Disgrace: Look what the New York Times cropped out of the Selma picture

[Arbitr8]

Sunday's cover of the New York Times shows a picture of the Selma march, but it's conveniently missing a few key figures. George W. Bush and his wife Laura were there, but the Times cropped them out. It's easier to bash them if they pretend they weren't there.


http://www.youngcons.com/disgrace-look-nytimes-cropped-selma-march-photo/

 

[slieb85]

Or it could be that Obama is at the center of the cropped picture, and, well, that's kinda the natural look you'd want for that picture.

Oh, and that the NYT didn't write "quick enough" about the Bush's being there? LOL.

I hope this isn't really what "young cons" are worried about. Spells another generation of shitty Republicans if so.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Originally posted by slieb85:
Or it could be that Obama is at the center of the cropped picture, and, well, that's kinda the natural look you'd want for that picture.

Oh, and that the NYT didn't write "quick enough" about the Bush's being there? LOL.

I hope this isn't really what "young cons" are worried about. Spells another generation of shitty Republicans if so.

Well as someone who does a lot of work in this field. You couldn't be more wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with Lib or Con. It has to do with right and wrong.

In journalism, you tell the complete story. You don't opt ed photographs, then start running the narrative that the GOP was absent. That is a lie and everyone knows it. As a media photographer, I am NOT ALLOWED to crop images, or manipulate them in any fashion. If I misrepresent the event I'm covering....I can guarantee that I won't be called back to work for that media outlet again. What the NYT did was hugely wrong and unacceptable. But their arrogance won't allow them to admit that they were wrong. Same goes for Fox when they do it.

First of all....Obama leading the march was staged, as the barriers behind his group show. Of course, the photographer shot at the angle that hid those barriers. Secondly, what purpose does it show to crop the Bush's out of the image? Oh......I know what purpose it shows.......To set the bullshit narrative that Republicans didn't show up, are racist and didn't attend the event.

 

[joelbc1]

Arb....the only time and ex-POTUS is going to get front page news coverage is at their funeral. They are yesterday's news for the most part. Junior is certainly no exception. But, Junior, like his daddy, is a decent man.

I'd sure love to see how you'd run a news organization. It would be a piece of work, I betcha.

 

[IMCC965]

What a bunch of SHIT!!!

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by slieb85:
Or it could be that Obama is at the center of the cropped picture, and, well, that's kinda the natural look you'd want for that picture.

Oh, and that the NYT didn't write "quick enough" about the Bush's being there? LOL.

I hope this isn't really what "young cons" are worried about. Spells another generation of shitty Republicans if so.

Well as someone who does a lot of work in this field. You couldn't be more wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with Lib or Con. It has to do with right and wrong.

In journalism, you tell the complete story. You don't opt ed photographs, then start running the narrative that the GOP was absent. That is a lie and everyone knows it. As a media photographer, I am NOT ALLOWED to crop images, or manipulate them in any fashion. If I misrepresent the event I'm covering....I can guarantee that I won't be called back to work for that media outlet again. What the NYT did was hugely wrong and unacceptable. But their arrogance won't allow them to admit that they were wrong. Same goes for Fox when they do it.

First of all....Obama leading the march was staged, as the barriers behind his group show. Of course, the photographer shot at the angle that hid those barriers. Secondly, what purpose does it show to crop the Bush's out of the image? Oh......I know what purpose it shows.......To set the bullshit narrative that Republicans didn't show up, are racist and didn't attend the event.


[/QUOTE]
Except the NYT didn't push that narrative.

And I'm not saying the photog edited the photo, I'm saying the NYT did, for obvious reasons.

Forget about the Bush's for 1 second and tell me which one is a more "powerful" image. If you say the 2nd you're a lying bastard.

Now, could they have gone with a lower angle than used in the 2nd picture, and widened it out, and either shrunk it, or used up more front page space? Sure. But it wouldn't be as good of an image as the one they have now.


Also, looking at this a 2nd time (and not just in passing), these are 2 completely different photographs.

I am not sure I can buy a claim that the NYT "cropped" out the Bush's. Maybe the photographer couldn't fit him in the shot. Maybe the NYT chose to shrink the shot in order to keep Obama at the center of the photo and have it fit the layout for the paper.


Once again, good try scoring points for your team, guys. Way to really push hard for those Republicans.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by slieb85:
Or it could be that Obama is at the center of the cropped picture, and, well, that's kinda the natural look you'd want for that picture.

Oh, and that the NYT didn't write "quick enough" about the Bush's being there? LOL.

I hope this isn't really what "young cons" are worried about. Spells another generation of shitty Republicans if so.

Well as someone who does a lot of work in this field. You couldn't be more wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with Lib or Con. It has to do with right and wrong.

In journalism, you tell the complete story. You don't opt ed photographs, then start running the narrative that the GOP was absent. That is a lie and everyone knows it. As a media photographer, I am NOT ALLOWED to crop images, or manipulate them in any fashion. If I misrepresent the event I'm covering....I can guarantee that I won't be called back to work for that media outlet again. What the NYT did was hugely wrong and unacceptable. But their arrogance won't allow them to admit that they were wrong. Same goes for Fox when they do it.

First of all....Obama leading the march was staged, as the barriers behind his group show. Of course, the photographer shot at the angle that hid those barriers. Secondly, what purpose does it show to crop the Bush's out of the image? Oh......I know what purpose it shows.......To set the bullshit narrative that Republicans didn't show up, are racist and didn't attend the event.

Except the NYT didn't push that narrative.

And I'm not saying the photog edited the photo, I'm saying the NYT did, for obvious reasons.

Forget about the Bush's for 1 second and tell me which one is a more "powerful" image. If you say the 2nd you're a lying bastard.

Now, could they have gone with a lower angle than used in the 2nd picture, and widened it out, and either shrunk it, or used up more front page space? Sure. But it wouldn't be as good of an image as the one they have now.


Also, looking at this a 2nd time (and not just in passing), these are 2 completely different photographs.

I am not sure I can buy a claim that the NYT "cropped" out the Bush's. Maybe the photographer couldn't fit him in the shot. Maybe the NYT chose to shrink the shot in order to keep Obama at the center of the photo and have it fit the layout for the paper.


Once again, good try scoring points for your team, guys. Way to really push hard for those Republicans. [/QUOTE] I guarantee you...that they had at least 200 images or more to work with from their photog alone. You don't cover that event as a shooter without coming back with hundreds of photos for editors to go over and use. There were also dozens of freelancers that they could have purchased from if their guy didn't get it. You don't go to cover an event like this without the lenses you know you need to get the right shots at the right time. Also, to have a former president there.....that's a big deal no matter who it is, or what party they are from. Are you going to tell me that the two never shook hands or acknowledged each other to the point where photogs couldn't get them shaking hands or conversing? This was a historical event. This article was much bigger in that terms to only run one photo. The Montgomery Advertiser got it right. They ran photos of Bush sitting next to Michelle Obama, even kissing her on the cheek as he greeted her on the stage. They even......*gasp*.....have a picture in their article of the Obama, Jon Lewis, and Bush holding hands while the march is going on. But the NYT photog.....arguably the biggest paper in the country.......wasn't positioned to get that shot?

I'm sorry...I've been on too many assignments and have shot too many events to buy that line of absolute BS. When these events happen, there is a media handler...ESPECIALLY when the White House is involved. And those handlers make sure that the photographers working for the biggest media outlets, are in position to get the best images. They get the prime spots. They get the first change to get the images they need to run with the story.

Any suggestion that this is all the NYT had to work with, is pure bullshit.

Not saying that the NYT set the narrative......but they sure played into it. CNN didn't crop the picture in their article. They even had a picture of Bush arriving at the Bridge. But the NYT can't find an image....in the literally thousands that were taken of that event. Other outlets don't mention Bush at all even being there. And some others....mainly the knee jerk left wing sites have even gone as far as reporting that GOP members of congress didn't even to show up. Which is factually incorrect.

BTW....where were the Clintons? Where was Jimmy Carter?

For you this is about scoring points. For me it's about accuracy in reporting and in media. I don't have a side politically.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by slieb85:
Or it could be that Obama is at the center of the cropped picture, and, well, that's kinda the natural look you'd want for that picture.

Oh, and that the NYT didn't write "quick enough" about the Bush's being there? LOL.

I hope this isn't really what "young cons" are worried about. Spells another generation of shitty Republicans if so.

Well as someone who does a lot of work in this field. You couldn't be more wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with Lib or Con. It has to do with right and wrong.

