| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2008 07:14:44 PM · #201 |
| Maybe not surprising. A person so lacking in sensitivity to others is often lacking in self-awareness. |
|
|
|
09/14/2008 07:36:56 PM · #202 |
I don't think you should have to take any job you don't want to. I didn't follow the other thread, but can't a photographer just say no? Maybe not...
It seems very unprofessional to accept an assignment and then allow personal feelings to determine the outcome. We've probably all seen enough McCain photos to conclude her work was poor. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 08:55:11 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I don't think you should have to take any job you don't want to. I didn't follow the other thread, but can't a photographer just say no? Maybe not...
It seems very unprofessional to accept an assignment and then allow personal feelings to determine the outcome. We've probably all seen enough McCain photos to conclude her work was poor. |
Here it is.
I'm just curious how the people who felt that the photographer was in the wrong for refusing service to a gay couple feel about a photographer taking a job just to make the pictures look bad because of political reasons - not to mention adding vampire teeth and captions.
Seems to me that it is much more of a disgrace to take a job and ruin it on purpose than to refuse a job based on beliefs. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 10:12:53 AM · #204 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Seems to me that it is much more of a disgrace to take a job and ruin it on purpose than to refuse a job based on beliefs. |
She did not "ruin" the job... The Atlantic got what they commissioned from here (a slightly dark sort of photo for a negative story - see the one on the cover NOT the ones doing the rounds)....
The question is what she did with lighting (from below) and is doing in post (fangs & slogans) with what we would call the outtakes. There is no doubt not what the candidate would want and probably not what the mag would want (apart from publicity and I don't think they aimed for this type) but she is freelance, so apart from the one that they bought.
A more interesting thought is what sort of release was signed and by which parties.... and does her publishing her origs modified in this way invalidate that (I am not talking about her right to take them... just publicise them). No doubt she is legally correct (she is no stranger to controversial images so no doubt has the suits in line) but morally is another question.
The other interesting thought (to me anyway) - should she be classed as an artist or a journalist in this case? As a journo she is WAY over the line in doing this but as an Artist I don't think she is over the moral line (bad taste line long past but everyone has a right to bad taste - look at my images).
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 10:29:31 AM · #205 |
Fox news just had a head honcho from the Atlantic on and at this time they are NOT going to pay her and also may be looking at legal action (wasn't too clear on that).
and he did say that they did like the cover photo, but they will be looking into if she did in post processing to make the photo look "worse." Mainly because he said "he doesn't believe a word that she says" now.
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 10:30:14.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 10:36:45 AM · #206 |
WAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaa!
As long as no animals were hurt, or children for that matter.
The world's full of actors, that's one emotion tought in acting school. It's even self-taught, when growing up in the school of hard-knocks Life. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 10:59:39 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Fox news just had a head honcho from the Atlantic on and at this time they are NOT going to pay her and also may be looking at legal action (wasn't too clear on that).
and he did say that they did like the cover photo, but they will be looking into if she did in post processing to make the photo look "worse." Mainly because he said "he doesn't believe a word that she says" now. |
You mean the guy from the Atlantic told the right wing news outlet what they wanted to hear?
What a surprise.
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 11:00:08. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 11:04:20 AM · #208 |
Yeah...I guess he did. He is basically on record for it now right?
CNN and MSNBC praising her actions by the way?
You don't think this is unprofessional? She's an idiot!
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 11:10:56 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Yeah...I guess he did. He is basically on record for it now right?
CNN and MSNBC praising her actions by the way?
You don't think this is unprofessional? She's an idiot! |
I seem to recall Arnold Newman taking a similar approach when photographing the Nazi industrialist Alfried Krupp. No one seemed to mind that, in fact it resulted in Newman's best known color photograph. Not that Greenberg is in the same league as Newman, but I'd be willing to bet the mag had a pretty good idea what they were getting into.
ETA: OK, Alfried Krupp minded and apparently threw quite the tantrum, telling the photographer theat he'd have him declared "persona non grata" in Germany. Seems a bit defensive for one who used slave labor in his factories supporting the Nazi war machine.
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 11:28:49. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 11:15:09 AM · #210 |
âShe has violated the terms of our agreement with her, of our contract with her so weâre taking steps. So weâre looking into what steps we can see to do something about that,â Bennet told FOX News, adding that he is âalready drafting a letter of apologyâ to McCain.
âI mean this photographer went in there under our auspices to take a cover shot for us ⦠but while she was there she behaved in an incredibly underhanded and unprofessional way,â he said.
