File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What does /p/ think about the recent Jill Greenberg incident?

For those who aren't aware, the Atlantic (an excellent US newsmagazine, probably best to say it's about at the same level as the Economist) hired her to do a cover shot of McCain for an article. She delivered the requested stock portrait, which is on this month's cover, and took a little leftover time in the shoot to do some personal work.

She took McCain over to another lighting rig. There was a normal set-up in front, but she didn't have that fire, and somehow he and his people didn't notice that instead a strobe fired from beneath him, for that classic horror-movie look.

And there's a bunch of people objecting to it. Personally I don't see the problem- journalistically, the Atlantic didn't run the shot, and even if it did, it's a magazine of commentary, not spot news. Its content does not need to be (and does not) strive to the Great Holy Grail of Humanly Impossible Objectivity. Greenberg's photograph is no different than an article in their magazine trashing McCain, or more accurately, an article one of their writers wrote on a personal blog trashing McCain. In other regards, what's wrong with her taking her only chance to do this piece of art- which I mean literally, not as a term of praise. (I don't really like Greenberg's style much at all.) Artists comment on culture and politics all the time- that's one of their main jobs in society. Greenberg did that. Writers and interviewers, all the time, deliver unflattering commentary on their subjects. Why shouldn't a photographer be able to do the same?

Pic related, it's Greenberg's horror-movie shot. If you want to see the normal shot the magazine requested, go buy it and look at the cover.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeItek Colour Graphics LtdCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width5793Image Height7145Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:09:12 14:19:27Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width555Image Height694
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>254952

well, it is rather horrid looking, because she ALSO shot him from down below. If she had done that purposely, then it's her fault; in a way it's still slander/bringing her own personal beliefs into an otherwise business matter (the shot was released, etc).

In terms of photo-ethics, she stepped over the line. he looks like shit. It's not her name on the line, it's the magazines whom hired her.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I don't think it's very professional, what Greenberg did, but she's certainly good at self-promotion. I mean, it could totally backfire and it seems like a lot of the press is bad, but I wouldn't be surprised if she starts doing more work than ever after this.

The first picture is so dull, I prefer the evil McCain. If that was the actual photo she wanted to take all along, to the point of deceiving her sitter, she should have presented that to the Atlantic. Honestly, there'd be a whole lot less controversy if that'd happened, but she wasn't being authentic.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>254959

actually i'd say that even her accepted cover looked like crap.
>> Anonymous
>>254956
>it's still slander/bringing her own personal beliefs into an otherwise business matter (the shot was released, etc).

By her, not by the Atlantic. By her contract, she owns copyright on the photographs taken in the session.

>n terms of photo-ethics, she stepped over the line. he looks like shit.

Why's that unethical? If a writer wrote, "John McCain looks like shit and like a vampire," would that be unethical?

>It's not her name on the line, it's the magazines whom hired her.

And the Atlantic published a standard picture of him. Greenberg published this one.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>254961

She was photographing him on the Atlantics time, it doesn't matter if the cover was already done and submitted. She had access to him because she was hired by the atlantic for the gig.

There's a business line and personal line. If she had asked him to come back for another shoot later and did that, that'd be fine. But she used the same time frame the atlantic had set up for her to shoot him. IT'S STILL THEIR TIME AND THEIR NAME on the line.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>254956
Well, it'd never be slander. And it doesn't even come close to libel. It's just an unflattering, self-serving portrait. McCain should be thanking her, he's coming out smelling like roses, a poor old veteran who got tricked by some huckster liberal photographer hag. Like that pervert Annie Leibovitz. Isn't she a LESBO too? My god, all these photographers are trying to destroy America...
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Disclaimer: I'm voting Obama this election.

It was sleazy and underhanded and if The Atlantic or McCain himself sue the bejeezus out of her, I think they'd be well within their rights. She was doing work-for-hire and, under the auspices of doing work for the Atlantic, she did work for herself that damaged the reputation of both The Atlantic and McCain.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>254964

I know, sorry, but it was the first words that came to mind. Either way; she was in the wrong. Business is business, she was hired, she was paid by the Atlantic, and doing what she did on the Atlantic's time was wrong.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>254965

I'm also voting Obama, and I think this was ridiculous.
Not only is her normal work FUCKING RIDICULOUSLY BAD, but the shit she did was just fucking unacceptable.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/14/the-atlantic-should-have-googled-jill-greenberg-before-hiring-h
er/

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/bad_americans/the_atlantic_mo.php

By the way, pic fucking related, because she doctored some of the shots from her session for the Atlantic into shit like this. Totally, completely unacceptably unprofessional, and 100% COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

Shit like this will get people to vote *FOR* McCain, but this dumb bitch is clearly more interested in promoting herself than any of her feigned political ideals.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width154Image Height200Compression SchemeJPEG Compression (Thumbnail)Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>> Anonymous
>>254977
the shoop of the monkey shitting on his head is just ridiculous
seriously wtf why would the bitch even do that?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
one of the shitty pix pop up when you refresh the home page on her website:

http://www.manipulator.com/
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
HAHAHA, I thought that someone had MS Paint'd that in there... IT'S ON HER SITE. HILARIOUS.

Greenberg is an epic /b/tard.
>> Anonymous
>>254993
>Greenberg is an epic /b/tard.

She also just gave several thousand votes to McCain.
Dumb move.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>254994
Maybe Greenberg's a SEKRIT REPUBLIKAN, just like Ann Coulter is a secret liberal.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>254965
I'm agreeing with ac on this. She deliberately took unflattering photos, so she basically ignored the work she was actually hired for in order to do her own work.
The photo on the cover, while bad and not particularly flattering, isn't actively detrimental; it's really just neutral in content and poorly done. The rest of it? Yeah, that was just dumb on her part.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
If this thing ends her career, I'd say she deserved it.

But more likely she's going to be made more famous.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>255006
That Malkin article is hilarious, how it makes out pretty much every liberal as someone who scares children.
Yeah, Greenberg is already controversial, this just makes her moreso. Even if her career gets messed up for a while, well, that just feeds the martyr machine.
>> Anonymous
lol dodge and burn
>> Anonymous
What a shit photos she takes, anyways. I think some of the stuff we see here from day to day is vastly superior to her politically biased crap.

And she doesn't even deliver the message properly. I wouldn't have know those crying babies were against Bush if I didn't read about it.

>>Artists comment on culture and politics all the time
Maybe, but in a subtle way. Political art usually isn't the best kind of art.
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>254952
that photo looks like shit regardless of the semiotics behind it. is she supposed to be a pro?
>> Anonymous
I applaud her courage, but am disappointed with the results.

These shots look like shit.
Why didn't she process the fuck out of them the way she does with everything else?
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
not really acceptable and the photo is horribly unflattering too.
but at the same time i don't think it's that much of a big deal.
>> Anonymous
Of course its an unflattering photo you fucking dolts. Thats what its suppose to be. HURR DURR SHOWIG HIM IN A BAD LIGHT. This was hilarious. Fuck your photo ethics, sh clearly doesnt subscibe to them.
>> Anonymous
>>254963
>f she had asked him to come back for another shoot later and did that, that'd be fine.

And you think he would've agreed to it? He should, any politician should agree (time permitting) to be photographed by anyone of any bias, but that's not how it is.
> IT'S STILL THEIR TIME AND THEIR NAME on the line.

The Atlantic would have to fuck up really, really badly to lose a gram of its name. It's one of the oldest and most prestigious of American magazines. And it didn't even fuck up here, if you consider this a fuck-up. It doesn't matter how she came to be photographing McCain, the Atlantic is only responsible for what it publishes. It published the normal picture of McCain. Greenberg, who took and published the other ones, bears sole responsibility for those. See? This is simple. People are responsible for *what they do* and nothing more.
>> Anonymous
>>255072
[con't]


And why is what she did at all unethical? Look at it like this: say a writer is hired by a magazine, say the Atlantic, to interview a politician, say John McCain and write a cover story on him, with instructions on what sort of tone, etc. to have. Say the writer performs that as instructed, and then with the notes (which they own copyright to) on the interview they did writes a hatchet piece on John McCain. I don't know anyone- except the politician's camp, of course- who would call foul. Do you see anything wrong with that?

And to the people saying the deception is wrong- it's wrong for politicians to try to control their portrayal in the media. If someone has to lie to get around that, all power to them. Fucking with children like she did with that series of hers is very arguably unethical, fucking with politicians- McCain, Obama, whoever- who manipulate people ten thousand times more than Greenberg manipulated McCain is not.

And why should Greenberg- or anyone- segregate her time between business and anything else? To paraphrase Orwell, "The opinion that business should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude." ("Business" is "art" in the original, FWIW.) I'd argue people in all their dealings- business and otherwise- have a moral responsibility to further the causes they support and hinder the ones they don't. "Causes" being overtly political or otherwise. Nevermind that- as other people have said- she's probably helping McCain more than hurting him. It's the principle of the case. (See my next reply, damn field limits.)
>> Anonymous
>>255073
[Last.]

>>255015
>Maybe, but in a subtle way. Political art usually isn't the best kind of art.

Amen, this shit is as contrived and shallow as all hell (did she ever think that with the caption "John McCain from the point of view of a terrorist" or something like that it could just as easily be pro-McCain?), like all her work, but that doesn't mean Greenberg was wrong to make it. Eventually a good photographer is going to have a chance at this. Same thing as DiCorcia's shot of Nussensweig (sp?). It's a shit photo, but the arguments around that wound up benefiting better photographers doing the same thing.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
>>255010
I honestly wouldn't have known about this if it weren't for this thread. I wouldn't even know who Jill Greenberg was if it weren't for /p/ posting her in all of pskaught's threads.

Bottom line: It was stupid for The Atlantic for hiring her and I'm sure they regret it now. If not for the shops and unflattering shots, then for the awful looking front cover.
>> Anonymous
Holy overreaction batman.


I think OP's pic is great. Not technically, of course, but in context it's pretty evil, which is cool.
>> Anonymous
What she did was exploitative, yes. Unethical? No.

The McCain campaign blasted the Atlantic for not doing their research, but the same could be said of Mr. McCain's crew.

What we have here is political art, folks. The photos are intentionally shitty to show you the artist's feelings about the person. She even admitted to not shopping his eyes well for the published photo (intentionally).
>> pskaught !!CrjzPzel1dX
I knew you guys would be talking about this.
I think it's fucking excellent, it will in no way effect her career, only improve it. Its what I hope anyone would do if they had a chance to face someone so evil. She'll get paid for it no matter how much the magazine says they wont pay her. Its fucking brilliant.

greenberg ftw
>> Anonymous
i think this is hilarious. the atlantic is stupid for hiring someone without googlling them.

>>255006
nah, dawg. she'll be fine.
>> Anonymous
republifag here


i guess i'm the only one who thinks mccain looks like a fucking badass in OPs pic.
>> Anonymous
is this the same chick who did those horribly overdone crying HDR babies?
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>255158

Yup, apparently it's supposed to be some sort of protest againstbush
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
I like OPs picture, makes McCain look like hes living in my attic.
>> Anonymous
Oh Jill, you are such a /p/hotographer.
>> Anonymous
I like the OP photo. It's not a great photo and it certainly isn't flattering but Greenberg knew what she wanted from the shot and got it.

I also don't have a problem with the ethics of it. She was doing the shoot and can take whatever photos she likes.

As for complaints about it being unflattering - photos of politicians are often unflattering. If a newspaper thinks a particular policy is stupid, they'll publish a photo of the politician looking stupid to go alongside the article. Photos in journalism almost always make comment - there's nothing factual to a photo - they are to support a story (and the opinions of the newspaper where appropriate).
>> Anonymous
>>255072
>>255073
You don't know how business, or copyright works, do you?
>> Anonymous
>>255027
>>pro

I don't think you know what that means.
>> Anonymous
Also, would've done the same thing.

Why throw away such a great oppertunity? You'd have to be stupid.
>> Anonymous
his jowls haunt me.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Best photo of a politician ever.
>> Anonymous
Yeah, if they'd Googled her first they would have discovered that Greenberg takes godawful photos.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
The actual magazine shot reminds me of this.
Though maybe mccain just looks half melted? idk, I don't really follow politics.
>> Anonymous
>>254956

you are a fucking moron and a weenie
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
ACID?

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:16 11:27:05Image Width160Image Height200Compression SchemeJPEG Compression (Thumbnail)Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width502Image Height627
>> Anonymous
It is funny as fuck. I don't see a problem with it. Jill's photography is shitty though.
>> Anonymous
I was on her site a while ago , and see a portrate of him on the opening page , typical work of hers etc but it had like lipstick smudges on his coller , and if i remember i kinda menecing grin ,
Would I be right in thinking she added that shit in to?
I used to love her work , lost a lot of respect for doing that shit no more moral than a paparazzi fag.
>> Anonymous
>>255456
I just went and its not up now.
But another one is depicting him in a bad light.
Shes just using her art as propaganda now. Way to tarnish her own name as an artist.
If you have issues with a shoot , you dont do it. You dont take it then manipulate it to something other than it was.
>> Anonymous
>>255474
Do not want.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>255081
>I wouldn't even know who Jill Greenberg was if it weren't for /p/ posting her in all of pskaught's threads.

Wow, you are one out of touch mother fucker.

Her "End Times" crying babies bullshit was ALL OVER THE FUCKING INTERNET and magazines.
>> sage
Most of Greenberg's shit sucks but I like this. I liked the crying babies too, it was just so wonderfully evil.
>> pskaught !!CrjzPzel1dX
>>2555
her monkey series is fucking excellent.
>> Anonymous
Jill Greenberg sure knows how to troll.
>> Anonymous
jill is a hack

more an attention whore than a photographer
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>256121
>>artist
>>attention whore
pick two
>> Anonymous
>>256130

I'll do you one better and pick one. ATTENTION WHORE.

Goodnight and good luck.
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>256136
you did it wrong
>> I did it for the epic lulz Jill Greenberg
The lulz were epic anon. You fags troll the smallest board on some crappy internet forum. I trolled the entire USA!
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Gotta give it to her... she's gonna sell a shit load more prints now... this will easily gain her a few hundred thousand in sells.

FUCCCCK.
>> Anonymous
It was horribly unprofessional of her. She is a dirty cunt.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>256264
But probably at the expense of her ever getting a job shooting someone for a magazine again.