In journalism, you tell the complete story. You don't opt ed photographs, then start running the narrative that the GOP was absent. That is a lie and everyone knows it. As a media photographer, I am NOT ALLOWED to crop images, or manipulate them in any fashion. If I misrepresent the event I'm covering....I can guarantee that I won't be called back to work for that media outlet again. What the NYT did was hugely wrong and unacceptable. But their arrogance won't allow them to admit that they were wrong. Same goes for Fox when they do it.

First of all....Obama leading the march was staged, as the barriers behind his group show. Of course, the photographer shot at the angle that hid those barriers. Secondly, what purpose does it show to crop the Bush's out of the image? Oh......I know what purpose it shows.......To set the bullshit narrative that Republicans didn't show up, are racist and didn't attend the event.

Except the NYT didn't push that narrative.

And I'm not saying the photog edited the photo, I'm saying the NYT did, for obvious reasons.

Forget about the Bush's for 1 second and tell me which one is a more "powerful" image. If you say the 2nd you're a lying bastard.

Now, could they have gone with a lower angle than used in the 2nd picture, and widened it out, and either shrunk it, or used up more front page space? Sure. But it wouldn't be as good of an image as the one they have now.


Also, looking at this a 2nd time (and not just in passing), these are 2 completely different photographs.

I am not sure I can buy a claim that the NYT "cropped" out the Bush's. Maybe the photographer couldn't fit him in the shot. Maybe the NYT chose to shrink the shot in order to keep Obama at the center of the photo and have it fit the layout for the paper.


Once again, good try scoring points for your team, guys. Way to really push hard for those Republicans. [/QUOTE] I haven't read the story. I can defend a photo editor cropping the picture as it was cropped, because it puts the president in the center. I cannot defend the story not mentioning the presence of a former president until deep into the story. And of course I doubt that even Obama defenders such as Slieb85 would dispute that the criticism by Politico and Whatshername-Schultz was simply partisan hackery.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by slieb85:
Or it could be that Obama is at the center of the cropped picture, and, well, that's kinda the natural look you'd want for that picture.

Oh, and that the NYT didn't write "quick enough" about the Bush's being there? LOL.

I hope this isn't really what "young cons" are worried about. Spells another generation of shitty Republicans if so.

Well as someone who does a lot of work in this field. You couldn't be more wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with Lib or Con. It has to do with right and wrong.

In journalism, you tell the complete story. You don't opt ed photographs, then start running the narrative that the GOP was absent. That is a lie and everyone knows it. As a media photographer, I am NOT ALLOWED to crop images, or manipulate them in any fashion. If I misrepresent the event I'm covering....I can guarantee that I won't be called back to work for that media outlet again. What the NYT did was hugely wrong and unacceptable. But their arrogance won't allow them to admit that they were wrong. Same goes for Fox when they do it.

First of all....Obama leading the march was staged, as the barriers behind his group show. Of course, the photographer shot at the angle that hid those barriers. Secondly, what purpose does it show to crop the Bush's out of the image? Oh......I know what purpose it shows.......To set the bullshit narrative that Republicans didn't show up, are racist and didn't attend the event.

Except the NYT didn't push that narrative.

And I'm not saying the photog edited the photo, I'm saying the NYT did, for obvious reasons.

Forget about the Bush's for 1 second and tell me which one is a more "powerful" image. If you say the 2nd you're a lying bastard.

Now, could they have gone with a lower angle than used in the 2nd picture, and widened it out, and either shrunk it, or used up more front page space? Sure. But it wouldn't be as good of an image as the one they have now.


Also, looking at this a 2nd time (and not just in passing), these are 2 completely different photographs.

I am not sure I can buy a claim that the NYT "cropped" out the Bush's. Maybe the photographer couldn't fit him in the shot. Maybe the NYT chose to shrink the shot in order to keep Obama at the center of the photo and have it fit the layout for the paper.


Once again, good try scoring points for your team, guys. Way to really push hard for those Republicans.

I haven't read the story. I can defend a photo editor cropping the picture as it was cropped, because it puts the president in the center. I cannot defend the story not mentioning the presence of a former president until deep into the story. And of course I doubt that even Obama defenders such as Slieb85 would dispute that the criticism by Politico and Whatshername-Schultz was simply partisan hackery.


[/QUOTE] Lone....as someone who crops and edits for publication all the time, I disagree.

If websites can run the image without cropping people out. A newspaper can run the images as well. maybe their photographer wasn't worth a damn. I don't know......I've been looking at images from different outlets for the last few days. And it seems as if other outlets got much better images.

