Olympic Photo Outrage?

[CameraMan]

I said I liked the comment. Not I live by that comment. I have tons of stuff too. I'd need a cargo van just to haul all of that stuff around.

[primoz]

There is most likely something more behind all this, then most/all of you guys see and realize When I saw these portraits first, I said to myself "that's typical Joe. Nothing what you would normally expect from standard coverage of such events". Joe is really good friend of mine, and I know how he is (at least I doubt he changed much in last 6 months he was assigned to LA, and doesn't work in Europe anymore). Considering I know how good he is, and when it comes to sport, he's there, where noone of "so great" SI shooters will come even close. So considering this, and considering I know him damn good, which means I know how he thinks, I'm pretty sure there's more behind this. It's not about, I didn't have right equipment, since even with equipment he had, he can do miracles, so there are few other options, why these portraits look like they do. And for now, I will keep these options to myself. And besides, they don't look bad, but different. And most of Joe's work is different, and above normal standards. If someone understand this fine, if not, it's also fine
But for everyone telling, he has no idea about photography, please try to find at least a little bit about his background, before you write something so stupid. Being regional (for huge part of central and east Europe) photo chief for AFP is not job someone "picked infront of Home Depot" would get. Second... please guys check your own portfolios and compare (mostly) mediocre work with his work, before telling, you are 10 times better then he is.
Maybe he even screwed up this time, even though I don't believe, but he's far from dead man. He has numerous years of this kind of work behind him, with numerous Olympics, all sorts of World championships etc. in his line of work, and his respect inside of AFP can't be ruined so easy.
And one last thing... try to look at all this a bit outside of a box. Maybe these portraits all of a sudden won't look that bad anymore. Not everything needs to be so damn standard.

[CameraMan]

True, The thing about published photographers is that you're average Joe magazine reader isn't going to give a flip about who took the pictures. I'm sort of that way with sports magazines. I might look at the photo credit if there is one next to the picture but that's as far as I'll go with it.

We, as photographers, should know a little more about someone before we bash their most recent work.

[RDKirk]

We, as photographers, should know a little more about someone before we bash their most recent work.

Actually, the only thing the audience ever needs to know about an artist other than his recent work is his past work. An artist should never be judged by anything other than his art--nor should he want to be.

Added edit: Even as photographers, we have to take a note from Mike Holmes (the general contractor of "Holmes on Homes": For some things there are no excuses from a professional.

However, I would agree that there is certainly a huge amount of fault on the part of the editors on several levels. For one thing, Klamar contends that the editors never gave him the "skinny" that this was a unique kind of shooting situation. The editors themselves have said that they deliberately did not tell Klamar what the situation was because "we wanted something different." They should have still told him the situation and then said, "Bring us something different." This is not a game--the editors were foolish, if that was the case.

[jwcdds]

Originally Posted by RDKirk

Actually, the only thing the audience ever needs to know about an artist other than his recent work is his past work. An artist should never be judged by anything other than his art--nor should he want to be.

^ this.

Same thing with athletes. No one will sing praises about Michael Jordan off the court or as a NBA owner. But he is still, arguably, the best basketball player of all time.

[TooManyShots]

Originally Posted by RDKirk

Actually, the only thing the audience ever needs to know about an artist other than his recent work is his past work. An artist should never be judged by anything other than his art--nor should he want to be.

Added edit: Even as photographers, we have to take a note from Mike Holmes (the general contractor of "Holmes on Homes": For some things there are no excuses from a professional.

However, I would agree that there is certainly a huge amount of fault on the part of the editors on several levels. For one thing, Klamar contends that the editors never gave him the "skinny" that this was a unique kind of shooting situation. The editors themselves have said that they deliberately did not tell Klamar what the situation was because "we wanted something different." They should have still told him the situation and then said, "Bring us something different." This is not a game--the editors were foolish, if that was the case.

You mean this is a setup?? In the real world, this is a setup when you weren't told what you need to do or not to do in order to have you fired!!!! I agree, the editor could have told him that they wanted something different given with the real shooting situation. I have been a strong advocate on you are judged by your works ultimately and crappy works would ultimately land you being talked behind your back by your peers!!! "Some" people don't agree. Some even preferred to be talked behind one's back by your peers as long as you are offered with assignments.

About artists? An real artist is different. Their world perspectives allow them to see the world differently. Their different world perspectives may not go down well with the herd mentality. It is this "individuality" allows them to excel in their works. To be different. A real difference.

