Fauxtographer Ruins Olympic photos.

[Kernuak]

In recent years, there has been an increasing opinion by the masses, that anyone can get shots as good as professionals, if they have the right gear. This has been one of the drivers towards the slashing of budgets by (or for) photo editors. Yes, the recession has played its part, but how many previous recessions have resulted in photo editors trying to do things on the cheap? The digital age has certainly played its part in the exposure of photography, allowing people to take photographs with good gear to an extent that wasn't previously possible, but this has led to a number of myths and misconceptions. Perhaps this incident will act as a wake up call to photo editors and to organisers of such shoots, that the results achieved are important and to get good results, you have to have the proper planning and expertise. You may not have to have formal qualifications to get memorable photographs on a regular basis (as opposed to one-offs), but you certainly need to gain experience through hard work and practice and above all overall talent. Hopefully, it will make those in charge of budgets, that it is in their interests to pay for the level of photography that is needed, you get what you pay for and ultimately quality is what sells. If you have better imagery than your competitor magazines (for example), then provided the content is what the potential customers want, then you have an advantage.

 

[zim]

http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/?post/2012/07/05/Pixels-and-piety%3A-Photographing-Olympic-icons

Some people posting comments on the Web seemed to get it. “I am not a professional photographer,” ‘jhydrazi’, began somewhat apologetically on reddit.com. “But these images are not bad… In fact, they have a quality that makes them feel real. REAL.”

hahahahahahahahahahahaha...........

“This is a whole other millennium,” said another comment, rather dramatically. “We don’t have to accept the airbrushed, Photoshopped concept of beauty any more. Photographers and art directors have done that forever, and lots of us would rather see what actually happened in front of the lens.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.........

I love the interweb

Aparently you're all wrong these are good honest pics, it's the subjects that are ugly

 

[Kernuak]

http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/?post/2012/07/05/Pixels-and-piety%3A-Photographing-Olympic-icons

Some people posting comments on the Web seemed to get it. “I am not a professional photographer,” ‘jhydrazi’, began somewhat apologetically on reddit.com. “But these images are not bad… In fact, they have a quality that makes them feel real. REAL.”

hahahahahahahahahahahaha...........

“This is a whole other millennium,” said another comment, rather dramatically. “We don’t have to accept the airbrushed, Photoshopped concept of beauty any more. Photographers and art directors have done that forever, and lots of us would rather see what actually happened in front of the lens.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.........

I love the interweb

Aparently you're all wrong these are good honest pics, it's the subjects that are ugly

And therein lies the problem. The public have become so used to seeing airbrushed photos, they think that is the only way that decent photos are produced. I've had a few people ask me (or someone where my photos were for sale) what I did to them to get the results. The fact is, call me old fashioned, but I like to get things right in camera as much as possible, rather than spend hours fixing what I got wrong. The heavy manipulation will ultimately damage photography as an art form if we aren't careful. There's nothing wrong with manipulation in the right circumstances, but in my opinion it should be declared and sold as digital art, not photography. There are moves now to declare when portraits have been airbrushed, but it's slow in being adopted from what I can see.

 

[distant.star]

.

There may be hope yet.

Wednesday I was shooting the local parade and a remembrance event. I kept bumping heads with another photographer. I didn't know him -- all I knew was he had a Nikon D3 and a lens as long as three Philly cheesesteaks. We were both on the same shots, same POV, etc.

The next day I saw his pictures on the Web site of the local newspaper. They were outstanding. I had no idea that publication actually used a real photographer. After some research I learned he did mostly sports shooting for them, so I'd never seen his work before.

Nice to know at least one newspaper is using a real photographer. Maybe the idea will spread!

In recent years, there has been an increasing opinion by the masses, that anyone can get shots as good as professionals, if they have the right gear. This has been one of the drivers towards the slashing of budgets by (or for) photo editors. Yes, the recession has played its part, but how many previous recessions have resulted in photo editors trying to do things on the cheap? The digital age has certainly played its part in the exposure of photography, allowing people to take photographs with good gear to an extent that wasn't previously possible, but this has led to a number of myths and misconceptions. Perhaps this incident will act as a wake up call to photo editors and to organisers of such shoots, that the results achieved are important and to get good results, you have to have the proper planning and expertise. You may not have to have formal qualifications to get memorable photographs on a regular basis (as opposed to one-offs), but you certainly need to gain experience through hard work and practice and above all overall talent. Hopefully, it will make those in charge of budgets, that it is in their interests to pay for the level of photography that is needed, you get what you pay for and ultimately quality is what sells. If you have better imagery than your competitor magazines (for example), then provided the content is what the potential customers want, then you have an advantage.

