On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Beaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 30, 2008, at 3:57 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Stan Halpin >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Agree - interesting story Mike. I wonder a bit at the emphasis on the >>> photographer though. The editor certainly bears some responsibility in >>> making his/her choice of what image to use. The point of the story seems >>> to >>> question a photographer's freedom to provide some artistic interpretation >>> of >>> reality, opting instead for a narrower straight forward representation of >>> the portrait subject. As though there were only one reality. Whereas >>> there >>> are in fact many realities, ranging from the subjects' many self-images >>> to >>> the public's understanding of the subjects to the editors or >>> photographers >>> understanding of who the person is. Why should the photographer be the >>> fall >>> guy? It should be the bill payer (subject or editor) who determines which >>> reality should be portrayed. IMHO. >>> >>> stan >> >> I'd tend to agree. A portrait photographer is NOT a reporter or >> journalist and operates under a different set of ethics. And in >> general the portrait photographers mentioned do so very clearly. >> >> Jill Greenberg is an exception in that on the McCain incident. What >> she did was clearly contrary to what the Editor requested. Of course >> if the Editor had done some proper homework they would have known that >> she's a known publicity hound with no regards for her subjects at the >> best of times. >> >> -- >> M. Adam Maas >> http://www.mawz.ca >> Explorations of the City Around Us > > > > But first, Greenburg got the shot the editors wanted- the first image in the > slide show. > Since she posted the "Evil McCain" picture on her own web sight, she must > not have > sold exclusive use of the image to the magazine. In her position, I wouldn't > even offer > the image to the magazine. > > Then, at the end of the piece, she said that editors have sent her out with > instructions > to bring back unflattering pictures. So from her prospective, I can > understand why she > didn't consider it to be such a big deal. > > I guess it depends on how tightly her contract was written. > > BTW- I remember the Washington Post's photos of President Ronald Reagan were > often less > than flattering, so I guess that "editorializing by photo" isn't a > particularly new concept. > > Cheers > Mike >
The problem here is that McCain had an agreement with the magazine for a cover shoot. Greenberg doing here own thing after getting the cover shot embarrassed the magazine since they'd arranged the subject and that wasn't part of the deal. Greenberg had tricked McCain into the additional setup. It would have been different if she'd briefed him beforehand. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
