Been meaning to create a thread on amateur photography, but recently had the idea of photojournalism as related to politics and major issues. An excellent photo can move people into taking action. A captivating photo can be a story, even if unintended, onto itself. Having a critical eye when viewing a photo can give the viewer a deeper appreciation and understanding of an issue. How a photo is framed, the time of day the photo is taken, the angle of the light upon the subject, whether the background is focused can greatly change viewer perceptions even if the subject and background are otherwise exactly the same. Picture this: A photojournalist is doing a story on the hopelessness of poverty and is looking attract public attention spending to address it. An effective photo might be a black and white photo taken near noon for high contrast, side lighting on their subject’s face to add texture to their face’s worry lines, and the background in focus showing garbage in the street. Conversely, a public relations piece for a slumlord might include a color photo taken near sunset for warm colors and greater dynamic range, the background out of focus effectively creating a 3D effect on the person being photographed, with direct lighting applied, complementing the subject’s appearance. Could be otherwise the exact same location the first picture was taken, but with the opposite story being told. I will post examples of award winning photographs as well as my own work and commentary using semi-pro equipment from time to time. A critical eye on photographs can make it easier to discern propaganda, help effectively convey your own ideas, or to see a story within a story that might have otherwise slipped by.
Now that you bring that up, I noticed this on a picture a few weeks back that @UsualName posted. This particular version of the picture came off of Google just now, but the one he posted has much higher resolution. I just didn't feel like looking for it. Point is, ignore the 1980's phone, but what I want to know is what that green X with electrical tape is on the floor for. And it's not for the maids to center the chair, it's offset if you use the grout lines to align the table relative to that mark. Hey... you brought it up lol.. I can't help it what I notice in pictures. I always notice the most obscure details in things, and this one piqued my curiosity. Why is that on the floor?
A picture says a thousand words so maybe we could have some 90% off pictures? Madison Cawthorn at the orgy in a costume. Theres an obscure Stevie Nicks link.
Sir Vanzandt, you picked a great photo to use as an example of piss poor photojournalism, in my rank amateur opinion. If the tape on the floor is blue tape, it is more likely to have been put there by a photographer to mark the front of their tripod or a lighting fixture, not that I would necessarily be one to use a tripod here. Blue tape is known for not leaving a sticky residue and can be useful in securing electrical wires and attaching gel filters to name a few of many uses, besides marking locations. As far as the photojournalistic potential of this setup or as seen by pictures produced involving the long table, it is low. Very low. Using a full frame, 35mm camera sensor as a reference, the go to lens for photojournalism is the 35 mm. This normal to somewhat wide lens allows the photographer to capture the subject interacting with something in the scene, at typical camera to subject distances. That something may be a person, a meal, or something the subject is building. A key to creating powerful photo using this lens and especially wide angle lenses, is to get close to the subject. May not be easy when your subject is Putin, and I can well image a photographer feeling intimidated giving orders to the most alpha male leader of the major powers, but too bad. I believe a photographer has the authority and obligation to his subject and audience to create quality, impactful photographs. If I were sent to do a political hit piece on a subject, I could not ask for a much better setting than the one shown in the photograph you attached. There is little to no gravitas that can be conveyed by the people potentially in the scene. Most leaders want it shown they are in charge and are handing things professionally. Getting up close can do that. Taking many pictures helps as does a photographer who frequently adjusts his position according to the movements of his subject and what he wants to convey. I see a photojournalist as someone who can communicate effectively and assertively in convincing his subject and the photographer have the shared interest in creating great photographs and as someone who knows how to do this, the photographer needs to take the lead. In other words, Putin was short changed by his weak photographer(s), in my opinion. I wonder who else has screwed Putin through their timidness?
Stevie Nicks of legend used to have her cocaine blown up her ass, to protect the voice presumably. Madison at Mitch McConnells drug fuelled all reptile orgies, probably not for that specific reason.