 

[infilm]

It's very easy to criticise these photos from the armchair. Clearly the photog did not have enough time to make decent looking images and has limited experience on posing people (the 'dive' shot, anyone? ???).

I feel sorry for him for the results of this shoot. He was probably rushed off his feet and stressed by people who have unrealistic expectations when someone more experienced/established (somebody mentioned Joe McNally) would probably have answered back along the lines of "Hang on... you're not going to get a portrait from me within 60 seconds."

The photographer probably decided it was better to have tripe than to have nothing. Hopefully he will learn from this assignment and it won't ruin his career too much.

Rushed or not, if you are a real pro you create the time to make a good image. I don't agree that this person was rushed at all. This guy just don't know how to create a good portrait. Every image has serious lighting or composition flaws. Very poor.

 

[FunPhotons]

It's very easy to criticise these photos from the armchair. Clearly the photog did not have enough time to make decent looking images and has limited experience on posing people (the 'dive' shot, anyone? ???).

I feel sorry for him for the results of this shoot. He was probably rushed off his feet and stressed by people who have unrealistic expectations when someone more experienced/established ...

Armchair photogs indeed! OK critics, you have five minutes to set up your shoot, what would you do? And enlighten us specifically on how he screwed up.

To the one who could do better with an iPad-show us.

 

[infilm]

The photographer explains his actions here.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/06/photographer-joe-klamar-explains-his-controversial-olympic-portraits/

Preparation is key.

His own explanation shows a full failure. "I was under the impression that I was going to be photographing athletes on a stage or during press conference where I would take their headshots for our archives,” He knew that he was going to be taking portraits "for archives" and he brought a wide zoom a long zoom a 300 and a flash. Even knowing what he was to shoot he brought the wrong equipment. Poor lens choices and not enough lighting gear.

 

[infilm]

I think it is interesting that they keep talking about 100 athletes in 3 days. There are many of us out there that shoot individual/team photos that eclipse that number in an afternoon. He said he had a days notice...so he should have dropped everything, researched and gotten prepared. He wasn't asked to shoot the local baseball league...this was the Olympic team...you drop everything...immediately. And take every piece of gear you have. When I go on a shoot for team sports, I am bring 5 strobes (I use 2) and 3 small flashes, 3 bodies and every lens I have in addition to light modifiers, remotes, etc. and I get asked why I bring so much gear to "take a picture"...and my reply is because "it's the gear I don't realize I need till I get there". It is more work lugging that stuff but better to have the gear and be prepared than to make excuses.

It is easy to sit back and say "I could have done better"...but stop and think about everything involved from the environment to the other photogs, to dealing with the athletes, the stress, among other things. I can only imagine that sick feeling this poor guy has. But I bet you he will never go into a situation unprepared again. That's if this episode doesn't ruin him.

+1 to you

 

[Kernuak]

.

There may be hope yet.

Wednesday I was shooting the local parade and a remembrance event. I kept bumping heads with another photographer. I didn't know him -- all I knew was he had a Nikon D3 and a lens as long as three Philly cheesesteaks. We were both on the same shots, same POV, etc.

The next day I saw his pictures on the Web site of the local newspaper. They were outstanding. I had no idea that publication actually used a real photographer. After some research I learned he did mostly sports shooting for them, so I'd never seen his work before.

Nice to know at least one newspaper is using a real photographer. Maybe the idea will spread!

