Innovative or just amateur?

[Chris Dodkin]

With the Olympics just weeks away, the buzz here in the US is building, with Olympic trials selecting the folks who will be traveling to London.

As the US team is selected, the official athlete portraits have been released, shot in part by Joe Klamar for AFP and Getty.

And this is where the brown smelly stuff hit the fan!

Shortly after the portraits were released, people started to comment on the ripped backdrops, the 'behind the scenes' looks, and some less than complimentary studio lighting and athlete prep.

So... Was this look intentional, or did they just do a shoddy job?

Was the look a bold attempt to show how the US was no longer a dominant force in the world, or did the photo editors just get sloppy and release a bunch of sub-standard shots?

It's getting press over here - http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2012/07/a-few-words-about-joe-klamars-viral-and-obviously-terrible-olympic-portraits/ - and no one has a definite answer as yet.

However, it is doing the job of getting a whole load of free publicity!

 

[Pete Askew]

Well whatever his intentions (and what a lot of drivel on the linked article), they are bloody awful I think!

 

[Dave Green]

Terrible! The novices at my local camera club could do better than that on "Portrait Night".

 

[Paul Lange]

I think there is a time and a place to air non conformist ideas and aesthetics and this is not one of them IMO.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

I think they're great! Well, in a way that makes me feel better about my own efforts...

 

[Lesley Jones]

Hmmmm... I agree absolutely, but on looking through them a second time, I thought how perfect they looked as athletes in spite of the poor backgrounds. Does that make sense? I still think it isn't the time or place to be controversial, but that is still my impression. Put them anywhere (even in Teletubby scenery) and they still look world class...

 

[Larry Bolch]

I sense the heavy hand of an art director with a taste for 1990s grunge—a clear effort to avoid a slick commercial look. On a shoot, no one just shoots one exposure. Even when working with a heavy handed creative director, I made sure that I offered shots that were all the way from very edgy to entirely safe. On a big budget shoot such as this, it is often a whole crowd yelling conflicting orders, and it can be overwhelming.

Camel: noun; "A horse designed by a committee."

One would think that the client and agency had the style ironed out and communicated to the photographer well before the shoot, but that ain't necessarily so. Even worse, there can be several people from the agency and from the client. The boss from the client's side might just decide to turn up, having been completely out of the loop during the planning. Since he signs the checks, he has a degree of clout, so everything so carefully planned, unravels.

Once the work is delivered it is completely out of the photographer's control. I recall a very specific assignment of a feature shot, with the meaning spelled out clearly on the assignment form. That is what I shot and what I turned in. When I saw the shot published the next day, the essential message had been cropped out, and the remaining image made no sense in relation to the cut-line. Worse, it made me look like an idiot. I decided to confront the editor, and his explanation was that it was "cropped to fit his page layout."

<sigh> "Sigh" </sigh>

In the end, the editor, director or client is in charge. There is nothing to stop them from using any image processing technique to greatly alter ones work—or crop the meaning out of it entirely. Some are great, fully bridging the gap between the photography and the finished publication, capable of brainstorming with one to produce the very best illustrations, shown in the most attractive ways.

Then there are air-heads who realize they don't have a cover shot for an annual report the day before it goes to press. Mid-afternoon I got a frantic call to head for the airport to fly to a quite distant city. A corporate twin engine aircraft and crew were waiting. The subject was a new restaurant chain, and the interior was lit by daylight, fluorescent, neon and incandescent. They needed a colour balanced transparency by 8:30 the following morning. Film, not Photoshop. All-nighter in the fume-room and a very stout invoice followed. A day in the life...

Without knowing the whole story, I would be the last person to lay the blame on the shooter.

 

[Ben Jennings]

They seem so bad it must be intentional.

 

[Dan Cattermole]

Ouch!!!
It must be intentional... Surely.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Definitely intentional, definitely not amateur ... and I do like them!

Surely they are making a statement! A break from the cheese that normally flows from the US... In terms of publicity its got to be viral genius. It certainly gets people talking about what they mean!

I think they are an attempt to break down some of the arrogance that I feel is normally associated with america!
The olymipics is a huge competition... america in my mind is a country full of competitive and mostly arrogant people who like to win. This for me is evident in everything from politics to sport. The politics has failed, which is the back bone of the county so perhaps these photos are a reflection of that. The arrogant "winning is the only option" feel that comes in to my head when i think of america seems silly when you think about the mess that the press portrays the county to be in.
So when it comes to photos of pictures of olympians id probably think the same if i saw flash ott photography of them. my reaction to the shots would probably be "all mouth, no trousers" ... whereas my reaction to these shots is a lot more positive. They show the Olympians as individuals, backed by ... well a flag, and a crumpled one at that. not flattering, not airbrushed, just normal human beings that want to win something for them selves, but maybe to help get a bit of respect back to their (possibly trying for once to be) humble and somewhat failing country.

That's what they say to me and I think it works!

But maybe that is the perspective of someone who doesnt really care about the olympics and isnt really in to sport ...?