Author Topic: Olympics Photos - Getty? Seriously? (Read 1740 times)

oxman · « **on:** July 06, 2012, 11:34 »

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/photography/2012/07/bad_olympic_photos_how_terrible_shots_of_olympians_went_viral_.single.html

Check out these photos that Getty pushed through of the Olympic athletes. Sure, the photographer was over his head and now has a ruined career. But, Getty? What were you thinking?

Karimala · « **Reply #1 on:** July 06, 2012, 16:14 »

*POOF* There goes the myth about traditional agencies having the best photos while the micros only offer crap. We all know each and every one of those shots would be instantly rejected by the micros.

disorderly · « **Reply #2 on:** July 06, 2012, 17:12 »

I was sure this was a joke. How could anybody have presented these photos as professional work?

jm · « **Reply #3 on:** July 06, 2012, 17:53 »

Photographer Joe Klamar Explains His Controversial Olympic Portraits
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/06/photographer-joe-klamar-explains-his-controversial-olympic-portraits/

Graffoto · « **Reply #4 on:** July 06, 2012, 18:03 »

Anyone seen the recent work of Terry Richardson? Abject garbage (Art?

).
My point is, he does it to generate buzz as well as differentiate himself from everyone else.

Perhaps that was the point of this insanely bad shoot with the Olympians.
After all, everyone is talking about how horrendous these shots are.
If it had been Tim Tadder or Joel Grimes doing shooting with their particular high definition style, they would have been stellar images... but perhaps totally ignored by the media.

Graffoto · « **Reply #5 on:** July 06, 2012, 18:06 »

Quote from: jm on July 06, 2012, 17:53

Photographer Joe Klamar Explains His Controversial Olympic Portraits
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/06/photographer-joe-klamar-explains-his-controversial-olympic-portraits/

OK, if this is the case, why were his shots chosen over those from some of the other photographers that had set up mini studios?
I stick to my original assumption that these shots were used in order to create more buzz.

jm · « **Reply #6 on:** July 06, 2012, 18:14 »

Klamar is not Czech photographer as mentioned in article. He is Slovak.
And "Klamar" in Slovak means "liar"

wut · « **Reply #7 on:** July 06, 2012, 18:27 »

I can't understand how a pro can produce such garbage. There's no excuse. Lighting is the worst I've ever seen, someone setting it up for the first time, would do it better. How is it even possible to compose them that badly, that you even miss the edge of the backdrop and shoot on a torn paper (just roll down the unused part, you idiot)?

And then the editors accept them and send them to the media

? With such competition I'd be a multimillionaire

sjlocke · « **Reply #8 on:** July 06, 2012, 18:38 »

His excuses are irrelevant. He should not have let the results out of his laptop.

jamirae · « **Reply #9 on:** July 06, 2012, 18:57 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 06, 2012, 18:38

His excuses are irrelevant. He should not have let the results out of his laptop.

exactly. and really... “It was very embarrassing to find out that I wouldn’t be able to take advantage of a studio,” Joe told us by email.

I would think that a pro would have improvised way better than that -- but seeing the results, definitely should not have released any of those images.

click_click · « **Reply #10 on:** July 06, 2012, 20:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 06, 2012, 18:38

His excuses are irrelevant. He should not have let the results out of his laptop.

I still doubt that a "pro" would actually take such shots in the first place with the gear he had.

He anticipated to take head shots of the athletes, why didn't he do just that when he had them in front of him one by one?

Putting them in awkward poses without having a chance of any further research what each athlete's event is, leads to unfortunate posing - as you can see.

To avoid ridiculous poses I'd just have taken personal close-ups which should have worked fine with 1 flash and the lenses he had at hand.

I can see that as a first time gig this can really shake you up, but it should have been (significantly) better than this.

Also, it's so much easier to tell someone how to do it than do it better yourself... - so I'll leave it at that.

oxman · « **Reply #11 on:** July 06, 2012, 22:09 »

I think Getty intentionally turned this in to a publicity stunt to drive awareness for the company. They threw Klamar under the bus for the media play. How unlike them...

sharpshot · « **Reply #12 on:** July 07, 2012, 01:52 »

Is this like the alamy news photos that the photographers upload without reviews from an editor? I can't see them on the Getty site. Looks like the photographers mistake, if all I had was this, I would say my memory card failed.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #13 on:** July 07, 2012, 03:14 »

OK, here's a likely scenario (from a newspaper man's perspective): AFP had the invite to the shoot and included photos of the US Olympic team as part of the photo schedule for the day, causing papers to leave space for the pix in their sports pages. When the pictures arrived, AFP were b*ggered, they hadn't got anything else, so an irate sports editor thought "scr*w this photographer" and pushed them through, as per schedule, rather than sending out an apology and cancellation. For reasons of their authenticity as news shots, the torn paper, etc, could not be retouched according to AFP's ethics (I've even seen sensor spots carefully preserved in wire pics).

As I understand it, Getty automatically archives everything on the AFP picture feed making it inevitable that once these pictures were released by AFP they would immediately enter the Getty archive. That's the policy, so that's what happened.

Therefore, from the moment this event was included in the AFP picture schedule, the outcome was pretty much inevitable.

However, the photographer's excuse was pathetic. Even with a restricted backdrop he could have gone for tight upper-body poses, etc, and there was no requirement to have the wrong WB.

jm · « **Reply #14 on:** July 07, 2012, 03:25 »

Wow! When I took a look at Klamar's portfolio at Getty ten hours ago, there were thousands of images, today only four of them remaining.
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=editorial&assetType=image&mt=photography&p=joe+klamar

sjlocke · « **Reply #15 on:** July 07, 2012, 08:09 »

Quote from: jm on July 07, 2012, 03:25

Wow! When I took a look at Klamar's portfolio at Getty ten hours ago, there were thousands of images, today only four of them remaining.
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=editorial&assetType=image&mt=photography&p=joe+klamar

I still see 34000 images there, most of them snapshots.

jm · « **Reply #16 on:** July 07, 2012, 08:15 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 07, 2012, 08:09

Quote from: jm on July 07, 2012, 03:25
Wow! When I took a look at Klamar's portfolio at Getty ten hours ago, there were thousands of images, today only four of them remaining.
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=editorial&assetType=image&mt=photography&p=joe+klamar

I still see 34000 images there, most of them snapshots.

Yes, they are back. But in the morning there were really only four Obama & Rice images.

wut · « **Reply #17 on:** July 07, 2012, 09:16 »

I still see only 4 :s . Perhaps I should have deleted cookies (which I won't, not to see more crap)

Mantis · « **Reply #18 on:** July 07, 2012, 15:55 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 07, 2012, 08:09

Quote from: jm on July 07, 2012, 03:25
Wow! When I took a look at Klamar's portfolio at Getty ten hours ago, there were thousands of images, today only four of them remaining.
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=editorial&assetType=image&mt=photography&p=joe+klamar

I still see 34000 images there, most of them snapshots.

Aren't most of Getty's images snapshot? And then they spin a crappy image into a big sale.

Lagereek · « **Reply #19 on:** July 09, 2012, 00:45 »

I have always from the very start maintained that trad agencies and especially microstock, should stay away from editorial photography and this if anything is living proof.
Absoloute cr#p.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #20 on:** July 09, 2012, 09:39 »

Quote from: Lagereek on July 09, 2012, 00:45

I have always from the very start maintained that trad agencies and especially microstock, should stay away from editorial photography and this if anything is living proof.
Absoloute cr#p.

But that's the Agence France Presse feed, Christian, its a top news agency's archive, not a stock agency dabbling in news.