In recent years, there has been an increasing opinion by the masses, that anyone can get shots as good as professionals, if they have the right gear. This has been one of the drivers towards the slashing of budgets by (or for) photo editors. Yes, the recession has played its part, but how many previous recessions have resulted in photo editors trying to do things on the cheap? The digital age has certainly played its part in the exposure of photography, allowing people to take photographs with good gear to an extent that wasn't previously possible, but this has led to a number of myths and misconceptions. Perhaps this incident will act as a wake up call to photo editors and to organisers of such shoots, that the results achieved are important and to get good results, you have to have the proper planning and expertise. You may not have to have formal qualifications to get memorable photographs on a regular basis (as opposed to one-offs), but you certainly need to gain experience through hard work and practice and above all overall talent. Hopefully, it will make those in charge of budgets, that it is in their interests to pay for the level of photography that is needed, you get what you pay for and ultimately quality is what sells. If you have better imagery than your competitor magazines (for example), then provided the content is what the potential customers want, then you have an advantage.

It's good to know that some publications are using good photographers, instead of trying to pay peanuts on microstock sites to get the images they are looking for or paying someone with little or no experience.

 

[picturesbyme]

It's good to know that some publications are using good photographers, instead of trying to pay peanuts on microstock sites to get the images they are looking for or paying someone with little or no experience.

Yes, that's nice but just to be in the clear, most microstock sites have awesome photos.
On the other hand I don't agree with the 25 cents / image price either but that's another thing...

 

[Kernuak]

It's good to know that some publications are using good photographers, instead of trying to pay peanuts on microstock sites to get the images they are looking for or paying someone with little or no experience.

Yes, that's nice but just to be in the clear, most microstock sites have awesome photos.
On the other hand I don't agree with the 25 cents / image price either but that's another thing...

I wouldn't disagree with that, after all, they have some of the most stringent QA. However, it is a reflection of modern culture, that people seem to want something for nothing and amateur photographers, while many are of a very high standard, as high or higher than many pros, they don't have the same business acumen, which affects not just them, but the industry as a whole. This invites the exploitation and I disagree with large multi-million corporations getting high quality images for peanuts. When they run a high profile ad campaign using a string of 25 cent images and make millions from that campaign, there is somethin wrong somewhere. We all have to accept it, but we don't have to like it.

 

[And-Rew]

However you look at these images, they are not what you would expect for a national Olympic team.
The UK Olympic team photos pretty much look stunning, and if the team performs as well as the images look, the UK may even get some gold medals!

 

[wickidwombat]

It's very easy to criticise these photos from the armchair. Clearly the photog did not have enough time to make decent looking images and has limited experience on posing people (the 'dive' shot, anyone? ???).

I feel sorry for him for the results of this shoot. He was probably rushed off his feet and stressed by people who have unrealistic expectations when someone more experienced/established ...

Armchair photogs indeed! OK critics, you have five minutes to set up your shoot, what would you do? And enlighten us specifically on how he screwed up.

To the one who could do better with an iPad-show us.

ok given the equipment he says he had
and only 1 speedlight this is how i would have set up

first i would have not bothereed with that ripped and shredded white paper
I would have decided that every shot would be a low key rim lit shot at least then the whole lot would look like a coherant series

easily set that up in 5 mins

found the darkest corner of the room and setup accordingly with the 1 speedlight fireing way from the athlete and angled just enough for the spill light to give a nice side rimlight but still picking up features so more of a sidelight but angels away so the full flash isnt lighting the subject up too much, easy to adjust untill its just right then you get everyone to stand in the same spot

i would have scrounged up some black card or something to help shape the light to avoid spill

probably be shooting at f16 just shoot the flash on manual and have the models pose to look a little more substantial and imposing probably shooting from below their eyeline get a few different safe poses done and not bothered with all the silly poses. I would probably have only bothered shooting with the 70-200 out of the lenses he had although I take a 50mm prime everywhere i go so in reality if it was me i would have had that lens with me and would have just shot that

i'm assuming he had a full frame camera, if he only had a crop then the 17-35 would have been the weapon of choice but used at the long end I'm also guessing he was shooting nikon

I think the pictures clearly indicate he has no experience with posing people, let alone shooting any kind of studio setup. The compositions are woefull and the lighting is god awefull any first year photography student could do a significantly better job with the gear and time he had

 

[Daniel Flather]

If we knew the whole story, opinions would change.

 

[bdunbar79]

If we knew the whole story, opinions would change.

+1