White House could use a new photographer

[Black Pearl]

One of the nice things about this forum is that there isn't politics everywhere you turn. I'm not a moderator but please keep your politics to yourself.

By your very hand you've made it into a political post - had you left the original comment alone then in all likelihood it would have been scrolled passed by everyone and nothing more would have been said.

[DanK]

Folks, I think it would be good to lighten up about this. (Is that idiom used on the other side of the pond? It means relax.) It's not as though Simon posted something inappropriate or vitriolic. Some time ago, Izzie posted a similarly brief pro-Trump post, and no one commented. I VERY strongly agree with one of the two postings, but I didn't find the other one even remotely offensive, and neither posting took the thread seriously off-track, until some decided to make an issue of Simon's post. To use another American idiom, let's cut each other a little slack. Just my two cents, for what it is worth.

[LePetomane]

Dan, the thread went off track with Simon's comment.

To all offended by my post, please accept my apology. Apparently it is within the boundaries of good taste to air one's political views and disapproval of certain sitting world leaders on a photography forum.

[paintingwithlight]

Dan, the thread went off track with Simon's comment.

Not in my estimation. I support his freedom to share his political views in a non-vitriolic way with dry wit.

To all offended by my post, please accept my apology. Apparently it is within the boundaries of good taste to air one's political views and disapproval of certain sitting world leaders on a photography forum.

I invite you to share your political views as well in this forum. Although I suspect that you did so already.

Michael

[Simon Garrett]

My goodness, I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here.

Let me put my earlier comment in context: the current occupant of the White House is a hugely controversial figure, of that there is no doubt. He rouses very strong feelings, both for and against. On a global scale, his actions provoke rather stronger feelings than those of the White House photographer. My rather flippant remark was intended only to highlight that contrast, not to provoke political debate. The wording echoed the phrasing of the thread title in order to draw out that contrast, not to make a political point.

[William W]

Observation:

One of the interesting, yet sometimes potentially volatile aspects of only conversing through the written word is that nuances of expression; intonation; timbre and tone are very difficult to assess. These facts, combined with the absence of the visual of body language, makes it more difficult to assess and differentiate the intent of humour; irony; sarcasm etc . . .

Of course added to these issues - "humour" - both its Subject Matter and also its Delivery in addition to how "humour" is interpreted; often have great differences depending upon location: noted that BB Forums have a world-wide audience.

If there is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the written word, I reckon it is very good that context and intention are clarified in plain text.

WW

[LePetomane]

Not in my estimation. I support his freedom to share his political views in a non-vitriolic way with dry wit.



I invite you to share your political views as well in this forum. Although I suspect that you did so already.

Michael

Why? I am not interested in sharing my political views on this forum as the last time I looked it was a photography forum. And for you to infer that I have already shared my views is absolutely absurd.

[Donald]

I would refer people's attention to Bill's comments at post #26 above.

Other than that, in a world where there are huge challenges and strongly divided views, it is always tempting to express our views on topics. I have strayed into doing so myself and in terms of the current crop of world leaders I would happily spend hours in heated debate with people about their strengths and weaknesses, as I see it.

But this is a forum about photography. There are all shades of political opinion, along with all and every type of attitude and value represented amongst the members on here. However, we are united by photography and that is the purpose of this forum. There are other places in which we can express our views of the state of the world.

Let's strive to keep CiC free from matters other than photography.

[LePetomane]

Donald, thanks for the clarification.

[Simon Garrett]

Donald, thanks for the clarification.

Agreed. As I explained I was not intending to make a political point, but in view of the strong emotions aroused by The (other) Donald, perhaps that was a rather naive intention!

[chauncey]

I have strayed into doing so myself and in terms of the current crop of world leaders

Unless I misconstrued your statement, you would seem to indicate that the word
leaders of the past were superior to the current ones. Aah, when might that have been?

[Donald]

Unless I misconstrued your statement, you would seem to indicate that the word
leaders of the past were superior to the current ones. Aah, when might that have been?

William

Let's drop it. That was my message. If you want to carry on a political discussion I'm very happy to do so, but not on here.

[Cantab]

I would refer people's attention to Bill's comments at post #26 above.

Other than that, in a world where there are huge challenges and strongly divided views, it is always tempting to express our views on topics. I have strayed into doing so myself and in terms of the current crop of world leaders I would happily spend hours in heated debate with people about their strengths and weaknesses, as I see it.

But this is a forum about photography. There are all shades of political opinion, along with all and every type of attitude and value represented amongst the members on here. However, we are united by photography and that is the purpose of this forum. There are other places in which we can express our views of the state of the world.

Let's strive to keep CiC free from matters other than photography.

I agree.

[zen]

I agree.

Let's drop it. That was my message. If you want to carry on a political discussion I'm very happy to do so, but not on here.

Thanks, Donald. I agree fully.

Zen

[Tronhard]

Here is the thing... and nothing to do with politics.

When I look at this photo of the First Lady, I don't see the conventional image of a person of significance. The body language, grooming and general presentation remind me more of a fashion shoot or something I would put up on social media rather than something I would expect to see on a White House wall. I'm not judging whether this treatment is right or wrong: doubtless people will say it's a refreshing take on the normally predictable style for such occasions; others will say it's not dignified enough. But that's what I see...

[rpcrowe]

I don't like Jared Polin's way of coming across but, I did watch this critique of Donald's official photo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOzJiiJwgR0

Jared keeps asking, "why was this portrait shot with a 10 year old camera?" Perhaps this portrait was shot with a state of the art camera when it was shot, but maybe it was shot ten years ago when the 70-year old president was around 60-years old. Photoshop an American flag in the background and paste a very off color image of the White House and you have an official portrait of a 70-year old president shot when he was 60

[Cantab]

I don't like Jared Polin's way of coming across but, I did watch this critique of Donald's official photo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOzJiiJwgR0

Jared keeps asking, "why was this portrait shot with a 10 year old camera?" Perhaps this portrait was shot with a state of the art camera when it was shot, but maybe it was shot ten years ago when the 70-year old president was around 60-years old. Photoshop an American flag in the background and paste a very off color image of the White House and you have an official portrait of a 70-year old president shot when he was 60

Richard, an interesting link (and comments by you)!

[Black Pearl]

I don't like Jared Polin's way of coming across but, I did watch this critique of Donald's official photo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOzJiiJwgR0

Jared keeps asking, "why was this portrait shot with a 10 year old camera?" Perhaps this portrait was shot with a state of the art camera when it was shot, but maybe it was shot ten years ago when the 70-year old president was around 60-years old. Photoshop an American flag in the background and paste a very off color image of the White House and you have an official portrait of a 70-year old president shot when he was 60

I'd wager you are right - this was shot ten years ago and has been created from multiple shots.

[Tringa]

It seems odd that almost all of the exif data for the shot is available but not when it was taken. However, I'm guessing if it is a composite image, which appears likely, then I think date info would not be available.

Dave

PS Just a quick vote for Jared Polin in the "Most annoying presenter" competition.

[William W]

It seems odd that almost all of the exif data for the shot is available but not when it was taken. However, I'm guessing if it is a composite image, which appears likely, then I think date info would not be available.

I don’t understand how a Composite Image could have ANY ‘original’ EXIF data.

When a Final Image is made as a "Composite Image", how is the EXIF data for that final composite image attained?

What I mean is: Of the two or more images used to make the Composite Shot, from which image file is the 'final' EXIF data extracted - or is the EXIF data for the Composite Inmage simply concocted?

If the image does have what appears to be un-compromised EXIF data, then I think that would tend to imply it NOT being a Composite Image.

WW