« The College Years | Main | No Comment »

Wednesday, 21 January 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"... has uncovered the original photograph and the photographer"

I thought that was what the "hope" post already announced? That the photo and photographer had been found?

A great photograph with double impact of stardom!

Most amusing is that the original is out of focus and when viewed at 100% has a strong watercolor effect.

It almost appears to have been shot with a P&S.


What's with the fascination of some people with trying to unearth the photograph from which the poster was "copied"? I wish they would just leave the poster alone, and be inspired, disgusted, excited, bored, moved, indifferent or whatever by it. Personally I feel indifferent about the poster, but I think the photograph sucks.

Great artist always are attracted to great people.

Does anyone knows how to do the "Obama"-Filter in Photoshop for other portraits? (like, mine)

thanks a lot,


"Most amusing is that the original is out of focus and when viewed at 100% has a strong watercolor effect."

It's a typical high-ISO news shot. Available light, probably a slow-ish shutter speed, and his eyes are plenty sharp enough. Definitely not shot with a P+S, the DoF is too shallow. I've shot a ton of these over the years, and this one is just fine for its intended purpose.

BTW the original is in Adobe RGB 1998, and looks a lot better in a color-managed application, rather than in a web browser.


No need for a PS plug-in! Go here:


I used to get the wire feed every day, and you'd be surprised how rarely these shots are very sharp at 100 percent. Just being able to get sharp shots in those situations keeps food on my table.

As a news or documentary shot, I think it's fine.

With President Obama's face removed from context and turned into a poster, it's more than a little creepy - reminds me of the iconic Che-the-murderer photo, and I certainly wouldn't want President Obama compared in any way to that horrible piece of drek.

This newest "original photograph" is even farther off-axis than the first 2 claims of 'source photo', and is quite obviously not the source for the artwork.
This whole discussion just shows how unoriginal an 'original' photograph can be when photographers are placed in a small box inches from other photographers shooting the exact same subject.
The derivative artwork then becomes the only 'original' image in the whole batch.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007