But lets' be honest.....the NYT is not known for it's integrity.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Where the NYT and their photog get it wrong.....is that Obama is not the "central" figure in all of it.
The central point of all the photographs should be the bridge.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by slieb85:
Or it could be that Obama is at the center of the cropped picture, and, well, that's kinda the natural look you'd want for that picture.

Oh, and that the NYT didn't write "quick enough" about the Bush's being there? LOL.

I hope this isn't really what "young cons" are worried about. Spells another generation of shitty Republicans if so.

Well as someone who does a lot of work in this field. You couldn't be more wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with Lib or Con. It has to do with right and wrong.

In journalism, you tell the complete story. You don't opt ed photographs, then start running the narrative that the GOP was absent. That is a lie and everyone knows it. As a media photographer, I am NOT ALLOWED to crop images, or manipulate them in any fashion. If I misrepresent the event I'm covering....I can guarantee that I won't be called back to work for that media outlet again. What the NYT did was hugely wrong and unacceptable. But their arrogance won't allow them to admit that they were wrong. Same goes for Fox when they do it.

First of all....Obama leading the march was staged, as the barriers behind his group show. Of course, the photographer shot at the angle that hid those barriers. Secondly, what purpose does it show to crop the Bush's out of the image? Oh......I know what purpose it shows.......To set the bullshit narrative that Republicans didn't show up, are racist and didn't attend the event.

Except the NYT didn't push that narrative.

And I'm not saying the photog edited the photo, I'm saying the NYT did, for obvious reasons.

Forget about the Bush's for 1 second and tell me which one is a more "powerful" image. If you say the 2nd you're a lying bastard.

Now, could they have gone with a lower angle than used in the 2nd picture, and widened it out, and either shrunk it, or used up more front page space? Sure. But it wouldn't be as good of an image as the one they have now.


Also, looking at this a 2nd time (and not just in passing), these are 2 completely different photographs.

I am not sure I can buy a claim that the NYT "cropped" out the Bush's. Maybe the photographer couldn't fit him in the shot. Maybe the NYT chose to shrink the shot in order to keep Obama at the center of the photo and have it fit the layout for the paper.


Once again, good try scoring points for your team, guys. Way to really push hard for those Republicans.

I haven't read the story. I can defend a photo editor cropping the picture as it was cropped, because it puts the president in the center. I cannot defend the story not mentioning the presence of a former president until deep into the story. And of course I doubt that even Obama defenders such as Slieb85 would dispute that the criticism by Politico and Whatshername-Schultz was simply partisan hackery.


[/QUOTE]
1. I was only going with the NYT here. Politico, based on the potentially wrong post on "youngcons.com" was WAY out of line.

So, in short. GFY.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:
Where the NYT and their photog get it wrong.....is that Obama is not the "central" figure in all of it.
The central point of all the photographs should be the bridge.

You and I might think that.

NYT is a paper owned by a publicly traded company. They apparently thought that picture was the most powerful. They mentioned the Bush's being there. I'm pretty sure they fulfilled their duty.

You would know far more about photography than I, but, seriously, answer this for me.

Based on the picture they did run, how would you have framed in the Bush's? If you want Obama as the center, for dramatic effect, are you going to go super wide and get whatever is to the left on the picture posted from youngcons? Are you going to drastically shrink the picture so that you can fit everyone in? Are you going to widen the space the picture gets on the front page, leaving all text below? Are you going to re-frame the picture and have Obama and Bush bookend it?


All of these are possibly options. They went with the one they felt was the most dramatic. They mentioned that the Bush's were there. Talked about Bush reauthorizing the VRA in 2006. They mentioned that the Clintons were not there.

People's panties be up in a bunch over something pretty small, if you ask me.

 

[SWIowahawks]

Re: Disgrace: Look what the New York Times cropped out of the Selma p

Haven't kept up with the march and such but wouldn't a better message to uniting and bringing attention to race equality be to have a picture with a white person (former president) and a black person (current president) be more powerful?

Instead they continue with the victim approach and have a picture with all black people. That seems to set a divided mind set.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalmwa]

Re: Disgrace: Look what the New York Times cropped out of the Selma p

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:
Haven't kept up with the march and such but wouldn't a better message to uniting and bringing attention to race equality be to have a picture with a white person (former president) and a black person (current president) be more powerful?

