Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 25 Sep 2016 (Sunday) 10:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

NY Times Socail photography

 
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,246 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 387
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
Post edited over 1 year ago by joedlh.
     
Sep 25, 2016 10:48 |  #1

I just finished reading the Sunday NY Times and have an observation about the photography on page 16 of the Style section. Here's a link to the photos: http://www.nytimes.com …et-fashion-gala.html?_r=0 (external link)

Somebody please tell me that I'm being overly critical. The Times has an image as the paper of record. It strikes me that they should take a little pride in how they represent photography. Some of the shots are so tilted that it looks like the subjects are in danger of falling over. I thought hack wedding photographers gave up this fad years ago. Yes, one cannot avoid the use of an on-camera flash at dimly lit social events. Here's an idea: get a flash bracket so that there are no looming shadows to the side of the subjects in vertical shots. In a couple of shots it looks like the flash was below the camera. I'm still trying to figure out how that was done. I don't know, holding the camera upside down? It is true that event photography has its challenges. It's not always possible to capture the right moment. But getting a group shot with a woman prominently on the right digging into her purse? Or the red carpet shot of two women overwhelmed by a brilliant yellow gown marching off the right side of the photo? Has the editor not heard of the concept of cropping? In the actual paper, the photos were displayed all in landscape mode -- even full body shots of a solitary subject.

All in all it struck me as a wholly amateurish display of photography and editing in our selfie era.

(Sorry, I missed the misspelling of Social in the title. Alas, it can't be changed in editing.)


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Sep 25, 2016 11:14 |  #2

Joe, I can't debate the quality of the photography in your link.
Having said that, it's been years since I've read anything in any newspaper, save the crossword puzzles.


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
john ­ crossley
Goldmember
Avatar
2,213 posts
Likes: 672
Joined Nov 2009
Location: The Rhubarb Triangle
     
Sep 25, 2016 11:16 |  #3

joedlh wrote in post #18139854 (external link)
I just finished reading the Sunday NY Times and have an observation about the photography on page 16 of the Style section. Here's a link to the photos: http://www.nytimes.com …et-fashion-gala.html?_r=0 (external link)

Somebody please tell me that I'm being overly critical. The Times has an image as the paper of record. It strikes me that they should take a little pride in how they represent photography. Some of the shots are so tilted that it looks like the subjects are in danger of falling over. I thought hack wedding photographers gave up this fad years ago. Yes, one cannot avoid the use of an on-camera flash at dimly lit social events. Here's an idea: get a flash bracket so that there are no looming shadows to the side of the subjects in vertical shots. In a couple of shots it looks like the flash was below the camera. I'm still trying to figure out how that was done. I don't know, holding the camera upside down? It is true that event photography has its challenges. It's not always possible to capture the right moment. But getting a group shot with a woman prominently on the right digging into her purse? Or the red carpet shot of two women overwhelmed by a brilliant yellow gown marching off the right side of the photo? Has the editor not heard of the concept of cropping? In the actual paper, the photos were displayed all in landscape mode -- even full body shots of a solitary subject.

All in all it struck me as a wholly amateurish display of photography and editing in our selfie era.

(Sorry, I missed the misspelling of Social in the title. Alas, it can't be changed in editing.)

Have you written to the editor to let him know what you think about the photographs.


Some days I'm the dog, some days I'm the lamppost.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
daleg
Senior Member
614 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 106
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Sep 25, 2016 11:28 |  #4

your standards linger from a fading era where refinement and artistic renderings were appreciated and expected.

welcome to the age of social media.

refinement and artistic concepts don't seem to be trending.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
16,948 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4007
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Sep 25, 2016 11:38 |  #5

joedlh wrote in post #18139854 (external link)
Somebody please tell me that I'm being overly critical.

Nope! Not me! Besides the flaws you mention, these candids caught some guests with quite unflattering poses or facial expressions. High-society folks might be pleased to get their pictures in the paper, but not these pictures.

There's a rumor that flash can be diffused. Macro shooters of bugs do it. I guess the news hasn't yet reached New York.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,746 posts
Gallery: 540 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1508
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Sep 25, 2016 16:57 |  #6

I cannot believe that anybody actually got paid for creating those images, I am loath to call them photographs. I'm pretty sure you could get most ten year olds to take better pictures than that.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,246 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 387
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
     
Sep 25, 2016 17:54 |  #7

john crossley wrote in post #18139877 (external link)
Have you written to the editor to let him know what you think about the photographs.

Yes, I have. I am an avid Times reader. So it disappoints me to see such shoddy work. I also read the Guardian UK and the BBC. So I'm not a Times-only kind of guy.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cubatahavana
I still don't see it
Avatar
1,857 posts
Gallery: 243 photos
Likes: 1454
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
     
Sep 25, 2016 18:02 |  #8

I'm no expert by all means, but I think that those results are horrible in some (most) cases. What's with the cleavage of Lisa Falcone!?!?!?!?!?


My Flickr (external link)
My website (external link)
My instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,358 views & 2 likes for this thread
NY Times Socail photography
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is juancoca89
827 guests, 407 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.