FYI, Lance Armstrong is known for his epic historical win of 7 Tour titles. He is certainly not known for his doping allegations or even less for this victory over his cancer.

[neil_r]

Originally Posted by TooManyShots

FYI, Lance Armstrong is known for his epic historical win of 7 Tour titles. He is certainly not known for his doping allegations or even less for this victory over his cancer.

That may be the case where you are , but over here we have a press that will always focus on the negative, unless there is a good human recovery story. The cancer recovery was the staring point and was really covered extensively in the press (as was his relationship with Sheryl Crow) then this story was trumped by the doping allegations. Given that a lot of peoples attitudes and mindsets are governed and manipulated by the press in the UK these are the two things (3 if you include Cheryl in the mix) that people associate with Lance Armstrong, if pressed a few people might know that he rides a bike a bit

[joeblack2022]

The story doesn't end...

LINK

[rmd photography]

Wow! Goes to show ya how far you can get on name alone. Sad.

[TooManyShots]

Originally Posted by joeblack2022

The story doesn't end...

LINK

Yeah, whatever...it has already been established that he was caught with his pants down, literally, with the assignment and the actual shooting condition. It was never his intents to represent these athletes in any philosophical and artistic sense. Just a publisher trying to save this photog's face. So what the publisher managed to convince the public that these photos are art? Joe does not shoot these types of photos. These photos and the upcoming gallery will not get him into the door of the "art scene." He isn't going to make a name of himself in the art world because that's not his style.

[primoz]

Maybe it's time to make a bit of look inside of yourself (not you directly Joeblack2022). Just compare two sets of photos, and two sets of comments.
One set of photos, and connected comments, are Joe's photos. Other set is set of Instagram photos of Brad Mangin. Everyone are so much against Joe, and everyone are jumping high in the air, congratulating Mangin for excellent set of photos. Are those Instagram photos really all that great, and Joe's photos all that bad? Or it's just that none of you have any idea who Joe is (even though he's more of a photographer then Mangin will ever be), and almost everyone know that Mangin is sometimes shooting for SI?

[RDKirk]

The editor should have taken Joe's work, said "Thank you" and never let them leave the computer. Then next time hire Joe to do what Joe does best.

[smorter]

Originally Posted by RDKirk

The editor should have taken Joe's work, said "Thank you" and never let them leave the computer. Then next time hire Joe to do what Joe does best.

To be honest I don't believe in his PJ abilities anymore after that effort

[banquetbear]

Originally Posted by smorter

To be honest I don't believe in his PJ abilities anymore after that effort

...how many photojournalists do you actively follow? His photos are in the newspapers of the world daily. Are you going to stop reading the papers?

A sample of his work:
http://blog.sfgate.com/chronstyle/20...d-bold-prints/
http://energy1037.cbslocal.com/2012/...ennifer-lopez/
http://us995.cbslocal.com/2012/05/10...-fans-request/
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/lifea...-genius/511972
http://www.mindanaotimes.net/pacquia...oversial-loss/

And for more images, just check out google:

https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=e...A-2SiAfKpYDQBQ

Take a look at how much of his work is not in the studio and not staged or posed. The guy was a fish out of water and having to use techniques he probably hadn't used in years, if not decades. Did he screw up the shoot? Yep, but the level of outrage is ridiculous. He has been published more times in a week than I am liable to be published in a lifetime and delivers day-in and day-out for his employers. I'm sure that he will be very upset that you are no longer believing in his PJ abilities anymore.

[smorter]

Um I can't really see anything mindblowing in those links (swimsuits thing didn't load). They are basically just snapshots with a SLR...

The Lopez shot looked good only cause she looks good, otherwise the Taylor swift and the guy in the hat look just like his olympic shots. Actually the Taylor Swift one is quite bad. The boxing shot actually hurt my eyes due to the saturation of the blues.

Not sure exactly what those shots prove.

I worded my post wrong - what I meant was if I was an editor I wouldn't trust him out on assignment. I don't mean this as a slur on Joe, but rather, I'm critical of the reputational damage this has done to him. Mud sticks.

In no way am I questioning his professionalism etc., I just don't like his photos

Originally Posted by banquetbear

I'm sure that he will be very upset that you are no longer believing in his PJ abilities anymore.

I seriously doubt he would care what I think to be honest...who am I to him? Some random on the net.

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/bea...859/story.html
^ now that is a good shot of his. And I'm not talking about the subject,