login info join!
Forums > General Industry > Come on, it's just a group photo Search   Reply
Photographer
Brian Scanlon
Posts: 790
Encino, California, US


Jan 04 13 01:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Laurence Moan
Posts: 7,759
Huntington Beach, California, US


Can't even do that without f'in it up. Show up and smile. That's all.

Jeezis...
Jan 04 13 02:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Troy Thomas Photography
Posts: 114
Kansas City, Missouri, US


Totally agree.  Its just a group photo.

I like how the article says the photo "took twenty minutes".  But how many hours of planning, phone calls and emails did it take to set it up on everyone's schedule.

I routinely shoot large groups like this and just the planning is a nightmare and ,yes, occasionaly you have to add people.
Jan 04 13 02:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Marc Damon
Posts: 6,562
Biloxi, Mississippi, US


Priorities. They can all show up to vote for/against their pet projects.
Jan 04 13 02:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Azimuth Arts
Posts: 1,490
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


It's not like it was the signing of an official document, or swearing in, the photo is a representation of a specific group of people.  And when released they indicated that 4 members were added via photoshop so what's the big deal?  There is no conspiracy.  I have enough trouble getting a family shot on the holiday's or summer weekends when there are a dozen or less.  I can't imagine wrangling 60+ government officials.
Jan 04 13 02:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Ms Cammy
Posts: 23
Tacoma, Washington, US


That's not even the same section of the photo where they were "photoshopped". The left photo doesn't match the right at all. How do we know for sure they were photoshopped in
Jan 04 13 02:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 2,805
London, England, United Kingdom


if the photo is a  collage and not a historical document. When used in the press, the public will believed all members were there unless stated otherwise.

The press are often rolled over the coals for doctoring photos so I understand why they questioned the authenticity.
Jan 04 13 04:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 2,805
London, England, United Kingdom


Azimuth Arts wrote:
It's not like it was the signing of an official document, or swearing in, the photo is a representation of a specific group of people.  And when released they indicated that 4 members were added via photoshop so what's the big deal?  There is no conspiracy.  I have enough trouble getting a family shot on the holiday's or summer weekends when there are a dozen or less.  I can't imagine wrangling 60+ government officials.

Troy Thomas Photography wrote:
Totally agree.  Its just a group photo.

I like how the article says the photo "took twenty minutes".  But how many hours of planning, phone calls and emails did it take to set it up on everyone's schedule.

I routinely shoot large groups like this and just the planning is a nightmare and ,yes, occasionaly you have to add people.

Well the other 57 got there on time.

Jan 04 13 04:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Scanlon
Posts: 790
Encino, California, US


Darren Brade wrote:
if the photo is a  collage and not a historical document. When used in the press, the public will believed all members were there unless stated otherwise.

The press are often rolled over the coals for doctoring photos so I understand why they questioned the authenticity.

A. It was stated that the extra members were photoshopped in.

B. This is a completely artificial situation.  No one believes that the female members of the 113 congress just happened to be standing, posed upon the steps of the Capitol building and a photographer happened by and took their picture.

The message of the photo is "these are the female members of the 113 congress" which is accurate.  Maybe the photo always needs a footnote, but I think that this is more about the press being upset that they can't embellish their photos like almost everyone else.  Even without image editing software a lot can be done to manipulate an image to tell the story the way the photographer wants to.

Jan 04 13 07:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Marc Damon
Posts: 6,562
Biloxi, Mississippi, US


Brian Scanlon wrote:

A. It was stated that the extra members were photoshopped in.

B. This is a completely artificial situation.  No one believes that the female members of the 113 congress just happened to be standing, posed upon the steps of the Capitol building and a photographer happened by and took their picture.

The message of the photo is "these are the female members of the 113 congress" which is accurate.  Maybe the photo always needs a footnote, but I think that this is more about the press being upset that they can't embellish their photos like almost everyone else.  Even without image editing software a lot can be done to manipulate an image to tell the story the way the photographer wants to.

So where does truth stop and fantasy begin? Many photos on MM are way over photoshopped imo, unreal, plastic skin is one example.

Jan 04 13 07:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lars R Peterson
Posts: 1,073
Seattle, Washington, US


Darren Brade wrote:
if the photo is a  collage and not a historical document. When used in the press, the public will believed all members were there unless stated otherwise.

The press are often rolled over the coals for doctoring photos so I understand why they questioned the authenticity.

+1

Exactly. I think there is an acceptable difference between photos that are art, or marketing, or advertising, or entertainment.... versus those that are journalism, or government documents. We can expect a certain amount of history to be recorded as actual fact... and certain things like this that distort fact are, in my opinion, unacceptable.

Recently, there was the photo of Kim Jong 'Il's funeral procession, where certain members were photoshopped out, because they were not in an aesthetically pleasing position. It didn't really change anything, it didn't distort the facts... except for the fact that it was FAKE!

Same with this photo. No problem to do it with the family at Christmas, or the office for the company holiday card... but THIS was an officially released photo from a branch of our government.  There should never, ever, be ANY documents released from our government that are allowed to be FAKE.

