Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521910/Behind-scenes-photos-reveal-George-W-Bush-proudly-showing-artwork-dining-Obamas-Air-Force-One-journey-South-Africa.html

 

Really surprised at the quality of these images released as official by the White House. Most of them wouldn't pass Alamy QC.

 

The worst one is the presidents coming down the plane steps with not one area in focus.

 

I know the press in the USA are having a battle at the moment with photography access being limited and being forced to take handouts from Pete and his team. I'm not sure if they are having a laugh at it by releasing these bad images?

 

Pete Souza is a great photographer so I'm surprised at the lack of quality in these 'snapshots' (as that is what they look like).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of those look like colour-unmanaged frame grabs from video. Pretty ropey. If he had faulty kit, surely his spare body couldn't have been defective as well.

Those ones on the plane look particularly unconsidered. I wonder if he crapped out and some staffer's phone snaps got promoted.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares?

 

Haven't you guys got anything better to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521910/Behind-scenes-photos-reveal-George-W-Bush-proudly-showing-artwork-dining-Obamas-Air-Force-One-journey-South-Africa.html

 

Really surprised at the quality of these images released as official by the White House. Most of them wouldn't pass Alamy QC.

 

The worst one is the presidents coming down the plane steps with not one area in focus.

 

I know the press in the USA are having a battle at the moment with photography access being limited and being forced to take handouts from Pete and his team. I'm not sure if they are having a laugh at it by releasing these bad images?

 

Pete Souza is a great photographer so I'm surprised at the lack of quality in these 'snapshots' (as that is what they look like).

If Alamy had a chance to get these images exclusively they would be very happy.

Of course they wouldn't pass QC.

They would bypass QC as news images or even 'reportage' if submitted later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better to do than spending a few minutes looking at what ought to be exemplary photographs of a very high- profile subject? No.

It's usual here to discuss high-profile professional images without criticism from someone who obviously doesn't have better things to do than dish out silly red arrows.

I though I didn't care but I obviously do. I shan't be small-minded enough to retaliate.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better to do than spending a few minutes looking at what ought to be exemplary photographs of a very high- profile subject? No.

 

It's usual here to discuss high-profile professional images without criticism from someone who obviously doesn't have better things to do than dish out silly red arrows.

I though I didn't care but I obviously do. I shan't be small-minded enough to retaliate.

"High-profile professional images" ???

The Daily Mail and the rest of "news" media will use any image that they can get for free or little cost.

As you will see from a cursory glance at "news" websites these days the use of imagery is pretty mundane and sourced for free or cheaply.

The days of professionally taken images used in "news" media are almost gone.

That is why I made my initial comment - "Who cares?" - since the whole shower depresses me.  

 

regards

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that was the point, these were supposed to be professional images and they looked like they'd been taken with a ten-year-old phone.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that was the point, these were supposed to be professional images and they looked like they'd been taken with a ten-year-old phone.

Who says they were "supposed to be professional images" ?

Just because the images were used doesn't make them "professional" apart from the fact that they were (maybe) paid for.

My point is that the old standards of professionalism have gone now and nobody except the professional photographer gives a monkey's. Certainly the general public doesn't.

Look at the way the BBC, for example, encourages the public to send in images and other content ... for free! Unbelievable. But they do and it is used extensively. No money, little or no checking the veracity of material.

 

best

Richard 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the funny thing is that some official White House photos do have to pass QC, they have 2,227 images on Alamy.  I wonder who gets paid as a result of a sale?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the funny thing is that some official White House photos do have to pass QC, they have 2,227 images on Alamy.  I wonder who gets paid as a result of a sale?

I doubt that they do.

Alamy would take all the "official White House  photos" as given from press office or agency supplying them. 

Can you imagine Alamy rejecting such material for the News Feed? 

Don't think so.

Payment? Doubt that too. Maybe an agency fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Pete Souza is an accomplished  photojournalist and photography teacher. I remember him from the 90s in Chicago and shot along side him when he was on assignment with the Tribune.

 

He probably got stuck using available light with his smart phone or an iPad so the photos could be serviced right away.

 

Here is Souza's wikipage;he's no slacker.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Souza

 

L

Edited by Linda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the Government get a tax form at the end of the year for photo sales from agencies and who do they pay taxes to or what government fund does it go into?

 

Does the Gov even have a tax ID as a business? 

Never thought about these things before.

 

Just curious.

 

L

Edited by Linda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Pete Souza is an accomplished  photojournalist and photography teacher. I remember him from the 90s in Chicago and shot along side him when he was on assignment with the Tribune.

