Herman Surkis wrote:
The Terry Richardson of sports photography?

To be found next on SI.

I thought I was the only one who thought that

Escalante wrote:
wow really ?
They are the same level of quality if not better then what most of you all are complimenting as "sensual , exotic , erotic , so tender (two girls doing a 69), so edgy , so unique , So stunning , so incredible , so _________ ....
same type of quality level if not better then what the majority of the people are asking "have I improved after 3 months and $$$$ of equipment ?"
Never mentioning the wrinkled Bedsheets they are using instead of Proper backdrops . Never mentioning the Dust spots  , just focusing in on the crappiness of the crotch or tits in the shot more then anything else.

These are the same level of quality if not better then ....

If used as in an art context I can see how they can be very powerful.  With an underlying message that these are unfinished athletes who are trying to polish themselves going into the biggest contest of their life!  To me, whether the photos work or not completely depends on the context they will be used.  They will not work in Sports Illustrated.  But they can definitely have a draw in a gallery setting.

Just my thoughts.

-JAY- wrote:
Dafuq?


Really.... da fuq?


Wronkled flag... ripped and dirty seamless... huh?

Oh! What dimwit allowed this to be an official picture with the flag in violation of the 'flag code?' Not only has this Photographer insulted our athletes but, he insulted our flag too.

Pasting from http://www.usa-flag-site.org/etiquette-display.shtml: Other than being Flown from a Staff
The flag should be displayed flat, whether indoors or out.

Robert Helm wrote:
Those and more are on CBS's website as well
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-33747_162-1 … l?tag=page

And the images are from Getty Images!

It pains me greatly but I must agree that the shots are not very good -- even for an amateur.

Frankly I am a little stunned that these photos were published especially in light of the fact that there are so many excellent photo journalists out there. They do, however, charge money.

Could MMers do better? Probably 51%, but not all.

-JAY- wrote:
Dafuq?


Really.... da fuq?


Wronkled flag... ripped and dirty seamless... huh?

AND the flag is touching the ground! Violation of the flag code. Blatant disrespect for the nation right there.

SMDH

Escalante wrote:
wow really ?
They are the same level of quality if not better then what most of you all are complimenting as "sensual , exotic , erotic , so tender (two girls doing a 69), so edgy , so unique , So stunning , so incredible , so _________ ....
same type of quality level if not better then what the majority of the people are asking "have I improved after 3 months and $$$$ of equipment ?"
Never mentioning the wrinkled Bedsheets they are using instead of Proper backdrops . Never mentioning the Dust spots  , just focusing in on the crappiness of the crotch or tits in the shot more then anything else.

These are the same level of quality if not better then ....

pretty much

Illuminate wrote:
See..always two seides to everything: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/06/pho … portraits/

no excuse though.

a portrait need not be complicated. i would have scrapped the lighting setup and backdrops and just did a nice simple portrait. maybe a 3/4 shot. basically i would have taken stock of the situation and let my intuition as a photographer dictate how the portraits should be.

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:

no excuse though.

a portrait need not be complicated. i would have scrapped the lighting setup and backdrops and just did a nice simple portrait. maybe a 3/4 shot. basically i would have taken stock of the situation and let my intuition as a photographer dictate how the portraits should be.

Don't take this the wrong way, but have you ever been to one of these press events?

Before you judge too harshly, just know that these things are not the easiest to participate in given the sheer number of moving parts and lack of any real control.

Having said that, I always have my Elinchrom Quadra's in my travel kit just in case....

Illuminate wrote:
Don't take this the wrong way, but have you ever been to one of these press events?

Before you judge too harshly, just know that these things are not the easiest to participate in given the sheer number of moving parts and lack of any real control.

Having said that, I always have my Elinchrom Quadra's in my travel kit just in case....

why can't we all be like photographer Jane Bown and just take our subjects to a stairwell or the local pub (usually good dependable lighting at both places).

MrTim wrote:
This guy has actually done a brilliant job; as a press photographer working for an agency he was simply there to take shots that would sell, and his pictures have been picked up everywhere! Dozens of websites (and presumably other forms of media too) have paid good money to mock his abilities, and in the process he's made himself (and his agency) fifty times more money than any of the suckers who took "good photos".

Sorry.... Who's paying for these images?  Sure, there's a LOT of buzz about these images.  Negative buzz.  I think this might be one of the rare situations where bad publicity actually IS bad publicity.

C'mon... seamless paper on top of carpet?  That's a rookie mistake.

How is the photographer or the agency making 50 times more money from this debacle?

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Sorry.... Who's paying for these images?  Sure, there's a LOT of buzz about these images.  Negative buzz.  I think this might be one of the rare situations where bad publicity actually IS bad publicity.

C'mon... seamless paper on top of carpet?  That's a rookie mistake.

How is the photographer or the agency making 50 times more money from this debacle?

I guess a lot of the blogs are "pirating" the shots, but every legitimate site reporting on this is paying about $50 an image for every photo of his they have up (60 of them on CBS, for example). I haven't seen anyone else's work getting as much coverage.

Illuminate wrote:
See..always two seides to everything: http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/06/pho … portraits/

Well I was always under the impression that a professional can adapt to changes and still produce decent images. I know my approach and end results would have been far different and in my mind better. These look like he threw in the towel and said fuck it not my fault I didn't know. Besides none of that has anything to do with dragging the American flag on the ground.

Photosbycj wrote:
Well I was always under the impression that a professional can adapt to changes and still produce decent images. I know my approach and end results would have been far different and in my mind better. These look like he threw in the towel and said fuck it not my fault I didn't know. Besides none of that has anything to do with dragging the American flag on the ground.

+1

that was my point as well.

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:

why can't we all be like photographer Jane Bown and just take our subjects to a stairwell or the local pub (usually good dependable lighting at both places).

Wow.

MrTim wrote:
This guy has actually done a brilliant job; as a press photographer working for an agency he was simply there to take shots that would sell, and his pictures have been picked up everywhere! Dozens of websites (and presumably other forms of media too) have paid good money to mock his abilities, and in the process he's made himself (and his agency) fifty times more money than any of the suckers who took "good photos".

Great so he can get a better check as he finds a new career?  This is not how any professional wants to be seen, as a underskilled over employed hack.  He was unprepared for a studio like setup opportunity, so he should have shot what he expected.  No reason why he could not have done the head shots he was expecting to do rather then that poor attempt at something he was not skilled at.

me voy wrote:
Maybe the organization that hired the photographer didn't have a budget for the shoot. In that case, shame on the organization for hiring someone with no experience.

I doubt that was the case.  I'm sure there were quite capable photographers willing to work for very low rate to get the chance to shoot a job like this.

The images the OP referenced are not inspiring, in the least. 

The bigger problem, to me, is not that they were shot, but someone from the organization, decided to release them.

Light Writer wrote:
The discussion on reddit is really interesting and brings up a lot of issues.

http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/com … _afpgetty/

It's not at all clear who's "to blame" in this situation. I suspect that the images all became property of the US Olympic Committee, who released them all to CBS, who picked what they wanted to "make" the story, the one of the services picked up the reddit discussion to make it into a "controversy".

There's even a post in the reddit discussion mentioning how that thread was picked up to be put into a story. Woe for the state of what passes for "journalism" these days....

EDIT:
But on the whole, I agree, there are some sub-standard images, some photographers did really well, some poorly.

EDIT: