
(AFP Photos/Joe Klamar)
Pixels and piety: Photographing Olympic icons
by Marlowe Hood
When I first saw Joe Klamar’s pictures of US Olympic athletes, I didn’t understand what all the fuss was about. As far as I could see, Joe had done what he does best: bring an original, insightful vision onto whatever he trains his camera-ready eye, as often as not a sports-related story.
But I’m an American, even if I have been living abroad half my life, and a little voice inside said at the same time: “sacrilege.”
I thought immediately of a potent symbol of American nationalism born even before the United States was a nation, created by Benjamin Franklin himself. It began with what may be the first American political cartoon, and ended with an emblem of red-blooded patriotism: a rattlesnake against the backdrop of a flag with the legend “Don’t Tread on Me.” Joe’s photos, I sensed, had crossed an invisible red line, and the snake had somehow been provoked. [Full disclosure: Joe is a colleague, though I have never met him; I think the photos in question are terrific, and if I thought otherwise I’d say so.]
Most of the vitriol that is still pouring onto comment feeds and Twitter lambasts Joe’s professionalism. “I could do better with my cell phone,” Carrie Wenzel huffed indignantly in a post on a photography website.
The controversy simmered mainly among professionals until a few days ago, when a thread started on reddit.com. That’s when the shots hit the fan. “Wow... he's trying something new for press shots, concealing some details in shadows, using FOV [field of view] and perspective to distort subjects in a not-so appealing way. Wow, they're getting worse... These are terrible," said one post.
“The photographer was in over his head here. These are major photographs to represent our best athletes,” intoned a clearly outraged Joy V. “There are at least a few shots where Klamar just totally cuts off a hand, or foot etc., which, regardless of lighting/studio experience, should never be done,” added someone signing as “strontgorrth”. “No photo editor would want to use said cut off pic, it's just inexcusable.”
That last assertion, at least, is demonstrably false. Joe’s photos were picked up by dozens of AFP’s major media clients, including CBS.com, where 27 or the 34 pictures in a montage of US Olympic athletes were taken by Joe. Obviously they thought he was doing something right.
As did his own editors. "Joe was sent to this assignment to do exactly this kind of pictures," explained Mladen Antonov, AFP's photo director for North America. "We chose him because of his ability to see the world through different eyes, unconventional and more original. We wanted something different and we got it!"

(Joe Klamar by Joe Klamar)
The way Joe tells the story, there’s also a dose of serendipity in the how the photos came out.
“I was under the impression that I was going to be photographing athletes on a stage or during press conference where I would take their headshots for our archives,” he explained. “I really had no idea that there would be a possibility for setting up a studio.” It was the first time AFP had been invited to participate in the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Media Summit, which was held this year, in May, at a Hilton Hotel in Dallas.
Joe had come armed with two cameras and three lenses (17-35, 70-200 and 300), plus one flash and a 12-inch laptop. To his horror, he saw upon arriving that his colleagues from other news agencies and media organizations had set up studio booths with professional lights, backdrops and prop assistants. “It was very embarrassing to find out that I wouldn’t be able to take advantage of a studio,” Joe told us by email.
A press officer from the U.S. Olympic Committee took pity on Joe, and helped him convince another photographer to share booth space. “He of course had the priority, but he was really very kind, and let me take pictures. We slowly learned how to coexist and work side-by-side,” Joe recalled.
Most sessions with the athletes – who were also a bit confused by the arrangements – lasted only a minute or two, so Joe had to be very inventive, and to think on his feet. “I had no particular concept prepared beforehand, so I had to jump into the water and swim. But it’s not really a disadvantage, because in our job we have to improvise to conditions about 50 percent of the time.”
Joe brushes off most of the criticism, but wanted to make clear that he had no intention of casting the athletes – for whom he had the highest regard – in a negative light. “My only goal was to show them as interesting, as special people who deserve their fame because they are the best as what they do. And for the little time we had together, they were willing to work with my concepts.”
He also points out that photo editors (AFP’s clients) had a wide selection of pictures to choose from – “serious, funky, official” – and that not all of them were offbeat. Nor does he make any apologies: “I work for a news agency and I wasn’t taking pictures for a Nike ad.”
Some people posting comments on the Web seemed to get it. “I am not a professional photographer,” ‘jhydrazi’, began somewhat apologetically on reddit.com. “But these images are not bad… In fact, they have a quality that makes them feel real. REAL.”
“This is a whole other millennium,” said another comment, rather dramatically. “We don’t have to accept the airbrushed, Photoshopped concept of beauty any more. Photographers and art directors have done that forever, and lots of us would rather see what actually happened in front of the lens.”
Amen to that.
Whatever the merits of Joe’s work, the often virulent reactions they provoke suggest to this displaced American that he touched a raw nerve. U.S. Olympic athletes are wrapped in the American flag, sometimes literally, and have become national icons. Otherwise tolerant folk can suddenly lose their sense of humor if they think someone is ‘disrespecting’ the values they hold dear. That obviously was not Joe’s intention, but some people seemed to take it that way.
“Awful,” noted a professional photographer who signed as Kirra. “Next time hire me. This is an embarrassment to our country and my profession.”
When one particularly truculent critic hammered away at Joe’s work in a series of long posts, another commentator had the nerve to ask: well, how would YOU pose these guys? The answer that came back from – note the name – “to_serve_and_protect” was a link to the work of another photographer that wrapped the athletes in red-white-&-blue, and golden halos of adoring light. (To each his own.)
“They’re photographing some of the world’s most elite athletes, they’ve spent years of dedicated training and perhaps their entire lives to the sport,” fumed thang1thang2 on reddit.com. “Countless hours, sweat, grit, determination into their craft. The picture is supposed to represent them in all their glory.”
Point well taken. But then again, perhaps that is precisely what Joe's work has done.
Follow @marlowehood

136 reactions
1 From John Goldsmith - 06/07/2012, 02:39
<i>“I could do better with my cell phone."</i>
Perhaps this comment about a cellphone is even more relevant than ever. With all due respect to Klamar, Instagram could have been a great solution instead of trying to keep up with the Joneses and their fancy backdrops. Regardless, a camera, a flash, and a simple background should be enough to create a wonderful grid of portraits. While I understand the pressures of a working photographer and the need to hit the ground running, I enjoy seeing photographers doing more with less while simultaneously making better pictures. Unfortunately, even with patriotism aside, that didn't happen for the athletes or the photographer.
2 From hlinton - 06/07/2012, 08:56
Cut the bull crap! These images are terrible! No amount of pandering or beating around the bush disguises shitty photography - no matter who or what the images are of.
“I could do better with my cell phone...” and this guy did: http://bit.ly/wQzB0h
3 From Johannes Myburgh - 06/07/2012, 10:55
Klamar has been a photographer for 20 years. He knows how to make a picture look good.
If it doesn't, it was intentional.
So to me the argument is not whether someone could've taken prettier pictures, but whether you like what he decided to do or not.
In my opinion, in a postmodern era it's refreshing not to be presented with idealistic portrayals of athletes in an otherworldly reality. I agree with that one comment: the pics make the people real, tangible, somebody that I could bump into on the road and have a beer with.
And I'll watch out for them in London.
Now wasn't that the photoshoot organisers' goal in the first place?
4 From boxhead - 06/07/2012, 11:03
Damn this bloke has a knack of just grabbing the shot when the subject is looking just slightly off. That takes skill to find that split second when they are looking just enough in the wrong direction that everybody who sees the finished photos goes "WTF!???"
5 From kubokubes - 06/07/2012, 11:09
I think his pictures are great they just picture a HUMAN as a human you are people forgetting what is REAL he didnt photograph a wax figurins in madam Tusaud museum he photographed real PEOPLE not GODS. and if you think you would do better with your cell phone why dont you get a job at AFP or any other big press agency. problem of nowadays is that anyone with cell phone camera think he is a great photographer but have no idea what the photography is about. his assignment was to do editorial shots not a super polished over photoshoped UNREAL pictures of some magazine style he had not more than two minutes for a shot most of you with your instagram wouldnt even know what to say in two minutes nor to take good picture
6 From Tim Gander - 06/07/2012, 11:26
Mr Linton, you made the identical point on my blog post. I presume you didn't see my reply.
I'm surprised you're sticking to this line because you appear to be an experienced photographer yourself and I would have thought you'd have known the differences between Joe's situation and that of the photographer in your link.
If anyone wants to see my take (based on what little info there was at the time of writing) it's here: http://timgander.wordpress.com/2012...
I don't think Joe's pictures worked, but I don't think he could take all the blame. I might have done better, or I might have tanked in the same situation.
7 From KameraDude - 06/07/2012, 12:12
I am not a full-time pro as of now, but as a Flickr Pro who has won hundreds of awards there, I can tell you these pictures suck. I know I could have done better had I been invited to take those pictures. Even with only one flash, my experience with Strobist more than qualifies me to take better flash pictures.
What a disgust. These people represent top quality athletes at the top of their profession. They deserve a top quality protog with the latest camera to record them for prosperity.
I couldn't even find this fellow on Flickr or 500px. What kind of editers or art directers choose him? They are no more competent or talented than he. Next time, take a gander at Flicker and 500px to see real skills.