From HERE
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 11:28:46 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
âShe has violated the terms of our agreement with her, of our contract with her so weâre taking steps. So weâre looking into what steps we can see to do something about that,â Bennet told FOX News, adding that he is âalready drafting a letter of apologyâ to McCain.
âI mean this photographer went in there under our auspices to take a cover shot for us ⦠but while she was there she behaved in an incredibly underhanded and unprofessional way,â he said.
From HERE |
Interesting follow up story. I cannot believe that Atlantic Monthly did not know what they were getting into. I wonder why they chose her in the first place (was that mentioned any where?). Maybe it was to get more publicity for their magazine (this seems almost like an MTV stunt). |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 11:30:24 AM · #212 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
âShe has violated the terms of our agreement with her, of our contract with her so weâre taking steps. So weâre looking into what steps we can see to do something about that,â Bennet told FOX News, adding that he is âalready drafting a letter of apologyâ to McCain.
âI mean this photographer went in there under our auspices to take a cover shot for us ⦠but while she was there she behaved in an incredibly underhanded and unprofessional way,â he said.
From HERE |
Interesting follow up story. I cannot believe that Atlantic Monthly did not know what they were getting into. I wonder why they chose her in the first place (was that mentioned any where?). Maybe it was to get more publicity for their magazine (this seems almost like an MTV stunt). |
I'd guess that some of the magazine's advertisers are McCain supporters and got their panties in a wad. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 11:34:35 AM · #213 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
CNN and MSNBC praising her actions by the way? |
I have a hard time believing this. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 12:07:26 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Phil:
Seems to me that it is much more of a disgrace to take a job and ruin it on purpose than to refuse a job based on beliefs. |
She did not "ruin" the job... |
Oh really?
âI left his eyes red and his skin looking bad,â she says.
âHe had no idea he was being lit from below,â Greenberg says. And his handlers didnât seem to notice it either. âI guess theyâre not very sophisticated,â she adds.
That said, she goes on to explain that sheâs thought about replacing McCainâs mouth with bloody shark teeth and displaying the image on a billboard with the message that the candidate is a bloodthirsty war monger.
Given her strong feelings about John McCain, we asked whether she had any reservations about taking the assignment in the first place.
âI didnât,â she says. âItâs definitely exciting to shoot someone who is in the limelight like that. I am a pretty hard core Democrat. Some of my artwork has been pretty anti-Bush, so maybe it was somewhat irresponsible for them [The Atlantic] to hire me.â
Sure, you could substitute the word "ruin" for another if you like but I think you get the point of my analogy. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 12:16:14 PM · #215 |
My question:
If you were going to stand up in front of a whoooole nation, isn't the last statement you are going to make, "I don't want to get audited."??????
This woman had a major brain fart. Sad, really, that she will be giving up so many clients over the next year.
I know that if I were in the public eye, I wouldn't want to be photographed by someone that had manipulated images in such a defamatory way in the past. It would scare me. "What would/could she do do MY photos?" |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 12:21:19 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Oh really? |
Since that is subjective, I will let the editor's quote answer instead of me :-)...
"The Atlantic opted not to use the distorted McCain shot on its cover, selecting instead a more straightforward portrait. 'We stand by the picture we are running on our cover," said Atlantic editor James Bennet. 'We feel it's a respectful portrait. We hope we'll be judged by that picture.'"
Does not sound like they think it was a ruined (use your word) shoot. You are discussing the images the mag did not use.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 12:25:32 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
CNN and MSNBC praising her actions by the way? |
I have a hard time believing this. |
Note the question mark.
I am sure they are saying it is unprofessional too. At least I hope.
I wonder if I could be this unprofessional? Drunk AHole kills a whole family in a car accident. I think that is wrong, so I don't do the job I trained and was hired for. Like continue to keep him/her alive or just not give life saving medications in a timely manner or not the right dosage, or do a PISS POOR job of it. Sound good?
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 12:48:51 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by Phil:
Oh really? |
Since that is subjective, I will let the editor's quote answer instead of me :-)...
"The Atlantic opted not to use the distorted McCain shot on its cover, selecting instead a more straightforward portrait. 'We stand by the picture we are running on our cover," said Atlantic editor James Bennet. 'We feel it's a respectful portrait. We hope we'll be judged by that picture.'"
Does not sound like they think it was a ruined (use your word) shoot. You are discussing the images the mag did not use. |
Sure, and as I stated earler, you don't have to do much to make him look bad. She knew what she was doing - EVEN ADMITTED WHAT SHE WAS DOING. You don't have a problem with that? |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 01:08:55 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Fox news just had a head honcho from the Atlantic on and at this time they are NOT going to pay her and also may be looking at legal action (wasn't too clear on that).
and he did say that they did like the cover photo, but they will be looking into if she did in post processing to make the photo look "worse." Mainly because he said "he doesn't believe a word that she says" now. |
And yet from the originally-posted article;
"The Atlantic didnât select the diabolical looking McCain for its cover. Greenberg is hoping to license that image to some other magazine (she negotiated a two-week embargo with The Atlantic so she could re-license images from the shoot before the election)."
