Comments on: Barack Obama Official Portrait by Canon

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:48:21 +0000

Okay Genius
Sticks and Stones may break my bones…but spellcheckers will never harm me.

Have a good day
And Jesus Loves You

By: Genius McFrog

Genius McFrog — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:30:04 +0000

Navy photographers in general suck, especially those that can’t spell photographer.

Retired Navy Spellchecker

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:28:34 +0000

Not a good quality picture.
Something you find at Kmart Stores!
Lighting is flat like what you use on children, background too bright, the flag should be slightly more behind him.

Since Obama is a tall & skinny fellow, the photographier should have posed him differently by sitting him slightly more square to the camera to give the impression of size.

Really folks I haven’t seen so much wild enthusiasm over a US President since the Beany Baby Craze!

Are we counting our eggs before they hatch?
The guy has been our President less than a week and we are laying on our laurels too soon in my opinion.
This hero worship is giving me heebie geebies.
Remember Obama is a mere man, not the Sun God.

I’m just waiting for pictures like this…

http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/sandrachan/c221106.JPG

Let the guy accomplish his four year term and then we can evaluate his accomplishments.

Counting your eggs before they hatch…is bad juju!

Retired Navy Photographier

By: bryan

bryan — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:57:38 +0000

it is not creative! nothing special! How can u shoot the president with only the 24-105?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:29:57 +0000

In all honesty the sharpness if fine. People moaning about how they would have used a sharper lens, why? You bum the guy so much you want to see the individual pores on his cheek in even more clarity?
What bothers me is everything else. The composition is shocking.
Someone earlier said that he had 4 hours to prepare. Honestly? Most professional get all of about two hours for a shot like this. You sure as hell should have been able to get something better than this in four.

And what’s with all the noise on his jacket? That must just be down to compression, right?

By: Carlos Gin

Carlos Gin — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:47:53 +0000

The derogatory comments are very interesting because it shows much more about the person making them than the subject of the bashing.

Sometimes they become so — let’s say — neurotic that they can’t even be objective and see the big picture. And that’s a way bigger fault than a supposedly “lame lighting” or a “poor lens choice”.

By: Liza Heider

Liza Heider — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 07:02:01 +0000

I think the quality of this image is really nice. Yes, it’s not a breathtaking image, but I like its simplicity and the fact that you can see ever pore of his skin, and all his little grey hairs and the sharpness of his eyes. It gets the job done. This image is not for Vanity Fair or Vogue; it’s merely the official Presidential portrait. I don’t think I have ever seen an amazing presidential portrait taken, but being this is Barack Obama, I think we just want to see the best.

By: photoshooter

photoshooter — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:17:31 +0000

according to the exif the copyright holder is pete souza
http://www.petesouza.com

By: anisha bahar

anisha bahar — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:29:00 +0000

mediocre portrait…why they could not better photographer. Think about Annie Leibovitz or Bruce Weber etc.

By: Peter T.

Peter T. — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:31:01 +0000

Actually, I rather like the portrait. Obama’s relaxed expression, combined with a very determined gaze, sends quite a powerful visual message. The flag being blurred by a shallow DOF is an excellent touch to guide the viewer’s focus to his face. And the angle of his shoulders in relation to the frame and the flag I find quite balanced visually. The choice of a plain background is nice too (a clean, modern look, rather than, say, a jumble of book spines on a shelf).

The only part I don’t like is the grey colour of background. I’m guessing that it was a white background that was lit by the falloff of the key light. To me, it just looks kind of overcast and dull. I think if it was fully lit, it wouldn’t work either (his shirt and the flag’s stripes would blend into the background too much). Maybe using a tinted background might have been a better choice?

Aside from the background colour, I do like the portrait.

By: BigDaddyM

BigDaddyM — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:15:34 +0000

ppdix – Yeah, that is what I said…
M

By: Tomas

Tomas — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:22:08 +0000

Oh he must have been so short of time. Posing is probably the worst in this photo. I would expect his body lean towards the centre of the frame rather than just fall out to the right while keeping his head so straight. The flag could be set up in a more careful way I suppose.
The lens looks sharp, but I would have used 100mm macro USM at 5.6, which works great for portraits like this. That huge black spot on his face definitely needed some attention before the session.

Oh well, better luck next time.

By: ppdix

ppdix — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:52:47 +0000

Bigdaddym, if that many people don’t like the image it means it’s bad.

By: ppdix

ppdix — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:51:13 +0000

One of The worst portraits I’ve ever seen. The lighting is crap and the framing worse. The photo has no character and no DOF.
Probably Canon paid to use the 5D2 kit and boost sales.
Very sad, indeed