(Nikon D800E, Olympus OM-D, Fuji X100, Olympus OM-2 (used with Tri-x 400) IMac/Ipad. Silver Nikonian, Muti award winning Flicker Pro)
8 From scoop - 06/07/2012, 13:14
"but as a Flickr Pro who has won hundreds of awards there"
Ah, yes, the GIF awards - stay classy ...
9 From Susky - 06/07/2012, 13:52
I'm not buying the excuses. On one hand, he says, "My only goal was to show them as interesting, as special people who deserve their fame because they are the best as what they do." So clearly there was some forethought to the project. The fact that he arrived unprepared, and had to scramble to achieve the mediocre results he did, shows that somebody dropped the ball. I suppose that there's plenty of blame to go around, but the primary problem seems to have been the shooter.
10 From Leigh - 06/07/2012, 14:05
To all of those who thought they could do better: It's the fact these images somehow didn't meet your narrow visual definition that has spurrned such negative commentary.
Usually when there is such push back it means a new era is upon us.
11 From Bruce - 06/07/2012, 16:24
three words...
OUTSIDE THE BOX
I think it is more than interesting the raw emotion that this series of photographs has provoked. As a seasoned photojournalist, I also think that the decision by editors to choose Joe's portraits from among literally hundreds of others says it all. Having been in situations where there is no light, no time and communication (for whatever reason) fell far short, I repeat my long-held view that a photographer's mettle is not in what he/she can do in a good situation - it is making great pictures in the most challenging environment. The 'real' feel here is one I would argue is sadly lacking in today's slick, editorial and commercial landscape.
12 From Journeyman - 06/07/2012, 17:07
In response to Kameradude's comment:
Ugggh. Ok, first off it's editor, not editer, it's director not directer, having the newest camera will not make you better at making images, Flicker is for amateurs and if you knew anything about professional photography you'd know that successful pros NEVER put images on Flicker, and finally no, you could not have done better. You have no field experience and based on the amount of over-confidence your post exudes, I'd say your brittle ego would shatter within moments of arriving at this location and you would curl up on the floor and cry.
13 From dbphotography - 06/07/2012, 17:40
My biggest question is, who was the Art Director and where was he during all this? Why would someone have a photojournalist shoot this style of portraiture with out proper notice or preconceived concepts? This shoot looks completely thrown together last minute. Normally, wouldn't these be shot in studio by a photographer who is a little more specialized in this style? Whoever hired the man to shoot these had to have known the level of quality they would receive... In my opinion, this was a wasted opportunity!
14 From Kaben - 06/07/2012, 18:57
@Journeyman
Seriously, if you are going to start a post with pedantic grammar corrections, then you should make sure your own post is damn well perfect. Its Flickr, not Flicker.
My own post below will be full of problems but i dont care.
Whilst the fact that Klamar is not viewable on sharing sites such as 500px or Flickr means absolutely nothing at all to any editor ( these are public sites, professionals have proper portfolios) it still doesn't excuse the fact that the images are very poor.
It looks to me as though Klamar has borrowed a fellow photographers workspace ( as explained in this article) and then rushed to take his shot so as not to be a nuisance to the owner of that backdrop/set.
Any explanation of trying to "capture real human beings" etc is just an artistic coverall to excuse poor images.
Klamar's body of work, as exhibited on his site, is overall exceptional and he is very worthy of his press position, but unfortunately this time he blew it.
The examples from another photographer also mentioned in a cursory way in the main article ( http://www.uspresswire.com/search/f...) are far more accomplished. Perhaps nothing to do with the experience of the photographer, but because said photographer approached his subjects with a predefined idea of what he wanted to achieve and with the equipment to achieve it. He didn't have to scramble for an idea and execute it in the shortest space of time to allow another photographer to use his or her own workspace like Klamar did.
Klamar is a good photographer - he was just unprepared and this caught him out. He should have taken the images he went there to take in the first place rather than copy everyone else and do a half ass job of it.
Rob
15 From Andrew - 06/07/2012, 19:36
My father was student of Berenice Abbott and I'm sure that has had an influence on how I view photography.
I find most of these photos very compelling.
As with most art, some people like it an others can't stand it.
16 From Andrew I. - 06/07/2012, 19:49
Lets cut the bullsh*t.... These photos are amateur at BEST. Embarrasing to most. I don't care what excuse is given, as a FORMER AFP freelancer, had I turned in any of these images, it would have been my last assignment. There have been numerous times I have had to make do with what I had available and I would have rather come back empty handed than turn in the images ( and I use the term loosely here) that Joe made. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but if that's what we get after 20 years, I'd say it's time to retire.
17 From Brady - 06/07/2012, 22:12
These photos are just plain bad. Sorry. Bottom line, the guy is a photojournalist, not a studio photographer and it shows. These photos are nowhere near the quality of his journalism work.
And as far as things feeling real, I understand what people are saying about how things are fantasized these days but, in most of these portraits the subject looks completely deadpan or insanely goofy/awkward. There are other people out there doing a much better job at creating real/natural feeling photos. These photos just look amateurish.
18 From 39432989435454 - 06/07/2012, 22:30
[Full disclosure: Joe is a colleague, though I have never met him; I think the photos in question are terrific, and if I thought otherwise I’d say so.]
LOL.. you must be as bad as he is then.. no way i would hire YOU guys for a job!!!
ROTFL.....
19 From Mr M - 06/07/2012, 23:22
There's a couple of pictures in this serie that I'm not overly fond of, like the back to back guys, but the rest are really great. They express movement, energy, and life. The last one as an example. Even as a top of the crop athlete who trains two three times a day and has every meal weighted on a scale, how much time don't you spend in interviews or tv shows, waiting, feeling like the next dork. Each and everyone of the athletes in these pictures can do amazing things, but in the end of the day they're still just people. And that's how life is.
20 From Maciej - 07/07/2012, 01:21
Well - maybe this photographer has choosen poor studio conditions for the job but looking at the photos it's clear that he is an experienced guy. Just look at the faces of these athletes. They look so relaxed and nothing about being artificial. Pure life! Relax sometimes too!
21 From ScottSanDiego - 07/07/2012, 01:27
I was originally ready to cut the photog some slack, we have all done shoots that didn't turn out or simply missed expectations of larger audience. However, after reading this page, I have loss any respect for AFP and believe you deserve all the negative press and photog community reaction you are getting. When you screw up, either don't release the photos or admit it but trying to spin ny makes you look foolish and unprofessional.
22 From Sage - 07/07/2012, 01:48
1. Wow, these are not nearly as bad as some people are saying they are and the poses are far more interesting than the same boring portraits I've seen a million times. What really concerns me is how volatile and over the top people are being. People are acting like someone called their mother a dirty whore because some guy took a few pictures they weren't fond of. A serious chill pill is in order.
2. Whoever linked to Kevin Jairaj's work needs to just throw away their computer and stop posting anything online. Aside from being utterly boring and stereotypical, those close-up protraits are DREADFUL. The ring flash makes everyone's eyes look like some kind of reptilian monster's. The lighting for many of those models is incredibly unflattering; any decent human being at least tries to make people look good when they take a picture (as you can see, no one is immune to criticism and photography, like any art, is primarily subjective).
23 From Andy, uk - 07/07/2012, 01:58
The pics are fine, not worth worrying about to be honest. I'm from the uk, so its not my national team, but I would say they're perfectly adequate anyway. life is too short to worry about stuff like this - so never mind eh? Move on, have an awesome weekend :)
24 From Mark3 - 07/07/2012, 02:06
Let's stop defending this stuff. This is not a contradiction between "real" and "glamorized". No one can explain why a ripped or crumpled backdrop is more real. He COULD have gone for real, and he could have ignored the backdrop, but he went for half-assed glamorized that he was unable to pull off.
25 From ChuckLantz - 07/07/2012, 02:42
I'm not going to mince words. With a strong art and photography background, spanning way too many decades, I can say without any doubt that Joe's photos are terrific! They are unique. They are real, and they present his subjects as real people who just happen to be among the best at their Olympic sport. The fact that Joe had to do them all on the fly makes his results even more amazing. I love each and every one of them.
26 From the maestro - 07/07/2012, 03:10
Cut the BS. He came unprepared and without a clue. He has never worked under these conditions and it shows.
Stop make excuses for him and implying that calling him out is misplaced patriotism or 'indignant huffing'.
These shots suck!
27 From Gary - 07/07/2012, 03:45
First, Mr. Klamar admits he was uninformed and, therefore, unprepared for the photo shoot. He also states that he had no idea that a studio set-up was possible at the media event. The unasked and unanswered question is whether he would have photographed the athletes differently had he been fully informed and prepared. He seems to suggest that he would have. So from that perspective, the photos are definitely a compromise solution and not ones that Mr. Klamar would have normally taken. Whether they are "worse" than the photos he would normally have taken is up for debate.
But, AFP was invited to the media event, AFP assigned Klamar, and he attended. He took photos for his editors, and they offered the photos to clients, who apparently used them. His job is done. His final product apparently met his employer's requirements, both technically and artistically. If those same photos are now criticized by media consumers, that's a matter between the viewers and the photo editors. It was the editors who selected Klamar, accepted his photos, edited them and passed them along to clients. Presumably the media consumers' feedback works its way back down to Klamar.
28 From Mandeno Moments - 07/07/2012, 04:07
People do tend to get upset when their sacred cows are slaughtered.
