|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
GJ Canon
The first presidential portrait ever taken with a digital camera. That camera was the 5D Mark II.
ÂÂ
cr
Barack Obama Official Portrait by Canon
Craig is the founder and editorial director for Canon Rumors. He has been writing about all things Canon for more than 17 years. When he's not writing, you can find him shooting professional basketball and travelling the world looking for the next wildlife adventure. The Canon EOS R1 is his camera of choice.
41 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yes, we can! :°)
Nice to know! I’m sure (that) 5Dmk2 version is working fine. May have more patches than what’s on the market.
AWESOME!!!!!
Did you see the info?
He used a 24-105 at 105mm stopped down to f10 @ 1/125 sec and 100 ISO
This should make Canon happy as it will definitely boost their kit pairing reputation.
I thought for sure the new chief photog would have used a 135mmL or the 85mmL
Is it just me, or is that kind of a lame portrait? I don’t like the choice of backgrounds at all. I think they could have done a little better.
But hey, I don’t get paid to do anything camera related.
From the engadget article:
f10 1/125@100 ISO – AND NO FLASH… Um… I don’t think so Tim.
The exif may not register it, but that had a flash.
You can see the umbrella in his eyes.
To see the umbrella look at the full version here:
http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/new_official_portrait_released/
yes,it’s a very lame portrait…very amateur lighting and bland set-up. Using a 24-105 f4 to photograph a president? What was he thinking?!!
I sold that lens because it wasn’t good enough for my line of work, let alone snapping the most iconic president (to be) for the past 50 years! Crazy.
Maybe, to cut the snapper some slack, he probably got the call that the time to do a portrait shot was NOW, and he just wasn’t prepared for it. It looks like he’s had to use a couple of 580EX flashes (light temp is very blue), one in a softbox top left and one set behind for the flag.
Hopefully he’ll get a second stab at it!
omg, BLACK DOTS!!!!
(sorry, couldnt help myself…)
It’s a bit soft…..
I kid, I kid!
That’s a really lame portrait. 24-105 is notoriously softest at 105. It’s not tastefully off center either. Nice to live in America and be able to criticize national portraits. I’m no expert, but I would have at least used the 85 1.8 or the 135 f2. Meh.
Wow, look at all of those black dots on his face. Must not have the firmware upgrade yet!!!
Those who can DO! Those who can’t become critics.
Looks like the lighting setup includes an octabox (not umbrella) and a reflector.
Om M-mode 1/125 with external flash (1/700s) evert picture looks sharp! Even with my 70/300 fout/4-5.6 IS USM its a succes! I agree on the lighting:)
I voted for him, but I do not like this picture of him.
He actually looks kinda funny… I do not like the lighting either, from the flash to the white balance. It just doesn’t look presidential.
It is sharp as a tack! a much larger version is avaiabel online (Click through the engadget story.)
I actually think Canon would be puzzled hgow tomarket this fact, that a 1Ds body wasn’t used… Talk about a pro saying 1Ds is overpriced!
Of course, you woudl think a prime would have been used…
M
A fair amount of criticism for those how have zero idea of the the circumstances surrounding the image.
Imagine…if…every image we now perceive as ‘iconic’ in this day in age….were simply not taken for the fear of criticism in it’s original age?
>Ed Says:
>January 14th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
>Those who can DO! Those who can’t become critics
Precisely. Most of these critics probably cannot even take a half decent portrait shot themselves.
I think it looks good, and sharp enough for anyone
i just saw the original and it looks good
here’s the link: http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/new_official_portrait_released/
I would expect the background to be more in focus, I know that “bokeh” is desired, but come on, it IS the American Flag. He is quite far from the background also….It the very least they could have backed him up, and used the 85mm(my personal pref for portraits. I think an advanced college student would do much better work than this. IMVHO, but you may think differently……
It was lit with an octabank.
You guys realize that he probably took hundreds to have some pr (not artist) person pick the one that would appear. I doubt that they are going for senior photo type stuff here…
On the news last night it was reported that he spent four hours setting up and was only allowed about 5-10 minutes with Obama, whihc is very little time to make sure your subject is properly photographed. (I agree that most pro photographers work fast, but that is too much fast even for something so important.)
M
P.S. Just because so many people critise an image doesn’t mean they do not know how to photograph, it just means a lot of people do not like the image.
It’s an official portrait, which means its’ purpose is very functional–they hang these portraits in federal buildings. It’s not meant to be a work of art. Pure function, nothing more.
Don’t be too picky. It’s an official portrait, which means its’ purpose is very functional–they hang these portraits in federal buildings. It’s not meant to be a work of art. Pure function, nothing more.
Bad picture, bad choice for President!
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
Bigdaddym, if that many people don’t like the image it means it’s bad.
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.
ppdix – Yeah, that is what I said…
M
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.
mediocre portrait…why they could not better photographer. Think about Annie Leibovitz or Bruce Weber etc.
according to the exif the copyright holder is pete souza
http://www.petesouza.com
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.
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”.
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?
it is not creative! nothing special! How can u shoot the president with only the 24-105?
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
Navy photographers in general suck, especially those that can’t spell photographer.
Retired Navy Spellchecker
Okay Genius
Sticks and Stones may break my bones…but spellcheckers will never harm me.
Have a good day
And Jesus Loves You