Reading mode: Light Dark

Hasidic Newspaper Photoshops Hillary Clinton from Iconic Photo

Go to last post
JulesJ said:
Thanks Mamallama, you've just reinforced the reason that I have you in my Ignore User list. I thought that I would just see what you had to say this time, I needn't have bothered did I?
Jules
mamallama said:
JulesJ said:
You get Boring Thread of the Month award I reckon.
Click to expand...
About the same boredom level as Cameron's Royal wedding gift. Maybe a little less boredom if you are not a British subject.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mamallama, I am a proud member of JulesC Ignore User list. That is simply his way of having not much to say and losing an argument.

I wish there was a Least Liked list here. I moght be on it , but for sure, I have one solid candidate for it as well.

Rgds
 
I wonder which is the more exclusive club:
that of the Jules Ignorers or the Jules Ignorees?
Marcamera said:
JulesJ said:
Thanks Mamallama, you've just reinforced the reason that I have you in my Ignore User list. I thought that I would just see what you had to say this time, I needn't have bothered did I?
Jules
mamallama said:
JulesJ said:
You get Boring Thread of the Month award I reckon.
Click to expand...
About the same boredom level as Cameron's Royal wedding gift. Maybe a little less boredom if you are not a British subject.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mamallama, I am a proud member of JulesC Ignore User list. That is simply his way of having not much to say and losing an argument.

I wish there was a Least Liked list here. I moght be on it , but for sure, I have one solid candidate for it as well.

Rgds
Click to expand...
 
Nice comments Dennis, whatever she was doing the photographer missed the moment. Which is actually exactly what defines the difference between a good photographer and a person who takes pictures.
Jules
Dennis said:
mamallama said:
There was something more important going on at the time so Pete Sousa didn't have the opportunity to arrange his subjects in the most photographically pleasing poses.
Click to expand...
I've read opinions that this is a great photo, that it will become iconic. If it does, it's because of what's on the monitor they're all looking at, not because of the picture which is mediocre. Its context makes it interesting. That's true of many PJ shots, but in this case, its context will elevate its significance.
Dennis said:
Having said that, I think the photograph captured the tenseness of the event perfectly, Obama leaning forward and Clinton with her hand over her face.
Click to expand...
Clinton was later quoted as saying she was suppressing a cough. (Whether you believe that depends on what her definition of suppressing is ... but it definitely changes the shot dramatically).
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
 
Diopter, newspapers will print anything today, the days of them only using great photos or only reporting news are gone, we all know that. This picture was all they had ad it was relevant and contained some important people to do with the news of the day so they used it. i don't blame them. But a great photo it aint. And that's the gospel truth. If the younguns of today think it is they know doo little.
Jules
Diopter said:
JulesJ said:
There's a very imposing arm or elbow in black top right that does nothing for the image. Plus the blurred top of head bottom left. The light top left is burned out, and in the original Clinton has her hand obscuring her face. There's a bloke looking down, and even Obama has ugly hunched shoulders. Having been in portrait photography for thirty years I wouldn't shout about this one if I'd taken it.
Jules
Click to expand...
... and the object on the bottom left, and 30% of the image with the do-nothing wall, and selection of the not wide enough lens, and position of the camera in the general, etc.

But I would find such critique of the photograph completely pointless , and - first of all - ridiculing myself.

With today methods of photographing Souza must have a few dozens of much photographically interesting files on his HD recording the same situation.

The question is rather why the people shown on the photograph found this particular shot worth public exposure , or who in this room is supposed to be out of the public view.

So: doctoring of this photograph is initiated not by religious extremists. They just added their penny to the story.
(-)
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
 
Robert, which is best, to be talked about or ignored. Who are you anyway, I like my detractors to have a pedigree? :-)
Jules
robert1955 said:
Marcamera said:
JulesJ said:
Thanks Mamallama, you've just reinforced the reason that I have you in my Ignore User list. I thought that I would just see what you had to say this time, I needn't have bothered did I?
Jules
mamallama said:
JulesJ said:
You get Boring Thread of the Month award I reckon.
Click to expand...
About the same boredom level as Cameron's Royal wedding gift. Maybe a little less boredom if you are not a British subject.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Mamallama, I am a proud member of JulesC Ignore User list. That is simply his way of having not much to say and losing an argument.

I wish there was a Least Liked list here. I moght be on it , but for sure, I have one solid candidate for it as well.