How many of the people who get into a nationalistic froth and vitriolically condemn artistic expression also hold dear to the constitution and its first amendment that gives a right to free speech? How many of those people sing about the "land of the free" and then try to suppress harmless art?
What you see here is political correctness in action, i.e. certain persons of a totalitiarian, intolerant bent make a lot of noise in the hope that people whose actions they disapprove of will conform to their wishes. It's great that Kalmar and AFP haven't given in to these forces. What a boring world it would be if all we saw was photos of athletes in "all their glory". Vive la différence.
Overall these photos are creative, dynamic, original, and far more interesting than the standard hagiographic shots. Well done that man. I particularly like the shot of the rifleman.
29 From Arie - 07/07/2012, 05:15
As a semi-anonymous amateur photographer on the internet who was initially horrified (hyperbole much?) by the pictures and made snooty remarks about it, I think Joe's explanation of not realizing they were going to have a studio type of setting is an honest one and understandable.
I don't buy the old "I meant to do that!" theory though! I think it's human to admit he had a bad day and some pictures didn't come out well. We all can relate to that whether it's an amateur like me on a photoshoot or in our dayjobs.
30 From Timothy Stark - 07/07/2012, 05:56
I've been shooting pictures for 40 years. Quit my day job in March. Now gathering clients, put up my first solo show.
I quess some people don't get Klamar's artistic vision. Unfortunate.
Challenge convention, get shot down by the masses.
Either you get it or you don't.
31 From janya - 07/07/2012, 06:11
Pictures are what they are - art, and expression of photographer's vision and creativity. It's OK not to like them.
However, those above are great pictures - creatively, conceptually, and technically. Love them or hate them, anyone who has spent any time paying attention to photography has got to see that. If you don't - you're just a dude with expensive toys.
32 From Psycho - 07/07/2012, 06:26
I don't care. I like his photos. They are different, compared to pro (boring) photos.
33 From Dinesh - 07/07/2012, 07:19
These photographs are simply the job of a Photographer who hadnt understood what was required of him for the assignment and nervously, with little thought and use of his own skills, went ahead and shot them. It does not make Joe a better or worse Photographer but it certainly says that he messed up this assignment thoroughly.
34 From Daniway - 07/07/2012, 07:46
Artistic! At least they aren't the same photographs everyone else has or will be getting. Wouldn't a perfectly lit cookie cutter photo be just exactly that? Cookie cutter... Look past what you think you know and try to be different. We don't have the ability to do that anymore these days... Well done.
35 From Chrix - 07/07/2012, 09:10
This pictures are unconventional, ok. But they are also badly shot. Take for example the one with the rifle. Unconventional, yes. But the end of the rifle is partly cutoff. This is simply a bad shot, period.
The lot looks like the garbage left after a photo shooting, where you sort out the fails from the goodies, and this picture is one of the failures.
For an amateur understandable, but for a seriously paid professional??
36 From Chris Burks - 07/07/2012, 09:13
I am a commercial photographer but do not wish to venture opinion on the quality or style of the images here but rather say I really feel for this guy right now. Every job I shoot I think "this has to be absolutely right or it could ruin my reputation" and to see this poor guy get such widespread negative criticism is horrific. To be fair a lot of the shots he was trying to pull off would take time to get right and whenever a client says to me they want a lot shooting in a short space of time I say to them it will look like crap! If somebody asked me to shoot something that was not my way of doing it with improvised set up shared with someone else I would probably fake a heart attack!
37 From Godeldaddy - 07/07/2012, 10:30
"Awful" says one, "this is an embarrassment to our country and my profession". What kind of profession does he have? These athletes and the prohotographer show a good sense of humour, gosh, how embarrassing and dishonorable.
38 From Per Sjöborg - 07/07/2012, 10:34
As a lay person in photography, but as a user of images,
I think that Joe's pictures are great, they are interesting
and different and will add something when used as an
illustration in a story.
And in my humble opinion that is what photos is all about,
being a part in telling a story.
I recently got a comment on something I in one way or another
had always known, if possible you should include objects
associated with the person in the photo.
And I think Joe did that beautifully, especially considering how the
communication failure restricted his option.
I think that this is something that frequently happens, critics speak
out and the people that like the work dos not ( hence this comment).
This is often quite beneficial for the people doing the criticism
(any publicity is good publicity, right?)
But in this case the fact that many of AFP's clients used the images
speaks much larger then any comment online ever could.
And I think that it is not unlikely that thees images will be used long
after even the event they where taken for is forgotten.
And if you think you could do better, cell phone camera or not, I guess
you can try, but that requires much more effort then writing comments
online, so I guess that that won't happen.
39 From marco - 07/07/2012, 10:39
ive been an assistant for several years for leading photographers in condenast studios in Milan, before becoming pro myself..well ,all i can say is that you are not a photographer.
40 From bRett - 07/07/2012, 10:43
These pics are different, entertaining and let's face it, they make a rather boring topic that has been mired in the bog of mainstream bs, fun.
If you can't see that, then you really should sell your camera.
btw, hi5 to KameraDude for the best satire of the day.
41 From They're just photos - 07/07/2012, 11:35
Wow check out KameraDude's flash kit...
His mother must be very proud.
I quite like the reality of the shots. Whether it's a reaction to the lack of amenity provided by the organisers or a broader commentary on the increasingly fake, air-brushed world we live I don't mind. These athletes seem a little more real, more approachable, more life-like compared to how they are normally presented. Nice one Joe.
And isn't it nice that we in the first world merely have these sort of problems to deal with.
42 From Alan Clifford - 07/07/2012, 11:59
Fabulous photographs. I looked at every one so didn't loose interest at all.
43 From PhotoKhan - 07/07/2012, 12:41
I am not an American, so patriotism is completely out of my appraisal, as modest and personal as it is.
These are bad photos. Period.
...and now we know why. He told us so. He was unprepared, either by his own fault or by having been mislead by the organization.
If it was the first case, he's the one accountable. If it was the second scenario the photo editor is accountable for having validated these.
That you, a colleague of his, calls "serendipity" to his unpreparedness, says a lot about the bad kind of corporativism amidst fellow workers we often see.
That creases and stains in the backdrop carried through the final release versions, in spite of being easily able to have been taken care of in PP, says a lot about how "special vision" and "pressing working conditions" are not the key issues in this whole affair.
PK
44 From earl - 07/07/2012, 12:41
Joe Mcnally makes a living shooting with that same exact setup, so its no excuse. and "fancy backdrops"? its a $42 roll of white seemless paper, what is so fancy about that?
There simply is no excuse for these photos. Photography is about understanding and capturing light, and its also about dealing with the unexpected. When have we as photographers ever shown up to a shoot that WASN'T completely different than what we expected?
This is just bad photography, period. Bad lighting, bad composition, and most of all bad report with your subject.
This also goes to show its not about the gear people, its about the photographer.
could I do better? I don't know, but I know this, I would give every ounce of my effort to do so, and not make excuses. We live an die by the opportunities we are given as photographers, competing with stay at home moms and college kids with 5dmk2's. You give me an opportunity to photograph Olympic athletes and I'm going to give a Herculean effort to make amazing pictures, because my career, and ultimately the life I lead depends on it.
45 From Tobers - 07/07/2012, 12:52
On initial viewing, these pictures look bad, but somehow they have become very cool. I feel a trend starting here.
46 From Penn - 07/07/2012, 14:39
I learned photography from an accomplished photojournalist (who also knew his way around a studio). If I had shot these photos and turned them in to him during my internship, I'd have gotten chewed out and the photos would have been trashed.
You can't blame an unexpected situation for bad results. Nor can you cloak them by calling them "artistic" or "out of the box." Bad photos are a reflection of the photographer who shot them, simple as that.
47 From Marlowe Hood - 07/07/2012, 14:39
NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: To all of you who posted comments over the last 18 hours and didn't see them published right away, thanks for your patience. We took a little 'down time' going into the weekend. Keep them coming, this is one of the best threads we've seen! mh/editor
48 From keenan - 07/07/2012, 16:17
NO eXcuse,hes a pro there fore he can use one light and one lens and can get great results ,heck i can and ive used the ONE flash one lens in a small space so why cant he ?
he was spoilt top have 3 lenses on a shoot dam i just about have 2,maybe he photoshops too much and has forgotten that all one really needs is the ONE light (the SUN) in almost every occasion get back to skool my lad and re learn what u have forgot!!! ......
49 From iAPX - 07/07/2012, 16:18
I don't like it's photo. point.
But at least there's a point in them, there are choices, and for me that's differentiate a pro with an opinion, than generic amateur photography...
Have I been there, I would have choosen another point of view, but have them been better or worse?!? Not sure!
And the fact is, these photos have been selected among thousands others. So from the AFP point-of view, and the media point-of-view it's a terrifc success!
You may not like it (like I do), but he deserve merit for it's challenging point-of-view, and for it's success being unprepared! Bravo!
50 From vit - 07/07/2012, 16:27
I like the concept but the technical aspect is the main problem. The lighting is not good enough. What's up with that backdrop? Though I like the concept, i think he did not completely achieve whatever it is he was trying to show. From what I see, the concept of "reality" he was trying to achieve is half-baked. Seems to me that he made a lame excuse for his shortcomings. Just my opinion. Then again, it's his work. It's his art. I can't say that I could have done a better job. I can only say maybe he could have done a better job with his experience as a photographer.
