White House could use a new photographer

[chauncey]

Leaves a lot to be desired...http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...ys9?li=BBnbfcL

[William W]

Leaves a lot to be desired...

Specifically where do you think that it falls short?

It is a reasonably aggressive pose, which arguably shakes off the previous "model" image.

"Front On" is typically a masculine pose, as are arms crossed (i.e. NOT reserved for portraits of Males, but an adjective describing the pose).

There is a defined connectivity into the Camera and that certainly renders an active positive communication.

Whilst the arms are folded it occurs that, that is NOT defensive - her hands and fingers play a large part of the composition and within those are clearly evidenced "wife, mother and partner".

Black ensemble cropped/framed at hips allows more of the personality to speak rather than the Subject to be viewed.

Technically the Geometry of the OoF Background leads the viewer's eye classically Left to Right and directly into the Subject's gaze. The fill light is simple - and simple is good.

Probably not going to win a Pulitzer over there nor a Walkley over here: but I would be interested to read opinions (especially yours) on how exactly it "leaves a lot to be desired".

I think it would tick many of the boxes in what would be the check list for the first "official" portrait to be released.

WW

[chauncey]

Tis the background that really gnaws at me.

[lunaticitizen]

The image from the official White House website is much better.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administr...-melania-trump

The one from MSN ... maybe the transcoding was bad. It isn't sharp at all.

[Mike Buckley]

I rather like the background.

For a better display of the image, a comparison with the official White House images of the previous two First Ladies, and for a guessing game about who actually made the photo, see this.

[William W]

The image from the official White House website is much better.

Indeed.

Thanks - I am now looking at that one on a 36 inch studio monitor - it is crisper.

***

Thanks for replying Wm C. -

I still think that the B/G works.

WW

[zen]

The entire shot looks good to me.

Zen

[Manfred M]

+1 to Bill's comments. I think the image is well done and the background is quite effective. I would have preferred something other than a straight on shot, but that is just my personal taste.

[arith]

I was thinking, is there any such thing as a bad photograph. No, I'm being silly as usual. The background is a little crappy but where have I seen this look before?

Duffy is brave with that jacket.

http://www.duffyphotographer.com/wp-...ZT_0445_01.jpg

[IzzieK]

I like it...I think this would have been taken in her studio area which she said she is going to have at the WH where the lights will be all good for photography.

[Simon Garrett]

The White House could use a new occupant, too.

[paintingwithlight]

I am not a pro. That being said I prefer images of non-fictional characters to look realistic. IMHO the photo of Melania has the luminance bumped up too high. That coupled with the lack of definition in her hair and outfit does highlight her face (which his good) but, coupled with the luminance makes it look as though I was observing a wax figure of a human through a fog rather than looking at a real person.

[Black Pearl]

Looks like it has been ran through that awful Portrait Professional ( ) Pro software.

[Simon Garrett]

...coupled with the lack of definition in her hair... makes it look as though I was observing a wax figure of a human through a fog rather than looking at a real person.

Agreed. IMHO it's lack of definition in the skin more than the hair.

Most people don't have smooth complexion when viewed close up. For men that's OK - it's "craggy". For women it's regarded as not acceptable, and very often photos have the skin detail reduced. Yes, that's very sexist, but it's what people expect. In this case, I think the smoothing of the skin is overdone.

[zen]

The thing about the photo that has blown up today here in the States is the size of her ring. Worth more than about a dozen of our everyday houses.

Zen

[rpcrowe]

Donald fogged the lens with his hair spray!

[LePetomane]

The White House could use a new occupant, too.

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.

[marlunn]

was expecting to see the strap line - 'because your worth it' or 'Chanel' under it - looks like an advert shot rather than a 'portrait' it tells me she is a professional model but nothing more - not saying thats bad but it felt too much a 'sales shot' to me

[paintingwithlight]

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.

Hi Paul,

I am new to CIC so before replying to your post I went through all the relevant stickies that I could fund under the path Tips & Techniques > General Photography Discussion > White House could use a new photographer. While Simon's comment about the White House needing a new occupant is not a technique or photography tip, I didn't find that it contravenes any CIC policies or guidelines. I therefore find your comment to be harsh and an unnecessary attempt to stifle discussion. As far as I am concerned Simon can continue to freely post his disapproval of any politician.

[xpatUSA]

Hi Paul,

I am new to CIC so before replying to your post I went through all the relevant stickies that I could fund under the path Tips & Techniques > General Photography Discussion > White House could use a new photographer. While Simon's comment about the White House needing a new occupant is not a technique or photography tip, I didn't find that it contravenes any CIC policies or guidelines. I therefore find your comment to be harsh and an unnecessary attempt to stifle discussion.

I found the request "I'm not a moderator but please keep your politics to yourself." to be polite and to the point - no more and no less.