Following up on the "HOPE" poster mystery, Tom Gralish has uncovered the original photograph and the photographer—it's Mannie Garcia, a Washington D.C. freelancer who was working as a stringer for the Associated Press. (A variant from the same shoot, above.) The picture was taken in April of 2006 at a function at the National Press Club where actor George Clooney was attempting to draw attention to the situation in Darfur.
Tom's following through with Mannie, which I'll be watching for on Tom's blog.
(Thanks to Carrie)
"... 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?
Posted by: Eolake Stobblehouse | Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 07:13 PM
A great photograph with double impact of stardom!
Posted by: roentarre | Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 07:36 PM
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.
http://blog.pennlive.com/midstate_impact/2008/03/_479211629042006.jpg
Posted by: Other MJ | Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 08:42 PM
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.
Posted by: Lambert | Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 10:30 PM
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,
best,
Andreas.
Posted by: Andreas Suchert | Thursday, 22 January 2009 at 08:00 AM
"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.
Posted by: Ken Bennett | Thursday, 22 January 2009 at 08:50 AM
Andreas,
No need for a PS plug-in! Go here:
http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/
Posted by: Jake | Thursday, 22 January 2009 at 10:55 AM
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.
Posted by: Ryan Brenizer | Thursday, 22 January 2009 at 10:57 AM
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.
Posted by: Steve Rosenbach | Thursday, 22 January 2009 at 11:16 AM
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.
Posted by: Joe Boris | Thursday, 22 January 2009 at 11:22 AM