NY Times Socail photography

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

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, 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.

joedlh wrote in post #18139854
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

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.

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.

joedlh wrote in post #18139854
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.

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

john crossley wrote in post #18139877
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.

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!?!?!?!?!?