Official Release of Presidential Portrait

[rufus5150]

That was me

 

[SlimPaul]

It's because they used canon

 

[JerryPH]

My opinion? Boring. A man standing in front of a white wall covered by a partial US flag or 2... yawn!

Better location or angle, more flag, shallower DOF and more dramatic creative lighting.

This is the President of the USA, for pete's sake... not your Uncle Ralph.

I'm not impressed.

 

[dEARlEADER]

**yawn**

 

[bigtwinky]

I think the white balance is off.






Sorry, couldn't resist... its just a joke, nothing more :lmao::lmao:

 

[iflynething]

White balance is definitly off.

second yawn.

Wonder what a Nikon shot would look like?

No matter who is in the picture, a photo can always be critiqued. If we had a portrait of Jesus, it would probably be critiqued

~Michael~

 

[JerryPH]

White balance is definitly off.

Are you sure? If your monitor is not calibrated, thats impossible to say with any accuracy.

Wonder what a Nikon shot would look like?

Identical. These are all "person behind the lens" errors, nothing brand related.

If we had a portrait of Jesus, it would probably be critiqued

Yeah, but I would be on my knees begging forgiveness at the time while doing it.

 

[craig]

That was me

You are right sir. Rufus corrected my mistake it was Comander in Chief as opposed to chief of staff.

Love & Bass

 

[iflynething]

Are you sure? If your monitor is not calibrated, thats impossible to say with any accuracy.



Identical. These are all "person behind the lens" errors, nothing brand related.



Yeah, but I would be on my knees begging forgiveness at the time while doing it.

I was going along with the white balance joke!

It's up to the photo forum to critique everything!

~Michael~

 

[monkeykoder]

It does the job no more no less.

 

[bigtwinky]

Are you sure? If your monitor is not calibrated, thats impossible to say with any accuracy.

It was an attempt at humour.... white balance, first black President... ya know... haha?

:lmao:

 

[Garbz]

That's obviously not true, I have seen so many better portraits then this one.

In your opinion. What about Obama's opinion? Did you ask him? I think you entirely missed the point of my post.

And to use your own words "The subjective opinions applied to the critique of art are meaningless... all the time." I strongly disagree, if it were true then this site would have no meaning at all. If you truly believe that then I wonder why your on here?

Share opinions yes, but to the photographer and to the people who matter. Obama may think it's the best photo he's ever seen. In my opinion he would be wrong and the photo is crap, but again you missed my point. There's no point saying it's a bad photo because we don't know if Obama likes it or not. If he likes it, then the photo has fulfilled it's purpose and thus is not a bad photo.

Our opinions don't count here because we are talking to neither the subject nor the photograher, instead just whinging amongst ourselves about how poor the photo is.

 

[jstuedle]

Interesting.
Newsmax.com - AP, Reuters, AFP Refuse to Distribute Obama White House Photo

 

[usayit]

Interesting indeed.... I wasn't aware that the oval office was considered accessible by the press.