51 From WilliamJ - 07/07/2012, 19:48
100% agree with From Bruce - 06/07/2012.
I'd like to tell something about the "unpatriotic" critic. First, do photographers from around the world have to be "american patriotic" and produce "patriotic pictures only" as if they worked for the Pravda ?
Second, where is gone the freedom of speech ? Do expression have to be "according to" the wishes of "flattering images" supposed to be a universal expectation ?
Third, speaking of respect... Don't Americans feel it's a little bit too much asking others to be more respectful than they are themselves ? Two examples: the "Last Samurai" and "Master and Commander". In the first movie, the hero is American but in real life, he was a french officer named Jules Brunet (cf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_... ). In the second movie, the hero's ship fights against a french one, but in real life, the "evil ship" was an american one. In one case, a merit has been stolen, in the second one, a bad role has been given to another country to falsify the History. Do French have ever made a fuss for such a disrespect of themselves or the historic truth ?
Fourth: what's the point having every photographers taking exactly the same pictures ?
Fifth: there are bags of photographers who are introduced to us as "brand new genius" for having produced very crappy pictures, and I never see any of this sort of "Joe Klamar's scandal", they are even loved for their crappy pictures, totally over/under-exposed and blurred and showing rubbish. Where does this two-standarts come from ?
Sixth: I've always heard in my life people shouting "I too can make a painting/picture as good as that"... but I have never seen what they produced in the actually. For most of them, probably nothing at all.
Note: I'm not related to Joe Klamar in any manner.
52 From kpr - 07/07/2012, 21:25
It sucks that he was thrown into situation that he was not expecting. However, it seems that he did bring a background and at least a couple small flash units...so was he really unprepared?
I think some of the shots are good, but others are just a little too snapshotish. Maybe that's what he was going for? I think the main thing that throws me off is the lack on consistency in the series.
Could others do a better job? Well yes some could and some could not.
Another thing to consider is that some editor or art director actually chose these images.
Does any of this really matter to us in the long run? No because it's Joe's reputation on the line (and the editors) and he's the one getting paid.
53 From Aksel - 07/07/2012, 21:35
Dear Athletes,
Guys, make sure you ask Joe Klamar for nice, big prints, cause you're gonna want to keep these. Next time you're in The Show, if you're lucky enough to make it, those new pictures might be just like all your old high school portraits again.
I sense from some of the images that you knew you were part of something fun and special here. Kudos to you all for going along with it!
54 From John D. - 07/07/2012, 21:40
Ok, so not polished, some a bit dark, the gray backround's wrinkled. And yes some I don't care for personally.
However, I would likely be correct in assuming that these athletes have several perfect, polished, and patriotic shots of themselves already.
Taken in a positive light, these shots actually have a nice candid feel to them, like Uncle Bob setup a spontaneous studio in his garage at the family reunion.
These are young folks who often like to represent themselves a bit offbeat from conventional norms. Further, I can picture the Olympic team as a kind of family amongst each other. So you go, Uncle Bob!
Let us also not forget that Mr. Klamar is the one who got the job for good reason. The rest of us are Monday morning armchair photographers who weren't there.
Mr Klamar, no the shots aren't polished perfect. But nice work nonetheless.
55 From CFynn - 07/07/2012, 21:55
Klamer's photos are far more engaging and memorable than all the other pictures I've seen that were taken by other better prepared photographers of the same subjects on the same day.
56 From Aldgate - 07/07/2012, 21:55
I don't understand the scorn either. Some are brilliant, some are embarrassing, but most of them are simply good. Are some of you seriously criticizing the backdrops? Perhaps no one would lend him an ND? Many of the comments suggest that most of you claiming yourselves "pro" here are jealous senior portrait shooters with an assortment of skin-smoothing applications you purchased through flash banner ads..Say CHEESE!
57 From Ian - 07/07/2012, 22:39
They are not bad they just look 100% amateur. Major over use of 17-35! I personally would have at least dragged the shutter in a few of them... especially for the boxers but whatever... whats done is done.
58 From Anon-A-Mouse - 07/07/2012, 22:39
In a decade, all of the perfectly polished pre-planned pictures this guy is being derided for NOT taking will be largely forgotten ... while these, likely, will not. If for no other reason than the meaningless controversy they have created. He played. His subjects played. There's a good chance they all had a little fun with it. And in the end it showed us a very human side to people we all too often place far too many expectations and pressures upon. And as for the sentiments of being able to 'do better' with a cell phone? Since when did the complexity and expense of the equipment truly define the quality and intent of the message? I look forward to the first person awarded a Pulitzer Prize for a shot taken with a cell phone camera (it will happen, eventually) - as it will likely prove such comments wrong rather than right. A camera, of any kind, is a tool - and it is the user of that tool who determines the nature of what is created by its use....
59 From TonyK - 07/07/2012, 22:56
Hello, What bothers me greatly is the out of context photos posted to illustrate this
manufactured "controversy". Manipulative, please? where are the rest of the photos?? done by similarly accredited/ experienced "Pros" who had the foreknowledge of the "studio" set up??? You know!, the Nike Ads, patriotic -no offense - cookie cutter examples of heroic athletes???? in a news conference?...
The second issue that I have in this world of "I can do Better with my iPhone"...is the dismissal of basics. Preparedness and language of the lighting.
I am sure that AFP and Mr. Klamar has a much deeper networking base to tap into, than I ever had while I covered multi lingual and multi cultural events in unknown locations. That I had to do my "homework" on my own time, was a no brainier! Learning a few phrases to follow along a ceremony exclusively performed in Farsi was the best part of the "job". Many times it was asked of me, of why did I maintained a full set of high ISO colour and B&W film stock! Yes, my equipment stolen right at the venue, the Bride hated all the B&W of the ceremony in an "unlit" venue, at first...then she ordered extensively, largest order of the kind from a ceremony ever( where I worked at the time, anyway) Mr. Klamar could have asked any of his colleagues about this event.
On lighting basics, well... I can see why there are so many negative responses, since on the monitors many of the images have questionable lighting, confusing depth perceptions by reversing the order of "foreground" and
"background".
Jarring visuals are the future??? I do not see how the first photo tells the story of one of the member of the US Olympic team. Is he a hopeful contender to stare down his opponent in a new event in a spot lit venue shrouded is semi darkness???
Are these photos an artist's statement of the ridiculous expectation placed on photographers where we are forced to work in an area set up by non photographers?? As the seamless is lit by the spill light? no wonder that everybody's stomach is turning,:) I see some of these images gracefully aging into an Iconic stature, but for the moment, they are just different for the sake of being different, next page...
60 From RadioRico - 07/07/2012, 23:21
Well, the phone camera folks are giving us their comments - for what it's worth. The serious dSLR guys are giving us their comments - for what it's worth. Where, I want to know, are the photo fans? Joe Klamar, come back.
61 From Cobus - 08/07/2012, 00:11
I enjoyed these. Way more so than the millions of carbon copy images of athletes churned out on a daily basis. I guess those who do not like or do not understand them need to take a look at their own work, and see if there is any shred of originality in it or if it is a matter of copying whatever the rest is doing.
62 From Leigh-AnneD - 08/07/2012, 00:23
I'm actually going to break away from the comments judging the images themselves to address what I believe is an important issue that's largely being passed over.
I will start by saying that I know that there's a huge difference between photojournalism and posed portrait photography--it seems like most if not all the people posting here probably do. While some photographers may be adept at both, I can understand how one might struggle to perform in the arena of the other.
Setting aside the end product and his process or intentions, there were two failures involved in this scenario. The first on the part of the assignment editor who did not make clear the specifications of the project and the second on the part of the photographer who failed to ask the appropriate questions.
The photo editors say that this is exactly what they were looking for from the photographer, but that doesn't mean they had the right to throw him into a situation unprepared--it's risky at best, disrespectful and unprofessional. It certainly doesn't sound like they were misinformed about the photo op.
And, how could any professional photographer be offered this kind of an opportunity and NOT ask questions about the set up--especially for such a prestigious occasion. How would he know what type of equipment to bring if he didn't know how the shoot was to play out or how much time he would or wouldn't have to make his shots, etc.? It doesn't sound like he was a last minute substitution, and yet because he didn't ask for more details and arrived unprepared, he had to "make the best of the situation" -- risking poor shots, disappointing his editors/clients (and the athletes themselves) as well as possibly losing the respect of his peers.
If this is the type of "outside the box" shooting that he does and that they were looking for from him, then there's no excuse on either side of that assignment for not being prepared and not confirming what the set up and situation would be. It's what being a professional is all about -- that is what I take away from the story.
63 From ritgrad - 08/07/2012, 00:58
Never thought I'd hear myself say this but I kinda wish I could see what Terry Richardson would've done with this gig.
64 From trickcyclist - 08/07/2012, 01:00
@KameraDude - Awesome, nearly broke myself by laughing so hard
@All_Teh_Rest_of_Yous - increase the strength of your satire filters chaps, eh?
@Mandeno Moments - Good point, well made. And a lovely Zenfolio btw (great music)
I liked most of the pictures. I do agree they are photojournalism rather than glamour shots though.
65 From HappyPhotoJoe - 08/07/2012, 01:34
After only hearing about the flop and seeing one photo and one crop of another, I set my mind after seeing this thread's flash presentations.
These Klamar's photos are *great*. They share a common line/spirit and yet they don't get predictable or boring. So they are a good set. At least those on the above published presentation; I haven't seen any others.
66 From Linden - 08/07/2012, 02:20
Ok. I'm in the middle. Some of those shots I like, but others I think are terrible. I'm no pro, but when you cut off limbs, or leave things like the edges or tears of the backdrop in a final image, to me that just screams "unprofessional and unprepared" not "wow that's raw and artistic". Those are little things easily fixed in post. As far as the posing and concept, I don't have an issue with many of the shots.
67 From Rosh - 08/07/2012, 02:26
I've been a staff newspaper photographer and commercial photographer, the lesson here is to know your limitations. He should have photographed in the style he was prepared for and not try photograph beyond his
equipment and/or skill level. He let what other people were doing influence his photography, taking him off his game. I'm sure his images would have looked fine otherwise. I was hoping there was a better excuse, I'm now even more disappointed.
Rosh
68 From Petre - 08/07/2012, 03:11
These photos are brilliant, they achieve exactly what they are supposed to do, and at the same time show a point of view of the photographer.
69 From Michael C. Fortner - 08/07/2012, 03:56
These photos have to be terrible. Their subjects are not in stiff, clichéd poses but relaxed and letting the subject's personality shine through. How dare he not make them look like some overdone Greek statue-like pose, waiting for it to be over so they can relax from some uncomfortable pose in horribly bright and hot lighting? Who does Joe Klamar think he is, making due with what was offered and what he brought with him, instead of trying and failing to match the cookie cutter poses everybody else did? Why should his photos be any different from the others and stand out in the crowd? Does this man have no idea how horrible he is by being an iconoclast? Doesn't he know that the flickr experts know far much more about photography than he ever will?
What a horrible world we live in where somebody is allowed to do something different instead of following the "in crowd".
...give me more of Joe Klamar's photos over those over-posed photographer posers photos any day.
70 From Lao Yang - 08/07/2012, 04:04
Never have I read so much hubris. Everybody's an expert. One even calls himself maestro. Another lists his equipment. I am so impressed. But for me the bottom line is: I like the pictures. (Sorry.)
71 From PTNYC - 08/07/2012, 04:30
I rather like the images, contrary to what many are expressing here. I do feel, however, that they could use some light retouching to clean up uneven backgrounds, harsh contrasts, etc., but I don't know how retouching like that is accepted under photojournalistic standards.
I think that many of the critics here have harsh reactions because the photos have a raw feel, like they are just the jpegs right out of the camera, as shot, without any heavy-handed post production. We are so used to slick advertising portraiture which has been post-produced by a team that anything with hard light, strong shadows and no skin retouching strikes us as amateur. As a working pro who has seen what a lot of "professional" photographers' raw files look like, I can tell you that they don't look that far from these.
When you have 2 minutes to shoot a subject and you are working alone and you don't want to repeat your lighting for each shot, then you have to improvise on the fly and make quick aesthetic choices. If this had been a Sports Illustrated shoot, there likely would have been a month of preparation time, an art director or two, a handful of assistants, a capture technician, stylists, and a team of retouchers would have spent dozens of hours retouching the images for that perfect, flattering commercial look. I think these photos look real, like real people, and the poses are intimate without a contrived BS monumental attitude. Personally I would have retouched them a bit before sending them out, but it seems that there was enormous pressure to get the work out quickly and sold to various media outlets.
72 From Daaaave - 08/07/2012, 05:14
Go Joe!
I have never heard of Joe, but I am amazed at the attention this has drawn.
The man was hired.
He produced some unique work.
From what I read, a large number of his photos were picked up; which likely was his client's objective.
If all photographers produced the same work, we wouldn't need so many, and we would likely be bored with all the repetition.
It is hard to imagine how I would feel if everyone "Klammered" over my work after I met my client's objectives. (sorry Joe, I couldn't resist)
I wonder if he will now continue with what is now some signature work that has sold, or fold to the critics.
73 From Daniel Wolf - 08/07/2012, 05:21
I love this pictures. They full of humor, humanity and fun. This Guys do not go To War!!! They are individuals who happened to be very good in what they like. They same country would not give a crab if they where just humans... JK did care about that...
74 From eosfan - 08/07/2012, 06:52
these images have an edge, they aren't Flickr eye candy, they aren't polished portraits, they are evocative, and I can clearly see why an editor would run with them, compared to the boring typical star portraits, these are much more likely to get people's attention, and that's what editorial work is about, and btw to those who think they should have been photoshopped, get a clue, that is a death sentence for a editorial photographer. The problem is, people are so used to seeing eye candy, that's been heavily p-shopped, they don't even have a clue what good editorial work can do, and to that end, the really good press photographers are being layed off in favor of citizen journalists. A sad state of affairs.
75 From socs1027 - 08/07/2012, 06:53
Please forward my email address to Joe Klamar. I would LOVE to have one of these pics!!!!! They are interesting, inventive and exciting - DEFINATELY NOT your run of the mill, standard posed and photoshopped photos. I think that Joe is going to be HUGE in the world of photography and I would like to "get in on the ground floor!"
76 From Ed Moss - 08/07/2012, 10:38
Another reason why communication is so important when briefing photographers.
Somewhere it got lost that there was studio time with the athletes?
Who briefed him that it was a press conference, all the other photographers seemed to know what was going to happen.
Feel sorry for the guy, many a time I've been on jobs only to asked for something totally different than the brief.
Images good or bad, maybe it's job done, AFP have got more coverage than all the other agencies put together.
One thing, guess it won't ever happen again.
77 From Ramon - 08/07/2012, 11:46
How many photographers does it take to take a good photo? 100. 1 to take the actual shot, and 99 others to stand around and say how they could have done better!
78 From Rednaxela - 08/07/2012, 12:19
Obvisiously Joe Kalmar had no experience in studio shots.
He made too many mistakes an experienced studio photographer would not have done!
Apparently he shot most (if not all) of these images with his 17-35mm lens and form a short distance resulting in unpleasant and often distorting perspectives.
His 70-200mm lens would have been the much better choice in this studio environtment, with significantly increased subject distance.
An experienced studio photographer would have chosen the tele photo lens for most shots!
Second he often decided to show the limited width of the backdrop paper, showing black studio environment in the outer areas (often also a result of his decision to use the wide angel lens).
That's truely unprofessional, shots like these should have never been taken when you have no post editing.
Third the light setup is often unpleasant with large areas of the athelte's face completely hidden in black shaddows.
There is no justification for this light setup even with the intension to show 'characterful' portraits.
That he is often cutting off hands or feet additionally shows his lack of talent and studio experience.
79 From Bart - 08/07/2012, 13:06
I think they are brilliant. The images all have a liveliness and reality that you seldom if ever see in this kind of photography.
People saying that they are "unprofessional" should perhaps sometimes read a book or go see an exhibition or two about photography.
This may even start a major style shift... I for one really hope it does.
80 From fafoua - 08/07/2012, 13:12
In France we just had the same kind of controversy about the official portrait of our new Président de la République, François Hollande taken by Raymond Depardon : http://www.parismatch.com/Actu-Matc...
If Klamar pictures hadn't been selected by so many editors, there wouldn't be any problem. If Depardon hadn't been chosen for doing the official portrait of the Président, there wouldn't have been such a scandal in France. The real question is : why have these photographers been chosen ?
I like both Klamar and Depardon "pseudo-official" photographs. They show the human condition, fragility, that is the reality of any human kind. It's a pity that when everything falls apart, some people desperately need symbols that save the appearance of power. This is hypocrisy at best, fanatism at worst. Modern sport shouldn't try to mimic the spirit of the games of decadent Rome.
The truth is our economic and political system is decadent and there won't be any super-hero who will save us. To me these photos have a message : they say that it is by seeing other people as equals that we may be able to change the ugly face of the 21st century.
Fafoua
(sorry for the bad english).
81 From hstokes - 08/07/2012, 14:28
I've been in the photography industry for 35 years. I was a wedding photographer for 8 1/2 years of those. Knowing how to shoot live action such as the games and knowing how to shoot on a backdrop are 2 entirely different things. Now as a photographer for high school seniors, if we turned out that sort of photography parents wouldn't buy it and we would be out of business. I think Klamer should have taken charge of his shoot and used a set up he was comfortable with.
82 From Jiff - 08/07/2012, 14:44
you can do better with your cellphone ??? ahahah thats hilarious and shows how little you know about photography. They are top quality images ..just not to everyones taste. technically excellent.
83 From sunnyakc blog - 08/07/2012, 17:13
Hey. I found your web site your in the search engines. This is an excellent write-up. I am going to ensure that you book mark the idea along with come back to get more info of your helpful information. Appreciate your publish. I willdefinitely go back.
84 From Freelance - 08/07/2012, 18:28
A lot of these images are good, a few of them are great, a couple are nothing special.
So many of the people commenting on this board are photo snobs/arrogant. "I can do better." Maybe, but who's taking the photos at the Olympics, and who's sitting behind a keyboard, commenting about photos from the Olympics?
85 From TonyK - 08/07/2012, 18:42
Hello AFP,
For some strange reason, I re read some of the 70 or so posts.
I continue to have the feeling that this whole "outrage" is manipulated and created with the intention of riding this manufactured controversy. Exploiting the age of "communication" we live in. Without the Internet, these photos would have been published or not, but largely forgotten by the next periodical. Exciting a few "Letters to the Publisher", a harmless Comment or two.
Not today.
We all understand the facts presented to us, Agency, Photographer, Assignment, job done, Sales... clients happy! A comment or two on the NET and this Tempest is near out of control! Then a few "explanatory" lines get even more readers all up in arms :)!
Essentially, we all attempt to digest the conflicting explanations with the pictures presented within the framework of our varied experiences. And that is the key to the Manipulative nature of this "controversy".
Personally, I am commenting on the photos available for me to view. Many of the comments that are in favor of these images center on the main theme of difference, freshness and humor... how is a Charlie's Angels image fresh, or a man pointing a gun slightly off from the viewer head is a deadpan humor? or fresh? or tells the journalistic story of an unnamed athlete competing in a sport that has something to do with shooting a gun?
We are all responding to the fact that we are TOLD that these images are Great, different even because they do not glamorize further the subjects or outlets have payed good money for them, or that the Editors wanted this exact results! But we all have seen them before. So, how is it fresh?
Regards, Tony
86 From phileap - 08/07/2012, 18:44
wonder if he was unaware or got the guts to do that purpusfully.
I like those photos, they're fresh compared to that boring glamour photography.
And the controversy oround that is only another proof they're good. They act on you, you cannot pass by without opinion. Art should not be beautifull it can be just or most, interesting.
87 From JC - 08/07/2012, 18:55
The real question is are they successful? That goes to the intent of the author and the sphere within which they are to be received. (And I don't mean in the trite critique that they're successful because we're talking about them.) I find some of the images compelling but ultimately, overall they seem to lead nowhere. His comments support this seeming lack of intent.
Those who would criticize them as unprofessional have set up conceptual frameworks for themselves that don't allow for much deviation. Those who celebrate them breaking bounds must not have a perspective of the past twenty-five years of postmodernist art that have used the mechanisms shown here.
These photographs are not art. That requires intent, which was self-admittedly absent here. (Art is not the happy accident of a 4 year old throwing paint as some believe.) Are they successful? It would appear not, as there was no clear intent there is no clear framework within which to judge them, and they therefore reach no clear goal. Perhaps that is the most unprofessional aspect of this issue, not the aesthetics of the images themselves.
88 From Marlowe Hood - 08/07/2012, 21:12
FROM THE EDITOR - In reaction to comment from TonyK (#84).
Hi Tony
You suggest that this is a 'manufactured controversy.' Interesting. Let me run with that for a minute:
As an editor, am I glad that Joe's photos (for which my blog post is but one of many vehicles) have created controversy? Sure, it's nice to see that a colleague's work has generated buzz. Is that buzz 'manufactured' (your key point)? The simple answer is 'no'. We (AFP, the media in general) are reacting to a spontaneous eruption; we didn't set it in motion. Ah, you say, but isn't the media 'fanning the flames'? That's one way to look at it, but I'd rather say -- and I believe this -- that we are simply providing a relatively neutral platform for people to talk about it. As the editor of a rather obscure blog (that has only existed for a couple of months), I am delighted by the fact that the 'conversation' in the 70+ (now 85!) comments you read are, on the whole, civil and intelligent, which is more than I can say for the threads I saw on Yahoo, reddit, and other sites. So, if I'm honest, I'd have to say there's a bit of both: we (the 'media') didn't create this 'tempest in a teapot' (and I agree, the the REACTION is out of proportion to the ACTION); we are, however, happy to facilitate and encourage further comment -- debate is stimulating! But the most interesting question (to my mind) remains: why did so many people get so steamed up in the first place?
mh
89 From David Bennett - 08/07/2012, 21:50
People sure do like to complain.
90 From Tee esS - 08/07/2012, 23:25
I didn’t know Trey Hardee was a Special Olympian (second photo in article). In fact, I have no idea who Trey Hardee is.
That’s what makes these photos so cool. If you didn’t know the people in Klamar’s photos were Olympians, you probably wouldn’t think much of the photos. These photos show ordinary looking people in relatively mundane poses. They don’t reflect what most people would consider to be appropriate depictions – airbrushed, hyperrealistic – of a countries greatest athletes. Some of the photos look quite “normal,” but, for some reason, the publication editors who bought Klamar’s photos (which included “‘serious, funky, official’ [shots] – not all of them were offbeat” - http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/...) tended to gravitate towards the photos that truly ordinary people do not appreciate. There may be dozens of reasons why some editors chose these photos over others, but one reason could be the simple fact that these photos are original and honest.
The following may be one possible answer to the final question in post 86. The public outcry over these photos has little to do with the quality of the photos or photography (despite some claims, most people could NOT do better with a cell phone) and everything to do with celebrity, the media, and politics. Unlike most celebrities, Olympic athletes, it could be argued, are not beautiful people. However, if they are dressed up and painted to the contrary, the camera can capture that lie, and that is exactly what the masses want. Unfortunately, the truth is many athletes are big and/or ugly. To show the world that a country’s athletes are anything less than the best, brightest, most beautiful, or to show them any less reverence than you would a real celebrity (movie stars, etc) is sacrilege. Olympians are heroes; they are considered by many to be modern-day gods. But Klamar’s photos show these athletes for what they really are: despite their, sometimes, super-human abilities, they are ordinary people. There is nothing special about special people, and these photos attest to that... but the masses don’t like it.
91 From ale - 09/07/2012, 00:52
I work as a news camera person in Canada and have worked beside Joe years ago and tipped a few glasses with him.
I told my wife when I saw the shots that it most likely was the case of news/sports shooter showing up to scene and having the expectations change rapidly. I remember being assigned to shoot a political leader and given 5 mins to light... before he showed up. His handlers said other news operations usually request the room the day before to light, scout and plan. Their shot looked better. Was it my fault a little bit... but you have to roll with it.
The expectations and prep are entirely different for a studio shoot than a news event. If you don't have vehicle with your lights in it you are screwed. When people are being herded through with little time and you haven't had the set up time that can happen. I have seen Joe's sports shots and seen him in action he knows his business very well. If you judge him, judge his full body of work... not a crappy day.
92 From Elias - 09/07/2012, 01:09
I'm just a average person. I take pictures. Sometimes they come out nicely, most of the times they are just pictures.
I like these photos. They don't feel over reaching to be art. Yet they do have artistic merit. They show that these athletes aren't models. They aren't promoting some product. The photos simply show some of their personality. For the life of me I can't see what is unpatriotic about them.
Were the objections by media or well regarded photography professionals, or just regular Joes like me with access to the internet and an opinion?
93 From Michael Krigsman - 09/07/2012, 01:33
These photos are incredible. Bravo for creativity and innovation!!
94 From ScottieC - 09/07/2012, 06:13
I find these to be refreshing considering the normal stuff we see a million times a day. The photos work, simply because it caused everyone to pay attention, otherwise, how many folks would have really looked at the images of our athletes?
95 From Paul S of MV CA - 09/07/2012, 06:44
I like seeing our Olympic athletes
photographed as real people. I have no problem with people, athletic or otherwise, being a bit free or silly while being photographed.
If I want to see a bunch of stuffy, formal portraits, I'll go to a museum or a big old bank building.
What I have to say to Joe Klamar is this: Thank you and good job!
96 From Chucky - 09/07/2012, 07:09
Great marketing for USA, Joe and AFP even if it wasn't mean like that, I'd guess ;) But nothing which should cause mass-hate, images are funny, makes the point, so what?
97 From eths - 09/07/2012, 10:38
One can be of differing opinions about the posing, framing, concept, etc. used in the photos. This does not change the fact that they are technically, IMHO and as far as I can judge on a normal computer display, substandard.
98 From bobmata - 09/07/2012, 10:42
I salute Joe for making his works popular despite the pressure. Yes it is not ultra-high class pictures nor ugly images. These are usable and controversial images. Something the editors want to have in their industry.
99 From zapp - 09/07/2012, 12:31
Interesting perspective and decent work considering the circumstances. Don't blame the photographer in case you don't like the result!
100 From Tom - 09/07/2012, 12:39
I have seen paintings of Picasso and Monet....believe me when i say i can do them better :-) [irony off]
I am shure Joe knows how to make pictures look the way they are intended to.
101 From ben - 09/07/2012, 14:08
This is photos generate attention. It worked! Well done.....
102 From Shred - 09/07/2012, 15:22
These are horrible!! I agree that a good photographer can make a great photo out of a couple of lights and a simple backdrop...but jeez....add a reflector or something...these are simply not good photos. I understand the concept of making them seem human...but great photography translates that through great technique...these are amateur at best!
103 From CarlosCh - 09/07/2012, 15:39
It is quite curious how some people acts quite desperate to stick to tradition, no matter how boring and empty it can be.
I think Joe's pictures are pretty nice and they will certainly add much needed life to any publication.
Those against them are entitled to their opinion, of course. This is one situation where people simply think differently about something.
And for many who have commented here against the quality and and appropriateness of the shots, think about this: by now these shots have been published around the world and seen by more people than the people that will see our entire portfolios in a lifetime...
Good job Joe!
104 From GBI - 09/07/2012, 17:54
not to conventional, perfect!
105 From TomUpton - 09/07/2012, 18:53
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? Five. One to do the work and four to sit around and say how they could have done it better.
TEU
106 From celticgirl - 09/07/2012, 18:58
I love how this photographer tries to excuse what is a terrible body of work. I don't care that CBS, AFP and other news outlets used these photos-the bottom line is that these photos of US Olympians are awful. Shame on AFP and the other news outlets for using these images and shame on Joe for a lame excuse.
107 From Thomas Toohey Brown - 09/07/2012, 19:02
...welcome to my world.
108 From Thomas Toohey Brown - 09/07/2012, 19:03
...welcome to my world.
109 From Lee - 09/07/2012, 19:08
these photos are terrible. the lighting is bad, the backdrops are wrinkled. this man obviously has no experience working in the studio. thy look like they were shot by a 12 year old.
110 From WHat? - 09/07/2012, 19:41
Wow. Well, I can't say that the guy needs to be beat up but claiming these are great photos is really sad. Look, if he wanted to show them as normal people, fine. This doesn't do it. This looks like photos taken by a professional photographer's 12 year old nephew in the background while the real images were being made. These are really failed pictures. For people to try to claim there is some artistic merit to these is beyond me. If I took these pictures, I would rightfully expect people to think I didn't know what I was doing and that they would suggest classes or practice or something to get a compelling image. Those of you saying they look like real people, wtf? Yeah, they look real, like real people who had bad photos taken. The only thing these pictures make me think of when looking at them is all the mistakes made along the way. People can look real without terrible lighting an terrible poses. Good photos don't have to follow any particular rule or style, however, bad photos like these are just bad.
111 From Jeff - 09/07/2012, 20:15
These images are great. Not because of composition or lighting or anything else. These images now have a history and a story and can be called real Art.
I would not appreciate some studio portrait of one of these athletes. It's just a picture. But the images taken by Joe have a story behind them, and like it or love it, how many other photo's taken that day are people talking about?
112 From PleaseStop - 09/07/2012, 20:20
Please stop. You are only damaging yourself with these ridiculous justifications and lies. The images are horrid, there is no question. Not only did the photographer drop the ball, the photo editors (who were put in a very bad situation given what they were given) also dropped the ball. There is no excuse.
The internet is abuzz, the world is crying out, etc, for good reason. There may be this tiny demographic that says "hey, these are pretty good" or "not bad work here, don't see what all the hullabaloo is", but make no mistake, you are a tiny minority and everything you say in defense of these images makes YOU look bad. The images the photographer made make him, his editors, the Olympians and the US look bad, why do you want to specifically add your name to the pile?
113 From Mike - 09/07/2012, 22:32
All I can think when reading this article and seeing the "Don't tread on me" reference is "WEIRD AMERICANS."
The world thinks you guys are really strange sometimes. Even in the age of easy travel and the internet, the majority of Americans are still really clueless how they look to the majority of the world. I think they are reacting more to that than the photos. The realization that Americans can be a little funny and downright strange at times.
Well done, Joe.
114 From Jay - 10/07/2012, 01:06
For those of you who like Joe's style in this series, I'm wondering...what style are you talking about? The whole shoot is all over the place, from blocked up shadows, to underexposures, to properly exposed photos, to up-nostril shots, to allowing arms and boxing gloves to cast ugly shadows on the athlete's faces. He was clearly out of his element here, and it shows. Anyone calling these artistic probably finds elephant trunk paintings artistic.
115 From Photoblargh - 10/07/2012, 03:37
Many of these comments are "wahh, why couldn't it have been meeeeeeeee". His photos made his employer quite happy. I wish the backgrounds were less sloppy, but I will gleefully ignore that for originality and a sense that the athletes are having some fun in some of the shots. Trey Hardee is saying "that's ME". Michael Phelps isn't tremendously photogenic; this is the best I have seen taken of him out of a pool. I don't care that the shot of the boxer has a messed up background, that is a GREAT shot in every other regard, and I doubt most people would notice the "problems" with most of these shots. Pros. What a bunch of whiners we are.
116 From Alfred Bolch, Jr. - 10/07/2012, 04:45
This was terrible work, by a very competent photographer, hired by a very prestigious Photo Agency.
This controversy is not about being patriotic enough. The objections really have nothing to do with patriotism, but quality - aesthetics, visual grammar, protocol and respect are enough, without even bringing up the subject of patriotism and/or your disdain for patriotism.
His work is not inspiring, indeed. And if any subject should be depicted in an inspiring way, new, fresh, unique or otherwise, it is these athletes who are the very tops in human athletic achievement.
Who the heck thinks they have the right to denigrate their achievement by debasing them as common, by way of humiliating photographic depictions, under the phony guise of "unique or fresh?" They are anything but common. They are heroes, whether you acknowledge that or not. These Olympians have proven their mettle. They are in a VERY exclusive club.
Olympic Portraits are not really the place for photographers (or art directors) to contemplate their navels with the drivel of "fine art" absurdism and purposely offensive imagery.
And this is not about make-up and making "beautiful," so called ugly people. Its a about respect for great achievement and a well wish of congratulations for beating all others for the honor and glory of representing the USA (or any country) in the world athletic competition we call the Olympics.
AND BTW, it does not matter that they are from the USA. Any Olympic team from even the smallest of countries deserves respect for their achievement at getting to the pinnacle of their country's athletics. This has nothing to do with patriotism, however pejorative or not you wish to apply "patriotism" in this case. This has nothing to do with patriotism, but with respect and protocol.
Overall, these were so amateur it wasn't amusing, but embarrassing. Some of them were NOT portraits (someone's backside - that's a body part). Some were very unflattering, not just someone's face not shown in a beautiful way, but also the human form as unflattering. (The best should be presented the best way - Form and Content!) It was totally inconsistent throughout, as though by a student throughout a semester trying to "find his style." Bends in paper backdrops, goofball compositions of a beautiful pose - girl doing the splits.
And if by accident, a few pretty nice shots, but really too artsy fartsy to be a portrait, that is, photos presented to the world as one's official image;
image as visual representation and as essence.
US Olympics Portraits? It seemed another bazaar kind of slight against America, either by the editors (or whoever commissioned and released this work) and a photographer's shooting his own foot in front of the world, hoping around on one foot - buffoon-like.
Save your railing about Hollywood, beautiful people, politics, profit and all those other personal pet-peeves for other opinion venues more relevant to those topics. The issue is quality photography for quality subjects to an audience that has every reasonable expectation for quality presentations.
That Fine Art eventually seeps into Commercial Art is a given phenomenon, and to be appreciated as homage to artists. But sadly, the fine art of our time is infected with this morose, self-hatred flavor of the gross anti-aesthetic and absurdism that does not lift the spirit of the viewer, but is nothing less than visual vomiting of an Emperor with No Clothes. After 30, 40 or 50 years in the fine arts, don't you think we "got it" already?
Much more, it does not deserve a place in the Commercial milieu of Advertising, Fashion and Celebrity OR Olympic Portraits, in this country or any other. To the degree that it does - "Look Mommy. Why is the Emperor wearing no clothes?"
Personally, for me, this has nothing to do with Patriotism,
so don't go there for that negative criticism.
I would be as critical of this drivel,
if the team was American, French, Nigerian
or from the lovely Island of Schmossizel.
These athletes are the best of the best,
from their country's elite.
Shouldn't they be spared this mess,
for so lofty a feat?
Poetry's not even my thing. (Good thing I can't sing.)
By the way - Do you Yahoo, Google or Bing?
117 From TonyK - 10/07/2012, 08:04
To the Editor, Marlowe H.
Hi, Thank you for your comments. I arrived to this blog via dpreview.com. The photographs by Mr. Klamar was referred to as "controversial USA Olympic Portraits".The lead photo is of Tray Hardee , no matter how hard I tried to view it as anything other than provocative, led me to view a few other images and I can not help but to feel manipulated to view the whole thing as a "manufactured controversy". Manufactured, as in picking up only on the negative feedbacks. Controversy, as in not fitting into an expected "norm". So along the way, on one forum or another, the whole session took on a very negative tone. Over shadowing the facts, mainly that Joe Klamar delivered the images over and above of what the original assignment was. To everybody's satisfaction.
I expressed some of my feelings or thoughts about the limited images I was able to view. My main confusion set in as I read the "explanations" of how this set of images were created.
I must admit, I am not familiar with the distinction as they apply here between news coverage and editorial approach. And I had to very quickly read up on Postmodern Art. I also realized on further reflection that it would have been impossible for the photographer to spend quality time with his subjects (hundreds of them) for a meaningful assay to illustrate of what makes these individuals of this distinguished group unique. Anybody who had ever photographed in a chaos as described does realizes the deep pockets of sensibilities and experience Mr. Klamar demonstrated. Do I like the images selected here? NO.
For me they miss under Humanity and Real People labels. Sorry, the last time I looked around we are all belong to that group, human and real. Like to having fun, and most of us quick to make a joke of the most dire circumstances we face. I do not believe that we all expect to be viewed as airbrushed artificial perfection. In a way, I understand that supporting the issue with images that are "expected" would take the licence away from Mr. Klamar having executed his assignment in a way he did. Yet, the pictures were intended for us, and not as a demonstration of "bricolage" of Postmodern Art, as has been suggested. Yes, I just picked up this from Wikipedia... not really sure of its significance as some has suggested.
The Steam comes from the Age we live in, the contradiction of intended images and some offhanded explanations, that clearly this new media of Open Forums handle rather poorly. The middle ground taken up by helpful individuals who wish to advise on technique, equipment and forethought posing.