Instead they continue with the victim approach and have a picture with all black people. That seems to set a divided mind set.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Why do you think they chose to stay so far apart? Both men are media savvy and know how pictures are staged. I'm sure either could have moved toward the other. It must have been purposeful for they to remain out of each other's frame. Its not like the newspaper photog was down there placing them on their marks.

 

[SWIowahawks]

Re: Disgrace: Look what the New York Times cropped out of the Selma p

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by SWIowahawks:
Haven't kept up with the march and such but wouldn't a better message to uniting and bringing attention to race equality be to have a picture with a white person (former president) and a black person (current president) be more powerful?

Instead they continue with the victim approach and have a picture with all black people. That seems to set a divided mind set.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Why do you think they chose to stay so far apart?  Both men are media savvy and know how pictures are staged.  I'm sure either could have moved toward the other.  It must have been purposeful for they to remain out of each other's frame.  Its not like the newspaper photog was down there placing them on their marks.  

That's true. That's why politics is crap. Everyone is for themselves and not the better good as they preach about.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:
Where the NYT and their photog get it wrong.....is that Obama is not the "central" figure in all of it.
The central point of all the photographs should be the bridge.

You and I might think that.

NYT is a paper owned by a publicly traded company. They apparently thought that picture was the most powerful. They mentioned the Bush's being there. I'm pretty sure they fulfilled their duty.

You would know far more about photography than I, but, seriously, answer this for me.

Based on the picture they did run, how would you have framed in the Bush's? If you want Obama as the center, for dramatic effect, are you going to go super wide and get whatever is to the left on the picture posted from youngcons? Are you going to drastically shrink the picture so that you can fit everyone in? Are you going to widen the space the picture gets on the front page, leaving all text below? Are you going to re-frame the picture and have Obama and Bush bookend it?


All of these are possibly options. They went with the one they felt was the most dramatic. They mentioned that the Bush's were there. Talked about Bush reauthorizing the VRA in 2006. They mentioned that the Clintons were not there.

People's panties be up in a bunch over something pretty small, if you ask me.

My panties are not in a bunch in the slightest. I'm just debating a counterpoint. Now others I can't speak for.

First of all.....the organizers, and whoever was in charge of the PR for this event failed miserably when it came to the photo ops and how the leaders of the march would be situated. I know the barrier down the middle of the road on the bridge causes a problem, but you still place the dignitaries and the survivors/participants in the center, and as close to the middle as you can.

You also do your very best to show this to be an event about how far we have come in race relations........not about how far we have to go. Every outlet I've looked at has displayed this as an almost exclusively "black" event. When it should have been shown as multiracial as a sign of where we have gotten to in the last 50 years since the original event.

Based on the photo....if I am covering that event......I have 3-4 cameras strapped to me. I'm shooting 2-3 of them wide angle to super wide.....and one camera with a zoom lens for close ups, hand shakes, and more intimate meetings between the "important" people. That way I can get the full scope of the event. I know I"m shooting a very significant event with a LOT of people at the event. However.....I'm making sure that I'm not taking away from the true meaning of the event by focusing on certain people too much. Photojournalism is a tricky thing. And it's not easy to encompass an entire event in one photo. However, when you do.......you gotta make sure you do it right.

Honestly....I would have been more focused on John Lewis, than I would have on Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, or Bush. I would have avoided Sharpton at all costs. Because he is a race divider, and had no business being there. I would photographed Jackson because he's been there and marched with MLK.

Looking over the internet...there is a LOT of bad photography of this event. A TON of it. A lot of this has to do with newspapers ditching their staff shooters and using solely freelancers. I'm a freelancer, so that's good for me......but I'm too expensive for most newspapers, unless it's a national outlet. So what they do, is that they end up hiring the cheapest person they can......and as the saying goes...you get what you pay for. = crappy shots that fail in selling the story.


Now, when it comes to Bush........ He is FAMOUS for removing himself from photo ops, because he doesn't want to bring attention to himself and draw attention away from the event he is attending. I praise him for that. It shows a level of humility and selflessness that most people in that position do not have, nor care to have. So maybe that IS what happened. But that is where the organizers failed again. I would have insisted he be near the center for the photo ops and for the walk across the bridge.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by slieb85:
Or it could be that Obama is at the center of the cropped picture, and, well, that's kinda the natural look you'd want for that picture.

Oh, and that the NYT didn't write "quick enough" about the Bush's being there? LOL.

