The “manipulator” lives up to her name
From the “what was she thinking” files: According to a story in Photo District News by David Walker seen here, photographer Jill Greenberg (aka The Manipulator) received an assignment to shoot Senator John McCain for Atlantic Magazine.
She apparently got the images that were “safe” for the magazine, then went on to shoot her own personal pictures of the Republican presidential candidate.
“After getting that shot,” David Walker wrote in his story, “Greenberg asked McCain to “please come over here†for one more set-up before the 15-minute shoot was over. There, she had a beauty dish with a modeling light set up. “That’s what he thought he was being lit by,†Greenberg says. “But that wasn’t firing.—
Instead she lit him from below, causing horrific shadows on him and the wall behind him. She seems proud of showing the senator in a less than flattering light, as evidenced by her photoshopped picture of a monkey defecating on John McCain’s head, which is on her homepage and here.
There’s an update on this story here: http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/bad_americans/the_atlantic_mo.php
hive wrote:
Ok she’s a good photographer, an artist rather than a photojournalist; but I’m not too sure about her understanding of ethics. I’m not american, so i’m not really concerned about politics there; she could have shot anyone like that my reaction would be the same; it’s deception motivated by a political agenda; and/or self-promotion. First the kids crying, now this.
Posted on 14-Sep-08 at 4:23 am | Permalink
Tony wrote:
I always operate under the assumption that trust is the biggest tool that a portrait photographer has. I can’t see this as a wise business decision.
Posted on 14-Sep-08 at 3:20 pm | Permalink
Carey Schumacher wrote:
I totally agree with Troy, but I don’t think Jill G. is crying in her pillow over having lost the trust of right-wing political figures.
Her children’s “anti war” series was VERY disturbing in my opinion (”Mission Accomplished” would be her reaction to that, I’m sure), and she lost a LOT of credibility points in my view after that series. Again, I doubt she’s crying in her pillow over that. She’s living in a bubble of a world that LOVES everything she does. I’m sure many many many people around her tell her how great her stuff is very very very often, and anyone else is waived aside as either 1) uncultured 2) hicks 3) unsophisticated 4) neo-cons or 5) all of the above
~Carey
Posted on 14-Sep-08 at 8:09 pm | Permalink
Carey Schumacher wrote:
interesting article here: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/15/atlantic-monthly-editor-to-offer-apology-to-mccain-for-photogs-doctored-pics/
Looks like she’s not going to be paid, and she may get sued.
If the mag. didn’t want images like this, why did they hire her??? Were they that uninformed as to her “views”? I guess it’s possible, but they should have done their homework
Posted on 15-Sep-08 at 3:15 pm | Permalink
WDOphoto wrote:
@Carey - I’ve never worked for a client or company that asked my political affiliation before they hired me.
I assume that her politics might be very obvious now (and might have been rather well known before) but no matter how far out a person is on either end of the political spectrum it’s hard to believe anyone would act so unprofessional when asked to be a professional.
It would seem now that magazines will have to dig even deeper into people’s background. Make sure you don’t have any political affiliation listed on your facebook page or in a blog comment anywhere.
This just causes a huge mess for photographers, editors, and everyone else involved in the industry. Thanks Jill!
Posted on 15-Sep-08 at 6:08 pm | Permalink
Pithy Opiner wrote:
What a truely disgusting person. A slimeball of the first order. As a liberal, she is feces on my shoe. I wouldn’t hire to do animals or anything. Our magazine will steer clear of her. I can’t stand unprofessional pros. Too stupid to understand what she just did to her future business. And, that stupidity will last her life-time.
Posted on 15-Sep-08 at 8:21 pm | Permalink
A Sydney wedding photographer, Paul Benjamin, writes about the things that drive him... wrote:
[...] to Robert Benson for the heads up on the breaking Greenberg [...]
Posted on 16-Sep-08 at 6:35 am | Permalink
Noob wrote:
I’m fairly new commissioned to photography, I’ve only been a professional for 6 months. But I’m totally aware that this is something you don’t do. I even agree with her views, I think McCain is a shady guy. But seriously, this isn’t the kind of thing you publish. I’m not offended by the images (I think they are funny on a sophomoric level), but I just don’t think such crudeness has a place outside bar room discussions, nor should such deception be tolerated. But I also feel this is a free speech issue to. She has every right to make those images if she so chooses, even with the ones she did during a commission, but keep it to yourself and close friends, don’t post it. I also feel she deserves all the flack and lost work as a result. Since she personally didn’t pay to have McCain there and she most likely wasn’t the one who roped him in, she shouldn’t be compensated for her work. A model is like a rental car (for lack of a better analogy), they come to you clean and should be returned as such. Sure most people are a little rough on rentals, but Jill wrapped this one around a tree, and Atlantic monthly didn’t buy the insurance. She completely destroyed her subject and Atlantic monthly was the one who has to explain her actions. It’s sad to see such talent (yeah I like her monkey pics, they are really unique and lovely) go to waste on some one who lacks control and tact. Sure artists have been caught up in controversy for centuries with their alternative views, but bridge burning with no gain is foolish and damning to the whole profession. There are better ways to push an agenda, spewing venom is easy, changing someone’s opinion is much harder. She should work on that.
Posted on 19-Sep-08 at 12:03 pm | Permalink