They are not a company, they are not a family, they are government.

The very second that I think the government is comfortable with altering truth, in a way that an artist (like you and me) can do... then that is the day that I start explaining to my friends the importance of our 2nd Amendment.

**Edit to add:
Yes, I read that it was stated that they were Photoshopped in... but I don't think that should ever be an issue with a Gov't. photo. Who paid for this photo? Our taxes? Or the girl in the red blazer?

***Edit to also add:
Ya know... I don't know who paid for this photo, nor if it IS actually a government release.
So... I guess if it turns out that it WAS the girl in the red blazer, or somebody else, who just paid a photographer to get this photo... then I'll change teams. What's the big deal?
My initial rant was under the impression that this photo was released by a branch of government.
specifics...

Jan 04 13 07:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian Scanlon
Posts: 790
Encino, California, US


Marc Damon wrote:
So where does truth stop and fantasy begin? Many photos on MM are way over photoshopped imo, unreal, plastic skin is one example.

What most of us are doing here is fantasy.   "I reject your reality and substitute my own"

Jan 04 13 07:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Shot By Adam
Posts: 5,840
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Lars R Peterson wrote:
Recently, there was the photo of Kim Jong 'Il's funeral procession, where certain members were photoshopped out, because they were not in an aesthetically pleasing position. It didn't really change anything, it didn't distort the facts... except for the fact that it was FAKE!

I beg to differ. We aren't talking about removing a blemish or adding eye shadow to a llama, we're talking about altering an image that's being used as a historical record for something. When the media picks up on it, when it's used as an official time stamp in history, altering the image does, in fact, distort the facts.

Remember back when Iran photoshopped a malfunctioning rocket to make it look like it fired correctly?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/200 … stsnotwhat

Same thing applies.

Jan 05 13 01:56 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DavidCoward Photography
Posts: 629
Sandy Springs, Georgia, US


There should never, ever, be ANY documents released from our government that are allowed to be FAKE.

Agreed.

Jan 05 13 02:26 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Model
Anna Adrielle
Posts: 18,763
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium


haha, we had an even worse one here! They missed 2 people so they just put lifesize cardboards up with their pictures on them, and took the groupsfoto with the cardboards in the group. smooth.
Jan 05 13 02:42 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art by Scott Meyer
Posts: 397
Cincinnati, Ohio, US


Maybe if the photographer put an * on the bottom of the photo it would be ok.
Jan 05 13 03:34 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13,345
Houston, Texas, US


There is zero place in a free society for the government to be doctoring photos OF ANY KIND.

We should leave that up to the totalitarian regimes who do it constantly and for damn near 100 years.  We are better than that.  Pelosi should know better.

Journalists are fired for doctoring photos.  ANY government official who doctors an official government photo should be fired (or sanctioned). And that includes Pelosi in this case.
Jan 05 13 04:03 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
My name is Frank
Posts: 554
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Why is this even noteworthy??!
Jan 09 13 02:32 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
glumpy
Posts: 516
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


My name is Frank wrote:
Why is this even noteworthy??!

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Exactly!

I cannot believe people are getting so fired up over a pic that would have ran 1 day in a few tabloids and then been forgotten about.

People are going on here like it was some sort of a conspiracy and con job to defraud the public out of millions, change public opinion over a crucial decision or in fact anyone really gave a flying Fk over the picture being taken in the first place.

AS for historical, Why isn't it? Are they not the women that are said to be members of the congress? Is some other claim being made about the image?

The US Gubbermint is renowned the world over as being one of the most corrupt, dishonest, manipulative, dirty and underhanded organisations in the world.
They release a nothing PR photo, Tell the truth about it that it's not perfectly real and people carry on like they have committed a crime against Humanity!
Fk Me!


The gubbermint is probably spinning a 1000 lies a day on things like the numbers of people being killed and injured in Iraq, The danger Nukes and other things pose to the public, public health, the state of the economy and endless other important issues and the sheeple ignorantly and blissfully believe everything they are told without a 2nd though but then carry on about Chit like this.

Wouldn't surprise me if it was a set up just to keep the whingers feeble minds occupied and busy from discovering the truth about real issues and matters of importance.

Jan 09 13 05:11 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Darren Brade
Posts: 2,805
London, England, United Kingdom


Brian Scanlon wrote:
B. This is a completely artificial situation.  No one believes that the female members of the 113 congress just happened to be standing, posed upon the steps of the Capitol building and a photographer happened by and took their picture.

Of course, it's clearly a posed shot with all female congress members. Most people won't realise they weren't all there at the same time, they'll just assume it unless they see the written disclaimer.

Jan 09 13 07:43 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
hbutz New York
Posts: 3,219
Ronkonkoma, New York, US


I'd rather see them all doing their jobs rather than posing for photos.
Jan 10 13 03:28 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Dan OMell
Posts: 1,335
Ufa, Bashkortostan, Russia


wake me up when they pose implied nude or something...
boring...
3smile
Jan 10 13 04:08 am  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply