Not bad, not too bad at all.
The French get a pass since they kind of invented photography as we know it today.....I would have been real impressed if they had done a Daguerreotype.
I'm slightly annoyed by the building growing out of his head. There is separation, just maybe not quite enough for me.
The "well the President can only give you 5 minutes so...." attitude is Sarkozy's (the previous one), this one seems (we'll see in a few years) to listen more and to give more time. He also seem to know more about culture (not too difficult) that his predecessor (the previous photographer was a people-ish one).
Originally Posted by blansky
I tend to think Depardon is a good photographer, not sure this is his best work, but what I like in his work iis more the sense of "continuity" than the "greatest hits" he produces. His work about rural France is something I love. I really like "La terre des paysans" (could be translated to "farmers' land"). The fact that he was born in a farm and his parents were farmers shows in the images.
Finally, I'd say that what I prefer about the image is that it is shot on an "obsolete" media with an "obsolete" camera...
Besides choosing better his official photograph, Hollande could have chosen better his official tailor! ;)
Nice to know he likes human beings. His hand are cut at half though, so it's the first president with half hands on a portrait.
I like "Elizabeth II as Dracula" portrait though. Could also be used for Republican propaganda :)
There is something odd going on here. In the photo of the photographer working you can see his camera is clearly aiming up at the President and the buildings would in the distance should have converging lines like any building you aim your camera up at. Instead the lines of the building almost seem to be widening at top as if the photographer was looking down at them. And the enlarged head of the President is illogical as well.
What I am guessing happened is that the film was scanned and then the perspective for the building corrected in photoshop, which also enlarged the head of the Pres.
Interestingly in his other work, he didn't blow out the backgrounds by shooting at the wrong time of day.
Originally Posted by Laurent
If this is "showing the way", film users have one foot on the banana peel.
This wasn't the official portrait but in fact recorded early one morning after the Queen had a spat with one of Lady Di's relatives.
Originally Posted by ooze
This is merely the "Pistols at Dawn" picture.
Luckily no one was hurt although the Queen was shot in the head, but since she's been dead for 25 years no one was the wiser.
HA, Prince Charles, still no crown.
Actually I have the impression the lens is probably slightly wide angular, the camera is aimed slightly downward, which makes the head of the President so unfortunately prominent. Buildings are not supposed to cut a head in two, but this is no normal building, and no normal head, so why should the photograph be normal?
Originally Posted by dpurdy
Besides, remember that during the electoral campaign this candidate promised to renegotiate all the rules about composition, which were unfairly dictated by the Germans profiting from the fact that they made the camera and the lens.
You can actually see a subtle political message there: the photographer "of the peasant" (very worker-minded, well done, good shot) instead of the photographer of the celebrities, the portrait like your aunt would have made it (power to the people!), the tailor who was working as a milkman until election day, it all says "make no mistake, I'm not your usual President working for the bourgeois and the banks".
He's not holding a black child in his arms only because it's an official shot.
Yes my politically incorrect idea is that he's a bloody demagogue. And I have all the right to express my opinion because he's a "cousin" after all ;)