Rgds
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
 
Have you noticed the pizza on the computer is blurred out? Top Sectret Pizza.
Jules
Tom C said:
;)



--
Tom
When my bones turn to dust,
and if my CD's didn't rust,
future generations will see my photos
and think that I was nuts.
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
 
JulesJ said:
Robert, which is best, to be talked about or ignored. Who are you anyway, I like my detractors to have a pedigree? :-)
Click to expand...
Typical British attitude. No wonder the British Monarchy is still around. :)

--mamallama
 
She is Audrey Tomason - Director for Counterterrorism for the National Security Council.
JulesJ said:
She was just the tea lady popping in to ask for orders I think. No need to keep her in.
Jules
JustaBhoy said:
They also appear to have removed the woman at the back of the room as well.
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
Click to expand...
 
Tom C said:
;)



--
Tom
When my bones turn to dust,
and if my CD's didn't rust,
future generations will see my photos
and think that I was nuts.
Click to expand...
This cracked me up.
 
Dennis said:
I've read opinions that this is a great photo, that it will become iconic. If it does, it's because of what's on the monitor they're all looking at, not because of the picture which is mediocre. Its context makes it interesting. That's true of many PJ shots, but in this case, its context will elevate its significance.
Dennis said:
Having said that, I think the photograph captured the tenseness of the event perfectly, Obama leaning forward and Clinton with her hand over her face.
Click to expand...
Clinton was later quoted as saying she was suppressing a cough. (Whether you believe that depends on what her definition of suppressing is ... but it definitely changes the shot dramatically).
  • Dennis
Click to expand...
I agree, it will become iconic. And it absolutely doesn´t matter if this is a good photograph or not, thinking of composition, exposure or whatever, absolutely unimportant.

What makes it important and iconic is the fact that this is the first example of Washington´s new communications strategy, not showing the dirty reality of this "war against terror", violence, blood and the actual killing, but showing the government "at work", doing their part of the job in this "war against terror". Very smart move!

We don´t see soldiers killing Osama (what many expected to see), but we see those responsible for the killing watching the action on a monitor and we see the reactions in their faces. What is actually going on is all up to the imagination of the viewer.

Can´t remember now who said it, but this seems to be a very common element of ancient Greek theatre performances; parts of the plot that could not be shown on stage were shown by showing the reactions of people that could "see" what was going on by looking over a wall. Really would like to know what educated mind decided to come up with this old idea again; once more, very smart move!

The expressions in the faces: Clinton seems to be an exception here; to me it looks as if she is really shocked seeing what is going on, what "Let´s kill Osama" actually means. Might be her reaction is not what a majority like to see and that this is the reason why some obviously preferred not to have her in this image.

Most of the others just look interested, while Obama really looks very tense and concentrated; being the boss he will be in trouble more than all the others when this mission fails.

René
 
René Schuster said:
Dennis said:
I've read opinions that this is a great photo, that it will become iconic. If it does, it's because of what's on the monitor they're all looking at, not because of the picture which is mediocre. Its context makes it interesting. That's true of many PJ shots, but in this case, its context will elevate its significance.
René Schuster said:
Having said that, I think the photograph captured the tenseness of the event perfectly, Obama leaning forward and Clinton with her hand over her face.
Click to expand...
Clinton was later quoted as saying she was suppressing a cough. (Whether you believe that depends on what her definition of suppressing is ... but it definitely changes the shot dramatically).
  • Dennis
Click to expand...
I agree, it will become iconic. And it absolutely doesn´t matter if this is a good photograph or not, thinking of composition, exposure or whatever, absolutely unimportant.

What makes it important and iconic is the fact that this is the first example of Washington´s new communications strategy, not showing the dirty reality of this "war against terror", violence, blood and the actual killing, but showing the government "at work", doing their part of the job in this "war against terror". Very smart move!

We don´t see soldiers killing Osama (what many expected to see), but we see those responsible for the killing watching the action on a monitor and we see the reactions in their faces. What is actually going on is all up to the imagination of the viewer.

Can´t remember now who said it, but this seems to be a very common element of ancient Greek theatre performances; parts of the plot that could not be shown on stage were shown by showing the reactions of people that could "see" what was going on by looking over a wall. Really would like to know what educated mind decided to come up with this old idea again; once more, very smart move!

The expressions in the faces: Clinton seems to be an exception here; to me it looks as if she is really shocked seeing what is going on, what "Let´s kill Osama" actually means. Might be her reaction is not what a majority like to see and that this is the reason why some obviously preferred not to have her in this image.

Most of the others just look interested, while Obama really looks very tense and concentrated; being the boss he will be in trouble more than all the others when this mission fails.
Click to expand...
Agree. Over time, this picture may become as iconic for the war on terror as Joe Rosenthal's picture of the flag raising on Iwo Jima is for WWII. The expressions on the faces tell it all.

