Obama's Official Portrait

[busytexan]

The photo is not particularly impressive or becoming. I agree, there have been better photos posted here.

[MicWayWal]

OK. I have seen that post.
Thats been done a 1,000 times before and I was not too impressed with this attempt. I think they were more in love with how they did it and pulled it off than the work itself.

[MicWayWal]

Originally Posted by crazeazn

i love how yall checked exif first thing

Like you didn't? It was not the first thing but it was second.

[Collins]

I expect it to be boring as it's an official portrait. But even with that I'd expect it to have *slightly* punchier lighting. I'm also surprised at the crop and flag placement.

[crackhead]

Originally Posted by nastytrucker

It is surprising that theyre only using a 5dmkII, I would think they would use a 1DmkIII

or a Hasselblad with MFDB

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Technically the photo is in focus but that is about it.

I agree the croping is poor, the lighting isn't that great (heard that he had 4 hours to set up and then about 15 minutes to shoot), and the background doesn't work for me. (remember that this goes into every embassy in the world).

Also who didn't they use a MF camera? like a blad or mamyia? (geeze you can rent one for the day for a few hundred bucks!)

[Bruce M. Morris]

Why rent? I am sure that the White House Communications Agency has a ready supply of MF with and without digital backs.
It occurred to me that the cropping (extra headroom etc) might be because they displayed the full frame to allow others to crop as needed. I would be surprised if that is the reason, but it is a possible reason.

[AndrewCCM]

Why in the world would they need a MF camera for this? They aren't going to be hanging banners and billboards in the streets like they did of Saddam Hussein I wouldn't think. :)

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

MF doesn't necessarily mean Large size, it means that you have more data to work with. Heck most fashion magazines use MF based photos because they know that they can do more with the data captured if they need to do any work on the photo.

I guarantee you that the portrait has some work done to it.

Only reason that PJ's use 35mm is that the size of the equipment is smaller and lighter than a comprable MF set up which you don't have to much concerns with when doing a studio type shoot. (bet there are a few PJ's wished that they had a MF on hand in some situations!)

[AndrewCCM]

I understand that Paul.. I just really don't see the need personally for a shoot like this. 21mpix, good glass and technique is more than enough. MF wouldn't have made this particular shot any better in my opinion.

[lucian]

To me the portrait looks very ordinary. I'm disappointed with the placement of the flags.

[dbphotos]

Here's a "little" post processing.

Actually you can give a photo your own "Obey" look at www.obamicon.me

[trahanw]

Have to agree with you Bruce, currently shooting for the military and this seems to break all the rules. White balance also seems to be off some. Interesting...also don't like the crop. The picture is surpose to impose power. The flags seem far off in the background.

Originally Posted by Bruce M. Morris

Having shot government portraits for Military and knowing the facilities that have been used to shoot governmental portraits, I am surprised at this. An official portrait for the office of the president usually would have either the US Flag more prominent or have both the US and the flag of the Office of President in the image one on each side.
Of course, it just might be that Mr Souza, being more of a photojournalist is taking the liberties he is entitled to in creating something that is different from the last 25 years.