So they were aware that she was planning to do something more with the shots, beyond giving them to the Atlantic. Did their agreement specify exactly what she could and couldn't do with them? If not, there probably isn't much they can do.
Message edited by author 2008-09-15 13:09:22. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 01:10:20 PM · #220 |
The Woman is an Idiot??? I don't think so.
She is headlining on national news and television for doing nothing more than what she is known for. The traffic on her website must be enormous at the moment. If you ask me she is some sort of genius cause none of the rest of us are getting ANY exposure good or bad.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 01:27:35 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
The Woman is an Idiot??? I don't think so.
She is headlining on national news and television for doing nothing more than what she is known for. The traffic on her website must be enormous at the moment. If you ask me she is some sort of genius cause none of the rest of us are getting ANY exposure good or bad. |
I don't think she's headlining on all national news. Fox seems to be the only ones talking about it? Don't know...don't watch Foxnews. I've had MSNBC on all day and have heard nothing about it so far. They've been doing the daily campaign coverage interspersed with Ike and Wall street news along with a smattering of special interest stories here and there. I only found out about this from this thread.
The Atlantic was dense to hire her. They must have known her reputation...if they didn't, that's their fault. It will probably be their biggest selling issue. The images are hers, she can do what she wants with them if nothing was mentioned otherwise in her contract. By saying this I'm not exactly agreeing with what she did...but it is her right to manipulate her images as she sees fit.
She is an artist...not Olan Mills. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 01:31:39 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I don't think you should have to take any job you don't want to. I didn't follow the other thread, but can't a photographer just say no? Maybe not...
It seems very unprofessional to accept an assignment and then allow personal feelings to determine the outcome. We've probably all seen enough McCain photos to conclude her work was poor. |
Here it is.
I'm just curious how the people who felt that the photographer was in the wrong for refusing service to a gay couple feel about a photographer taking a job just to make the pictures look bad because of political reasons - not to mention adding vampire teeth and captions.
Seems to me that it is much more of a disgrace to take a job and ruin it on purpose than to refuse a job based on beliefs. |
If you take the job, you should do your best at it no matter what. Because you prevented them from hiring someone else.
But the photographer can and should be able to refuse to work/endorse a type of wedding based on their religious principles. This is completely different than a storefront business which opens its doors to the general public. A photographer is a contractor who can and should ALWAYS be able to say yes/no to a contract offered for any reason they choose. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 01:32:02 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Sure, and as I stated earler, you don't have to do much to make him look bad. She knew what she was doing - EVEN ADMITTED WHAT SHE WAS DOING. You don't have a problem with that? |
We are moving away from the mag published photo I believe. As in my reply... I think it depends which part she is playing.
- As an Artist -> No issue from me with the manipulated images or what she did with them (poor taste aside and I assume there will be liable cases where she may be legally in the wrong). Yes I would have the same response if it were any of the others running (there are more then 2 right :-).
My bigger issue is what she signed in order to get access and did she invalidate those contracts/releases to publish those manipulated images (again, I am only talking about publishing not taking).
As an aside, what about other manipulated images - The OJ photos in Time a few years back to make him more evil? How about a similar hatchet job on Alfred Krupp after WW2 - few people like to defend him but it's the same thing so do I assume you are against that for the same reasons (this was a far better job as all in camera :-).
- As a Journo - Yes for sure.
For the record: I am not a fan and I don't like her images for the most part and she has been acting like an ass during this whole thing. Ironically, I suspect it will hurt the politics she prefers more then help it. Also - I am not a US citizen and have no vote in the race, so this is not political to me.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2008 01:37:45 PM · #224 |
| Seems like Jill Greenberg is a photo-whore. |
|
|
|
09/15/2008 02:38:48 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by robs:
For the record: I am not a fan and I don't like her images for the most part and she has been acting like an ass during this whole thing. Ironically, I suspect it will hurt the politics she prefers more then help it. Also - I am not a US citizen and have no vote in the race, so this is not political to me. |
Not political to me either. If I don't change my mind I'm not voting for either of these two jerk offs that my fellow citizens decided were the best of the best. I was just curious how those people (who argued that a person shouldn't be allowed to turn down business based on religious reasons) felt about Greenberg doing such an unethical act based on her political preference. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:58:28 PM EDT.