I hope this isn't really what "young cons" are worried about. Spells another generation of shitty Republicans if so.

Well as someone who does a lot of work in this field. You couldn't be more wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with Lib or Con. It has to do with right and wrong.

In journalism, you tell the complete story. You don't opt ed photographs, then start running the narrative that the GOP was absent. That is a lie and everyone knows it. As a media photographer, I am NOT ALLOWED to crop images, or manipulate them in any fashion. If I misrepresent the event I'm covering....I can guarantee that I won't be called back to work for that media outlet again. What the NYT did was hugely wrong and unacceptable. But their arrogance won't allow them to admit that they were wrong. Same goes for Fox when they do it.

First of all....Obama leading the march was staged, as the barriers behind his group show. Of course, the photographer shot at the angle that hid those barriers. Secondly, what purpose does it show to crop the Bush's out of the image? Oh......I know what purpose it shows.......To set the bullshit narrative that Republicans didn't show up, are racist and didn't attend the event.

Except the NYT didn't push that narrative.

And I'm not saying the photog edited the photo, I'm saying the NYT did, for obvious reasons.

Forget about the Bush's for 1 second and tell me which one is a more "powerful" image. If you say the 2nd you're a lying bastard.

Now, could they have gone with a lower angle than used in the 2nd picture, and widened it out, and either shrunk it, or used up more front page space? Sure. But it wouldn't be as good of an image as the one they have now.


Also, looking at this a 2nd time (and not just in passing), these are 2 completely different photographs.

I am not sure I can buy a claim that the NYT "cropped" out the Bush's. Maybe the photographer couldn't fit him in the shot. Maybe the NYT chose to shrink the shot in order to keep Obama at the center of the photo and have it fit the layout for the paper.


Once again, good try scoring points for your team, guys. Way to really push hard for those Republicans.

I haven't read the story. I can defend a photo editor cropping the picture as it was cropped, because it puts the president in the center. I cannot defend the story not mentioning the presence of a former president until deep into the story. And of course I doubt that even Obama defenders such as Slieb85 would dispute that the criticism by Politico and Whatshername-Schultz was simply partisan hackery.

1. I was only going with the NYT here. Politico, based on the potentially wrong post on "youngcons.com" was WAY out of line.

So, in short. GFY.
============
I don't think you understood my post. Which does not surprise me in the slightest.[/QUOTE]

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Actually...to answer your question better....

I shoot wide, but position myself to make sure all the dignitaries are included, with the name of the bridge behind them and slightly over their heads. That means I get LOW......shooting from the knees or crouching lower. I frame the shot so that Both presidents and their families are in the shot. I shoot wide....and I crop it so that it runs as wide on the front page, as the headline runs......

the tighter shots can be used in the montage that runs adjacent to the story.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:
Where the NYT and their photog get it wrong.....is that Obama is not the "central" figure in all of it.
The central point of all the photographs should be the bridge.

You and I might think that.

NYT is a paper owned by a publicly traded company. They apparently thought that picture was the most powerful. They mentioned the Bush's being there. I'm pretty sure they fulfilled their duty.

You would know far more about photography than I, but, seriously, answer this for me.

Based on the picture they did run, how would you have framed in the Bush's? If you want Obama as the center, for dramatic effect, are you going to go super wide and get whatever is to the left on the picture posted from youngcons? Are you going to drastically shrink the picture so that you can fit everyone in? Are you going to widen the space the picture gets on the front page, leaving all text below? Are you going to re-frame the picture and have Obama and Bush bookend it?


All of these are possibly options. They went with the one they felt was the most dramatic. They mentioned that the Bush's were there. Talked about Bush reauthorizing the VRA in 2006. They mentioned that the Clintons were not there.

People's panties be up in a bunch over something pretty small, if you ask me.

My panties are not in a bunch in the slightest. I'm just debating a counterpoint. Now others I can't speak for.

First of all.....the organizers, and whoever was in charge of the PR for this event failed miserably when it came to the photo ops and how the leaders of the march would be situated. I know the barrier down the middle of the road on the bridge causes a problem, but you still place the dignitaries and the survivors/participants in the center, and as close to the middle as you can.

You also do your very best to show this to be an event about how far we have come in race relations........not about how far we have to go. Every outlet I've looked at has displayed this as an almost exclusively "black" event. When it should have been shown as multiracial as a sign of where we have gotten to in the last 50 years since the original event.