Just think, it was a make or break and defining situation for Obama's presidency. Had it not succeeded, Obama would have put in the same class as other Democratic presidents for making bad decisions like in the Bay of Pigs and Failed Rescue of American Hostages in Iran. Now you know why he was sitting at the edge of his chair. He's either lucky, or good, or both.

--mamallama
 
René Schuster said:
What makes it important and iconic is the fact that this is the first example of Washington´s new communications strategy, not showing the dirty reality of this "war against terror", violence, blood and the actual killing, but showing the government "at work", doing their part of the job in this "war against terror". Very smart move!
Click to expand...
The problem is, the photograph is universally meaningless without a caption.

It can say as well:
  • The President's inner circle is watching Arnold and Maria domestic dispute,
  • or Michael Jackson autopsy,
  • or even: Malia and Sasha playing soccer
You call it a "smart move". Maybe ...
(-)
 
I appears to be the Osama's (not so secret) hideout... Well, it's not anymore since they found him. :-) It was published in the newspapers and online as well.

--
Never buy version 1.0 of anything.
 
as all photographic manipulation
antoineb said:
we all know there exist various sects, we know that when those sects refer to the same Book, they tend to find complex intellectual reasonings to justify the way they do things, even if it might "seem" to be against that Book.

but doest it MATTER? Not in the least.

it is just an amusing anecdote.
Click to expand...
 
...to avoid arousing the men in the room.

Then her photo could have been properly printed.

I think your outrage would have been more appropriate had this been some mainstream newspaper, rather than a highly specialized one that caters to a orthodox fundamentalist religious group.

They have their own customs and beliefs, and are entitled to practice them whether we agree with them or not.

In the larger scheme of things the reluctance to print images of women is a relatively minor offense. In fact, it seems almost harmless and quaint when you compare it to global rioting by Moslems protesting the printing of political cartoons featuring Mohammed. Over 100 people died due to those riots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

 
question is: does it change anything to history, whether Hillary was sitting there, or not? Nope. It doesn't matter in the least who was sitting there. So it's a detail.

if a sect decides they don't want to show women, or men, or older people, or younger people - so be it, they're free to do so.

it remains amusing though
 
I'm glad it is and proud of it. Your intended abuse is in fact taken as praise although I don't see any connection in your drivel. Our royalty comes up too often on this forum and has no place here so shall we let your jealousy rest?
jules

Jules
mamallama said:
JulesJ said:
Robert, which is best, to be talked about or ignored. Who are you anyway, I like my detractors to have a pedigree? :-)
Click to expand...
Typical British attitude. No wonder the British Monarchy is still around. :)

--mamallama
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
 
Rene. Earmark your diary and let's reopen this thread in a year from now. I will bet that the picture has not gained any iconic place. It's a throwaway image, any editor knows that.
Jules
René Schuster said:
Dennis said:
I've read opinions that this is a great photo, that it will become iconic. If it does, it's because of what's on the monitor they're all looking at, not because of the picture which is mediocre. Its context makes it interesting. That's true of many PJ shots, but in this case, its context will elevate its significance.
René Schuster said:
Having said that, I think the photograph captured the tenseness of the event perfectly, Obama leaning forward and Clinton with her hand over her face.
Click to expand...
Clinton was later quoted as saying she was suppressing a cough. (Whether you believe that depends on what her definition of suppressing is ... but it definitely changes the shot dramatically).
  • Dennis
Click to expand...
I agree, it will become iconic. And it absolutely doesn´t matter if this is a good photograph or not, thinking of composition, exposure or whatever, absolutely unimportant.

What makes it important and iconic is the fact that this is the first example of Washington´s new communications strategy, not showing the dirty reality of this "war against terror", violence, blood and the actual killing, but showing the government "at work", doing their part of the job in this "war against terror". Very smart move!

We don´t see soldiers killing Osama (what many expected to see), but we see those responsible for the killing watching the action on a monitor and we see the reactions in their faces. What is actually going on is all up to the imagination of the viewer.

Can´t remember now who said it, but this seems to be a very common element of ancient Greek theatre performances; parts of the plot that could not be shown on stage were shown by showing the reactions of people that could "see" what was going on by looking over a wall. Really would like to know what educated mind decided to come up with this old idea again; once more, very smart move!

The expressions in the faces: Clinton seems to be an exception here; to me it looks as if she is really shocked seeing what is going on, what "Let´s kill Osama" actually means. Might be her reaction is not what a majority like to see and that this is the reason why some obviously preferred not to have her in this image.

Most of the others just look interested, while Obama really looks very tense and concentrated; being the boss he will be in trouble more than all the others when this mission fails.

René
Click to expand...
--
Julesarnia on twitter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top