograph, but it takes special effort of make Beyonce look that bad.  I'm sure many photographers at the Superbowl had better images than that.  It's the paparazzi style of TMZ that has made the art of shooting crap images such a popular thing.  The worse you can make a celebrity look, the higher the pay for paparazzi.

Every concert I've ever shot at, I've had some bad images.  I would have deleted those images and kept trying to get more complimentary images.  Any photographer who can't get a decent shot of Beyonce is extremely lame!  That photographer who shot those will not be invited back to Beyonce's shows!  lol

Feb 12 13 01:42 pm Link

Model

Lauren E Poole

Posts: 204

Pembroke Pines, Florida, US

LOL.  Love the cat images as well smile

Feb 12 13 01:43 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Walberg

Posts: 43183

Salinas, California, US

London Fog wrote:
She's has thunder thighs, and deffo not as pretty as the general dumbass public make her out to be...it's that simple!

Such hate!!!  lol


Over a 30 year period of time, I've shot thousands of concerts!  I wouldn't show you my worst images.  It takes a great deal of effort to make Beyonce look that bad, or for that matter, most any of the models we shoot on a regular basis.  I've shot some musicians that were not all that attractive, but I did my best to make them look better than they really did in most cases.  That is how  I get invited back by the publicists.  Again, the embarrassed person should be the photographer for putting crap images out there!  lol

Feb 12 13 01:52 pm Link

Model

Caitin Bre

Posts: 2248

Naperville, Illinois, US

RKD Photographic wrote:
...all the RAW files...big_smile

http://solsticevisuals.com/post/4248790 … ds-all-the


How do you know this photo was post edited to look this way from a raw file. You can turn any photo into a post edit like the one you show.
Sending all the files doesn't always mean all the raws.

It is sad however that people waste there editing talents on trying to make others look bad.

Feb 12 13 03:51 pm Link

Model

Caitin Bre

Posts: 2248

Naperville, Illinois, US

And another thing. It is one of the reason some entertainment venues do not allow cameras at there show. This stunt just made them right!

Feb 12 13 03:54 pm Link

Photographer

DG at studio47

Posts: 2365

East Ridge, Tennessee, US

If your cable provider provides a DVR, you can pause any person on any show at any moment and catch thousands of really unflattering images. Images frozen from video or high speed camera shots catch the 'in-between' transitional horrible half n half faces and such. poor Beyonce----victim of technology.

Feb 12 13 04:03 pm Link

Photographer

TrianglePhoto

Posts: 582

Chicago, Illinois, US

I didn't realize that photojournalists were now required to have their images approved by publicists...

Feb 12 13 04:16 pm Link

Model

Caitin Bre

Posts: 2248

Naperville, Illinois, US

TrianglePhoto wrote:
I didn't realize that photojournalists were now required to have their images approved by publicists...

I think that this goes far outside the what a photojournalist is.
This is taking a photo of someone famous and altering that photo to make that person look bad to get fame off of defaming somebody else.

My understanding of photojournalism is to capture the truth with absolutely no bias.
Some of the best captures of photojournalist are from photographers that are unknown hero's. If you are looking for fame and fortune, You would not be a photojournalist.
This really is a tragedy. It is a black eye to photography!
Every time I see this photo I feel embarrassed for everyone involved!
It is very wrong and in no way supports the "in the name of art"! It makes a joke of it.

Feb 13 13 05:40 am Link

Photographer

Quay Lude

Posts: 6367

Madison, Wisconsin, US

Caitin   wrote:

I think that this goes far outside the what a photojournalist is.
This is taking a photo of someone famous and altering that photo to make that person look bad to get fame off of defaming somebody else.

My understanding of photojournalism is to capture the truth with absolutely no bias.
Some of the best captures of photojournalist are from photographers that are unknown hero's. If you are looking for fame and fortune, You would not be a photojournalist.
This really is a tragedy. It is a black eye to photography!
Every time I see this photo I feel embarrassed for everyone involved!
It is very wrong and in no way supports the "in the name of art"! It makes a joke of it.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/Serevende/dunce-cap.jpg

Feb 13 13 05:47 am Link

Model

Caitin Bre

Posts: 2248

Naperville, Illinois, US

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/Serevende/dunce-cap.jpg

Now that is really good! I am amazed at how you thought about that and came back with the best picture to show it!
What a mind you have! Bravo!

Feb 13 13 05:52 am Link

Photographer

TrianglePhoto

Posts: 582

Chicago, Illinois, US

Caitin   wrote:
I think that this goes far outside the what a photojournalist is.
This is taking a photo of someone famous and altering that photo to make that person look bad to get fame off of defaming somebody else.

My understanding of photojournalism is to capture the truth with absolutely no bias.
Some of the best captures of photojournalist are from photographers that are unknown hero's. If you are looking for fame and fortune, You would not be a photojournalist.
This really is a tragedy. It is a black eye to photography!
Every time I see this photo I feel embarrassed for everyone involved!
It is very wrong and in no way supports the "in the name of art"! It makes a joke of it.

The original photos (not the photoshopped meme photos) were indeed photojournalism. The photographers were there to cover an event (the Superbowl, plus all the hooha surrounding it). Just as a quick glance, I know the names of several of the photographers who had images pulled by Getty and they are talented photographers who I feel confident provided images which presented a realistic view of what happened on that stage.

I can also categorically say, a Photojournalist who uses photoshop to change the content or meaning of an image will be shunned and generally cast out of the industry. PJ ethics don't even allow the removal of distracting elements in the background (a photographer was fired 2 years ago for removing distracting shoes from the background). No element inside the frame can be added or removed. In general, photographers are limited to adjusting contrast, color, dodging/burning, etc... provided it does not change the meaning or content of an image (there was a controversy last year about a photographer who changed the color balance which changed the emotional tone of an image). When a change is made outside of that narrow guideline, it is generally required to labeled a "photo illustration".

I have worked and do work as a Photojournalist. When covering an event, my job is not to provide "pretty pictures". My job is to tell a story. For mass media events like this, it also involves providing images which are different than what everyone else took. To look for different insight. For sports, that often means blood, mud, tears or some really goofy expressions. Ultimately, it isn't up to me whether a particular image runs or not, it is up to the editor and publisher of the paper. All I can do is capture the images and give them options for the story they wish to tell (which sometimes isn't the same story I saw when I captured the images).

Feb 13 13 07:54 am Link

Photographer

Kevin Connery

Posts: 17208

El Segundo, California, US

Caitin   wrote:

I think that this goes far outside the what a photojournalist is.
This is taking a photo of someone famous and altering that photo to make that person look bad to get fame off of defaming somebody else.

My understanding of photojournalism is to capture the truth with absolutely no bias.
Some of the best captures of photojournalist are from photographers that are unknown hero's. If you are looking for fame and fortune, You would not be a photojournalist.
This really is a tragedy. It is a black eye to photography!
Every time I see this photo I feel embarrassed for everyone involved!
It is very wrong and in no way supports the "in the name of art"! It makes a joke of it.

I take it you're unfamiliar with Arnold Newman's photo of Alfried Krupp for Newsweek.
http://prakashbraggs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Newman-Krupp2.jpg

Feb 13 13 08:19 am Link