Based on the photo....if I am covering that event......I have 3-4 cameras strapped to me. I'm shooting 2-3 of them wide angle to super wide.....and one camera with a zoom lens for close ups, hand shakes, and more intimate meetings between the "important" people. That way I can get the full scope of the event. I know I"m shooting a very significant event with a LOT of people at the event. However.....I'm making sure that I'm not taking away from the true meaning of the event by focusing on certain people too much. Photojournalism is a tricky thing. And it's not easy to encompass an entire event in one photo. However, when you do.......you gotta make sure you do it right.

Honestly....I would have been more focused on John Lewis, than I would have on Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, or Bush. I would have avoided Sharpton at all costs. Because he is a race divider, and had no business being there. I would photographed Jackson because he's been there and marched with MLK.

Looking over the internet...there is a LOT of bad photography of this event. A TON of it. A lot of this has to do with newspapers ditching their staff shooters and using solely freelancers. I'm a freelancer, so that's good for me......but I'm too expensive for most newspapers, unless it's a national outlet. So what they do, is that they end up hiring the cheapest person they can......and as the saying goes...you get what you pay for. = crappy shots that fail in selling the story.


Now, when it comes to Bush........ He is FAMOUS for removing himself from photo ops, because he doesn't want to bring attention to himself and draw attention away from the event he is attending. I praise him for that. It shows a level of humility and selflessness that most people in that position do not have, nor care to have. So maybe that IS what happened. But that is where the organizers failed again. I would have insisted he be near the center for the photo ops and for the walk across the bridge.

I honestly don't disagree with anything you're saying. I only disagree with the premise by the website that this was some sort of nefarious plan by the NYT to hurt the Bush's.

Also, I can't imagine fumbling through 4 cameras trying to get the right shot. Thank god for iPhones.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

============
I don't think you understood my post. Which does not surprise me in the slightest.

I 100% understood your post.

It's your typical partisan hackery, followed by your typical personal shot at me.

Glad I can get under your skin so easily. Surprised you haven't called me drunk again.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:
Where the NYT and their photog get it wrong.....is that Obama is not the "central" figure in all of it.
The central point of all the photographs should be the bridge.

1. I, too, edited, cropped and prepared photos for publication for many years. Took quite a few in my day, too.

2. You have an excellent point here. The focus SHOULD have been on the bridge.

3. A good argument can be made, however, that the focus should be the president and the people flanking him who actaullyy participated in the march. If that is the intent, the cropping is proper.

4. You are correct that the NYT has not been known for journalistic integrity for quite a few years. When the Times does something like this, it's reasonable to suspect it was done intentionally for political purposes. But sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Re: Disgrace: Look what the New York Times cropped out of the Selma p

Meh, I don't march..
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Lone Clone]

Re: Disgrace: Look what the New York Times cropped out of the Selma p

Originally posted by swagsurfer02:
Meh, I don't march..
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Don't blame you. Why bother? NYT would just have cropped you out of the picture, anyway.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Re: Disgrace: Look what the New York Times cropped out of the Selma p

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by swagsurfer02:
Meh, I don't march..

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Don't blame you. Why bother? NYT would just have cropped you out of the picture, anyway.

I don't know about that. They left that other half-white guy in the picture.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Re: Disgrace: Look what the New York Times cropped out of the Selma p

Originally posted by CarolinaHawkeye:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by swagsurfer02:
Meh, I don't march..

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Don't blame you. Why bother? NYT would just have cropped you out of the picture, anyway. 

I don't know about that. They left that other half-white guy in the picture.

Yeah, and he's going grey. I'm at least handsome!
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:
Where the NYT and their photog get it wrong.....is that Obama is not the "central" figure in all of it.
The central point of all the photographs should be the bridge.

You and I might think that.

NYT is a paper owned by a publicly traded company. They apparently thought that picture was the most powerful. They mentioned the Bush's being there. I'm pretty sure they fulfilled their duty.

You would know far more about photography than I, but, seriously, answer this for me.

Based on the picture they did run, how would you have framed in the Bush's? If you want Obama as the center, for dramatic effect, are you going to go super wide and get whatever is to the left on the picture posted from youngcons? Are you going to drastically shrink the picture so that you can fit everyone in? Are you going to widen the space the picture gets on the front page, leaving all text below? Are you going to re-frame the picture and have Obama and Bush bookend it?