The reason that I stayed with your blog and will visit often is because I rather like cutting people's arms and legs off in "portraiture", poorly done and it looks horrid, but occasionally magic happens and the discovery occurs both for the sitter and the photographer. I also beginning to see beyond the torn seamless :) I think in hind sight, as a one off, some of the funny or cheesy images work, having photographed countless B&G having their idea of fun, but these were never more than novelty. Will these images or the technique stand the test of time? That I am interested in...
Have an excellent day.
Regards, Tony
118 From Ben S - 10/07/2012, 09:26
I find it unbelievable that so many people fail to see these photo's were made intentionally this way!!
All I can say is: "Keep up the good work"
119 From Fellowpedestrian - 10/07/2012, 09:43
"Mr.Picasso, you are not a painter. What you have done is disgraceful!". Now this might seem far-fetched a comparison, but folks, what had been done for hundreds of years was not appealing anymore!
120 From MarkL - 10/07/2012, 13:22
Nothing like a forum excite the emotions! Firstly I can't comment on the photographer's rep because I've not seen his other work. But the athlete's photos are just ordinary and I can't imagine any pro being really satisfied with it. If an amateur took these we wouldn't be having this discussion. And the pro "badge" only means the guy in question (not necessarily Mr Klamar, but anyone) does it for a living, while the amateur does it for - what? Fun, passion? And yes, there ARE pros on Flickr. My friend and mentor, a pro who's been in the business for forty years is emphatic that some "amateurs" would make some "pros" blush. Good photography is not the sole realm of guys who do it for a living.
121 From Yoda - 10/07/2012, 14:38
“I could do better with my cell phone."
"Instagram could have been a great solution instead of trying to keep up with the Joneses"
"but as a Flickr Pro who has won hundreds of awards"
this is so funny... the quote list could go on and on... it's real easy to say i could do better but the truth is no one has ever heard of you and not ONE of your pictures will ever be as famous as these.
This could be the start of a new type of photography, Studioalism!
It wasn't that long ago all wedding photography look exactly the same!
Put your photoshoped minds away for a second and think a little outside the box, who knows you might even take better pictures in the future.
122 From Respect observation - 10/07/2012, 16:00
Images falling short of defined standards of quality often become defined as today's fresh creativity. Doesn't always make it right regardless of whether some suggest it is a new era. In this case I am not left with the response the subject I should have for the purpose of describing them to the world.
123 From Joel - 10/07/2012, 16:05
The photos are great! But probably not what people were looking for. This is just a classic case of trying too hard or doing too much. They just wanted boring photos of these athletes. Perhaps you did what you should have, shaken things up and shown the world that a photograph be taken by anyone but the art of photography is a lot more intricate than pro lights, some poses, dramatic lighting, and an expensive camera. Composition composition composition! And you sir did something different with the composition...I love the shotgun photo btw, genius..It makes me a little afraid of the Olympian, which is cool because the Olympics can be SO boring sometimes!
124 From yeahright - 10/07/2012, 19:10
Yeah, right. Meant to be this way. What a joke. It actually looks like he tried to do the traditional superman shots but got the lighting terribly wrong. "yeah, I meant to do that". Some of them aren't that bad, but none of them are great. Many of them are poorly posed, poorly framed, poorly focused and poorly lit.
125 From Anthony Wood - 10/07/2012, 19:23
My heart goes out to the guy! As a professional photographer of over 25 years, II'm not sure I'd have done any better given the situation.
We all have our strengths, styles and areas of experience and expertise. Many of the professionals I know wouldn't have done much better.
It's curious to me that so many feel he should have been able to be a great studio photographer. Why? We're good at what we've gotten good at and not good at what we don't know.
Being thrown into a high pressure, high profile situation where we don't have the time, resources and experience is a nightmare for all of us, no matter what we do in life.
Having said that, if that had been my job I'd have judged it a failure, as should his clients and all the photo editors involved. He played the hand felt him and .......
126 From Tom E - 10/07/2012, 21:50
I don't understand the relevance of the circumstances in which these photographs were made. They are what they are. And "what they are", is pretty great.
They smack a bit of mad genius, and that's something that's largely missing in contemporary image-making. Clearly they represent a wild deviation from the current norm and that alone makes them noteworthy. That many of the images are also exceptionally strong is testament to the skill and vision of the photographer. It's also clear that more than a few editors are inclined to this view.
What confuses me are the explanations offered by Klamar and AFP (they do seem to be simultaneously defending and apologizing for the work). I don't believe they should have offered any at all. And if they were truly so compelled, then I think the response should have essentially been a version of "the photographer shot this series of portraits according to his own personal vision, as we had hoped he would; we support him completely and we are very happy with the results." End of story.
127 From Muskokaphotog - 10/07/2012, 22:11
These images are cool! All the feedback does is to point out that images are understood in the connection of a context. The context of these images is so layered and weighty that the photographer was in a winless spot. Kudos to him for throwing mud on convention and sparking some genuine thought.
128 From JoeFoxx - 10/07/2012, 22:31
The people who dislike these photos seem to think a portrait is supposed to illuminate the subject. Not glorify or iconize, or flatter, just illuminate. At best that requires you to respect your subject enough to be able to tell their story. At worst it just means the photographer is invisible. Ideally the photograph leaves you wondering about the subject, not the photographer.
The people who like these photographs seems to think the portrait should tells us something about the photographer's(artist's vision). The subjects as people are just a backdrop on which the artist tells his story, makes his commentary, upends social conventions, whatever. After the experience of viewing the photos we ask our selves, not about the subjects, but about what the photographers was trying to accomplish? What do they mean? What is their artistic value as a body of work?
While I can appreciate some of these pictures for their unconventional style and apparent whimsy, for the most part it's very disappointing to see that the photographer or his editors have made him the story and not the athletes themselves. So I guess that puts me in the first camp.
Let's get specific. The photo of Trey Hardee. First, it doesn't look like him. Go ahead and google him and tell me otherwise. Second, the photo makes him look puny, when in fact he is 6'5" and 210 pounds (1.96m and 95 kilos). He is a decathalete, which means he has to be lithe but incredibly strong. Again look at photos of him on google and tell me if you ever think he looks puny. Third, this guy is the world champion at arguably the hardest event in all of Track and Field to be the best. I just didn't learn anything about who is is from the portrait. Instead, if anything the photo is amazingly misleading.
If anything this photo of Trey Hardee is about the cattle call of the photoshoot itself. Big whup. Whomever Trey Hardee happens to be is totally irrelevant to that. What a shame.
129 From Chicago Photographer - 11/07/2012, 01:49
I believe the actual blame needs to be on the person/editor who allowed the images to be posted on the wire. Usually an editor looks over the images and captions to make sure everything is correct before sending them out on the wire. That person should have questioned or raised questions after seeing the work. Seems more like management should take a hit on this one, from the assigning editor, who may have needed to send a different photographer to the picture editor who posted them.
130 From D - 11/07/2012, 02:09
I think they are pretty darn good (coming from an amateur photographer).
131 From Paul S of MV CA - 11/07/2012, 08:55
"Go ahead and google him and tell me otherwise."
"Again look at photos of him on google and ..."
Yeah, right. Google photos are the ultimate in photographic authority. Yeah, right.
For those that do not like these photos, feel free not to look at them. For those that enjoy them, well, good for us.
Paul
132 From Oliver Nielsen - 11/07/2012, 14:23
Technically, lighting-wise they aren't very good. Overexposure in some hot areas and unintended shadows in other parts of the images.
But, as far as the poses go: More power to him. It's just photography. Why not do something a little different every now and then?
133 From Photography Lighting School - 11/07/2012, 20:53
I understand the concept now, it's an amateur approach to photography of amateur athletes. It makes sense when you look at it that way, any other way you see it, it's horrible.
134 From JoeFoxx - 11/07/2012, 22:13
Paul @ 8:55
What's your problem? If you want to know what Trey Hardee looks like and don't happen to have thousands of pictures of him lying around your house, you can find thousands of them using whatever bleeding search engine you want. What on earth does that have to do with "authority".
It is clear you are judging the photographs as if they are photos of anyone, someone, not someone in particular. Pretty strong example that these photos fail to illuminate their actual subjects. you don;t know what Trey Hardee looks like and you don't care.
I'd challenge anyone to find as many Joe Klamar photos as you can on the web or in your pocket or where ever you find stuff, and show me examples where he photographs famous people, let alone athletes, in a manner anything like this. As far as I can tell he never has.
135 From Scottmontreal - 12/07/2012, 02:04
These are great images! They are memorable and unique, they are humanistic (yes, they show the human and quirky side of these athletes), they are well exposed and most of all, they are controversial! If they were the safe boring portraits we come to expect for sports photography, no one would pay any attention.
My only objection is the bikini shot with the fingers framing the Nike logo - I object to such crass advertizing.
136 From Bugboy - 12/07/2012, 18:17
If you are going to let some other dude's photo-shoot keep you up at night, you ought to get a hobby or something. It's not like he got paid in dead puppies or got to go shove old ladies off the curb as a reward. This was not some life-defining moment for this guy, it was just a job that he made the best of the situation for, with mixed results. Blame the editors for publishing them if you must.
I think someone has said before, art is in the eye of the beholder. Go look up a guy named Mapplethorpe, and if you are unable to call his work art, you have no business commenting on this guy's work.