Obama's official portrait

[Frank Lopes]

I'm sure we've all seen many examples of highly retouched photos of celebrities in general and politicians in particular.

It is refreshing when an official portrait comes out showing the person as is and not as we wished.

Or am I out line and the photo should have been "touched up"?

Technically, what do you think of the photograph?

Does it bother you that the DOF did not include his right shoulder/jacket lapel?

Just curious...


http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg

[Zepplinn]

In the time of photoshop,no! Everybody see that the background is blurred in photoshop and everybody know how mr.Obama look like. Digital images need a little retouch. Blurring the backround bring more focus on the foreground.

[ktg222]

I don't believe responsible news organizations would accept a retouched photo of the President. The AP wouldn't, I'm sure.

[retouchn00b]

Originally Posted by ktg222

I don't believe responsible news organizations would accept a retouched photo of the President. The AP wouldn't, I'm sure.

The AP may not, but Reuters loves their retouched images. Most of the papers I read in my corner of Canada have published retouched (not necessarily photochopped) images.

Yes, that lapel makes me squint every time I view it. Drives me nuts…

[lkroll]

I'd rather him look real and look like a man then have model's skin. I think the photo is great as is. Also cool that it is high rez. Only beef is that they posted it in aRGB and, as you all already know, most browsers are not color aware. We have had some play at DPR's retouch forum, but still, I think it should be as is. That's what a true headshot capture should be.

Also, I wish him God speed. He has a busy slate in front of him and I do wish, for my sake (selfish) that the economy gets better. I've only worked 7.5 hours this whole month; only by God's grace that I have a place to stay, food to eat, and relatively healthy. It's terible how the economy is right now, but I still hold for better times around the horizon.

[Joeven]

I don't like the way the flag is out of focus. It doesn't look right. It draws your attention to it. Some magazine will make a cartoon out of that pic for sure.

Joe

[kglack43]

I have shot for the AP for decades...I have also submitted "Official Portraits" of Governors to the AP. The ones I submitted were always retouched. They are portraits. They should always be retouched. IMO

Anyway, President Elect Obama's "official" portrait should have been retouched, at least the lint fibers on the jacket and some of the skin blemishes.

Pete Souza is a good journalistic shooter, but not a portrait photographer. Using one octabank light modifier and nothing else on the subject is just wrong. The fact that this was released speaks volumes of the fact that he was out of his league. Good luck to Pete...hope he has a full term and stays away from portrait work until he takes some lighting lessons.

[retouchn00b]

I understand leaving the skin blemishes, but the out of focus bit drives me insane…

I agree with kglak43; the photo is not a good portrait.

[ktg222]

AP says that adjusting photos and other imagery, even for aesthetic reasons, damages the credibility of the information distributed by the military to news organisations and the public.
"For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image," said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography.

From an article concerning the altered photo of BG Ann Dunwoody. It would seem this standard would apply to the Commander in Chief also.

k

[ktg222]

Complete article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7738342.stm

[igot2pman]

Originally Posted by Zepplinn

Everybody see that the background is blurred in photoshop.

I agree that the background was blurred in PS (CS3 to be exact). The aperture was F/10 and 105mm (EXF data). So everything should have been in focus.

Also, the lint should have been removed. But when you reduce the image to size, most all the blemishes and lint go away except for two pieces of lint.

As for the AP, if they do not want altered pictures then is even brightening ok. And why would this picture with blur added be ok. Is D&B ok? Are you even allowed to crop, as you are not showing the full picture?

I believe that you should be able to remove imperfections and edit as you see fit. As long as the image is noticeably the person, it should be ok.

-Keven

[kglack43]

I don't think the flags are gaussian blurred.

His right lapel is fading out of focus like normal focus blur. The flags are far behind him and are large and probably on risers to raise them up in the image.

As for the AP...
"For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image," said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography."

Then, as for Senior Santiago, he needs to double check every handout official portrait from the White House that is in his files and purge them asAP. He'll talk out of both sides of his mouth when the need arises.

REMEMBER...
It's an official handout... and supposed to be a portrait.

Perhaps Pete Souza thinks it's a news photo and not a portrait. Therefore no PS was needed or called for. Maybe it's the cheap Canon glass that he uses and the Dell laptop screen that kept him from noticing the flaws in the image.

I did notice that it was shot the same day the PE made a video that can be seen on youtube via his website

http://www.youtube.com/barackobama

I'll bet dollars to donuts that he (Pete) never released an official portrait photo of Nancy Regan to the AP that wasn't retouched even a bit.



edit: AAAAARRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!
Just found the Biden portrait....download the large file and look at the hairs on his coat....geeze...it's supposed to be a portrait...I don't care who it is, clean the coat off of stray hairs (they don't resemble Joe's hairs....long, blonde and no crinkles...perhaps he had just hugged Mrs. McCain.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...portrait_2.jpg

[twopoint0]

There seems to be NO point in post-blurring the background if he didn't bother to do the most basic and minor clean ups, so I do think the flags are out of camera focus. The subject seems both off center and low in the frame to me, making him look small.

[igot2pman]

Originally Posted by twopoint0

There seems to be NO point in post-blurring the background if he didn't bother to do the most basic and minor clean ups, so I do think the flags are out of camera focus.

This made me think. At first I though F/10 was small enough to get full sharpness. But then I decided to do the math calculations with a DOF calculator. I found that at 105mm, F/10, at 10 ft., only 1.03 ft. would be in sharp focus.

So I then decided to test to see how far i had to move back to get the subject in proper framing. I found that it was about 10 ft. Oh my! After taking a few test shots at the same settings, I found that the DOF was correct in the about one foot.

So assuming the one shoulder closer then the other position, the tip of the nose to the almost the back of his ear should be in focus. Which is about right. So the picture is not blurred in PS or at least it didn’t have to be.

I reteact my pervious statement,
-Keven

[Littleaugst]

Well, some may argue that deciding on what to photograph during a military endeavor or whatever could be considered editing. Someone must choose what image will be taken and how it will be presented. Thus comes the long lasting argument with photography... does it portray real life or not? I think for the most part it does.

In regards to the image of Obama, I think it's a great photo. Strait to the point portrait. Classic. I would imagine if he had an out of the ordinary large zit in the middle of his forehead they might get rid of that. Who would care about that? No one painted the rings under Washington's eyes.