All of these are possibly options. They went with the one they felt was the most dramatic. They mentioned that the Bush's were there. Talked about Bush reauthorizing the VRA in 2006. They mentioned that the Clintons were not there.

People's panties be up in a bunch over something pretty small, if you ask me.

My panties are not in a bunch in the slightest. I'm just debating a counterpoint. Now others I can't speak for.

First of all.....the organizers, and whoever was in charge of the PR for this event failed miserably when it came to the photo ops and how the leaders of the march would be situated. I know the barrier down the middle of the road on the bridge causes a problem, but you still place the dignitaries and the survivors/participants in the center, and as close to the middle as you can.

You also do your very best to show this to be an event about how far we have come in race relations........not about how far we have to go. Every outlet I've looked at has displayed this as an almost exclusively "black" event. When it should have been shown as multiracial as a sign of where we have gotten to in the last 50 years since the original event.

Based on the photo....if I am covering that event......I have 3-4 cameras strapped to me. I'm shooting 2-3 of them wide angle to super wide.....and one camera with a zoom lens for close ups, hand shakes, and more intimate meetings between the "important" people. That way I can get the full scope of the event. I know I"m shooting a very significant event with a LOT of people at the event. However.....I'm making sure that I'm not taking away from the true meaning of the event by focusing on certain people too much. Photojournalism is a tricky thing. And it's not easy to encompass an entire event in one photo. However, when you do.......you gotta make sure you do it right.

Honestly....I would have been more focused on John Lewis, than I would have on Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, or Bush. I would have avoided Sharpton at all costs. Because he is a race divider, and had no business being there. I would photographed Jackson because he's been there and marched with MLK.

Looking over the internet...there is a LOT of bad photography of this event. A TON of it. A lot of this has to do with newspapers ditching their staff shooters and using solely freelancers. I'm a freelancer, so that's good for me......but I'm too expensive for most newspapers, unless it's a national outlet. So what they do, is that they end up hiring the cheapest person they can......and as the saying goes...you get what you pay for. = crappy shots that fail in selling the story.


Now, when it comes to Bush........ He is FAMOUS for removing himself from photo ops, because he doesn't want to bring attention to himself and draw attention away from the event he is attending. I praise him for that. It shows a level of humility and selflessness that most people in that position do not have, nor care to have. So maybe that IS what happened. But that is where the organizers failed again. I would have insisted he be near the center for the photo ops and for the walk across the bridge.

I honestly don't disagree with anything you're saying. I only disagree with the premise by the website that this was some sort of nefarious plan by the NYT to hurt the Bush's.

Also, I can't imagine fumbling through 4 cameras trying to get the right shot. Thank god for iPhones.

No fumbling. There are harnesses and belts that photogs have to prevent this. When I shoot a football game i have 3 on me at all times. Music festivals I have two strapped to me......that way you can shoot all sorts of different perspectives.

I never said it was a nefarious plan. But don't act like the NYT hasn't done something like this before.(meaning misrepresented stories to make them seem something other than what it really was).....the NYT has had to issue apologies in the past for doing these types of things.

An iPhone or any camera phone, or point and shoot could accurately capture an event like this.

 

[jthawk]

Re: Disgrace: Look what the New York Times cropped out of the Selma p

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by Hawk in SEC Country:
Where the NYT and their photog get it wrong.....is that Obama is not the "central" figure in all of it.
The central point of all the photographs should be the bridge.

1. I, too, edited, cropped and prepared photos for publication for many years. Took quite a few in my day, too.

2. You have an excellent point here. The focus SHOULD have been on the bridge.

3. A good argument can be made, however, that the focus should be the president and the people flanking him who actaullyy participated in the march. If that is the intent, the cropping is proper.

4. You are correct that the NYT has not been known for journalistic integrity for quite a few years. When the Times does something like this, it's reasonable to suspect it was done intentionally for political purposes. But sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. 

For me, your fourth point is what immediately jumped out at me when I heard about this issue. The so-called "Gray Lady" has so injured their credibility and reputation as a serious institution by pursuing their incessant, sometimes ludicrous left wing agenda, that their motivations are constantly, and rightly, called into question.

It is a bit sad really, but now their motto seems to be-all the news that's fit to print-as long as it fits our narrative.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Arbitr8]

The liberal apologists for the NYT and the Obama regime are going to just keep punching into the wind defending this failure all the way.