 

He probably got stuck using available light with his smart phone or an iPad so the photos could be serviced right away.

 

Here is Souza's wikipage;he's no slacker.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Souza

 

L

 

That was my point Linda. Pete is a very good photographer and even with a smartphone would make decent Images. He goes everywhere with the president to record historical events and has the best of gear at his disposal so wouldn't need to resort to a smartphone.

 

He won't be restricted with the amount of gear he takes on Air Force One like the rest of us on flights.

 

I wonder if it was just a White House staffer who took them and put them out through the normal channels and therefore got Pete's name credited to them?

Edited by Alex Todd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares?

 

Haven't you guys got anything better to do?

 

This forum is called 'Let's Talk About Pics' and I thought these pics were worth talking about.

 

You don't have to join in if you don't care.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 Pete Souza is an accomplished  photojournalist and photography teacher. I remember him from the 90s in Chicago and shot along side him when he was on assignment with the Tribune.

 

He probably got stuck using available light with his smart phone or an iPad so the photos could be serviced right away.

 

Here is Souza's wikipage;he's no slacker.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Souza

 

L

 

That was my point Linda. Pete is a very good photographer and even with a smartphone would make decent Images. He goes everywhere with the president to record historical events and has the best of gear at his disposal so wouldn't need to resort to a smartphone.

 

He won't be restricted with the amount of gear he takes on Air Force One like the rest of us on flights.

 

I wonder if it was just a White House staffer who took them and put them out through the normal channels and therefore got Pete's name credited to them?

 

My older iphone 4 or 4s,whatever I have is not good in low/mixed light and my images would look similar to this. Sad but true. :-( Who knows. I'm sure by the next photo op in a day those photos will be forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've shot next to Pete at fundraisers. I'm pretty sure these aren't his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that major news agencies look too much at pricing. I believe that they look at whether the image fits the story best. On TV and on line, the quality that most agencies require in way overkill. I've seen stunning images on line that would not pass agency technical quality standards. Who is the publishing industry or readers give a toss? I suspect that no publisher checks images at 100% for editorial use. Maybe for commercial use but that is not Alamy's genre.

 

The imaging world is changing so it may be that Alamy needs to review it's QC process to a more contemporary image use scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like it's the newspaper's fault: they seem to have uprezzed these:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/president-obama-attends-nelson-mandela-memorial-service

 

They are not available on the official Flickr stream of the White House (yet).

Afaik all those are properly credited. No photo by another WH photographer gets credited Pete Souza.

All the current official White House Photos that are on Alamy seem to be available on Flickr (where they have created a special some sort of Creative Commons category for them). There are however some older White House photos available on Alamy that were made by the contributors themselves, when they were a WH photographer (like the Clinton photos by Richard Ellis). The rest of the older ones probably come directly or indirectly from the Library of Congress. Different news agencies on Alamy have there own archives (like Interfoto, Ria Novosti and Zuma).

 

wim

 

edit: typo

Edited by wiskerke
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They look a deal better. The Mail must have got them by Morse code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought uprezzed would have shown more pixilation rather than out of focus.

 

They do look better on the official website though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No comparison - well spotted, Wim.

 

How on Earth that newspaper managed to make such a dog's dinner of those images is anybody's guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like it's the newspaper's fault: they seem to have uprezzed these:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/president-obama-attends-nelson-mandela-memorial-service

 

They are not available on the official Flickr stream of the White House (yet).

Afaik all those are properly credited. No photo by another WH photographer gets credited Pete Souza.

All the current official White House Photos that are on Alamy seem to be available on Flickr (where they have created a special some sort of Creative Commons category for them). There are however some older White House photos available on Alamy that were made by the contributors themselves, when they were a WH photographer (like the Clinton photos by Richard Ellis). The rest of the older ones probably come directly or indirectly from the Library of Congress. Different news agencies on Alamy have there own archives (like Interfoto, Ria Novosti and Zuma).

 

wim

 

edit: typo

Good catch. Much better. My bad.

Edited by TABan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought uprezzed would have shown more pixilation rather than out of focus.

 

They do look better on the official website though.

 

I would have thought uprezzed would have shown more pixilation rather than out of focus.

 

They do look better on the official website though.

 

 

I supsect that the ones that  look better on the official website are actually down sized versions of the fuzzy out of focus originals.

Take any high res slightly out of focus image, down size it enough and it will start to look *much* better.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they didn't want people swiping the pics off the site. Deliberately altering them do they loose swipe appeal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.