Jared Polin, froknowsphoto.com.
And I want to take a look at President Donald Trump's official portrait that the White House
recently put out.
I want to go ahead and analyze it, look at how it was shot, what it was shot with, and
give you some input on what I think about the portrait as well as take a look at George
W. Bush's two portraits and Barrack Obama's two portraits and put it up against this one.
So, here we have it.
This is the official portrait that will live on throughout history as long as history is
there.
Now, this isn't meant to be a politicized post at all, we're looking at this from a
photographer's standpoint and analyzing the image.
In terms of the portrait itself, I think it’s conveying the message that they want to convey:
I'm tough, I'm stern, but you don't know what I'm going to do, that's just the nature of
the portrait.
You've got the flag in the background and you have what looks to be the White House,
but from what it looks like it looks like it's composited and we'll get to the settings
in just a second to justify why I think it's composited, but it just looks composited.
So let's go back to the first one here on the left with George W. Bush.
This is shot with film, it's nice and sharp, it's lit the way that it's lit from the '90s
– actually 2000s, sorry it came in in 2000.
And it looks perfectly fine – nice and sharp.
It conveys the message, he's always smiling because that's what George W. Bush did.
And I want to point out the pin right here, the pin is sharp as well as he is sharp.
Now, we move over to Barrack Obama's image.
This is the first official White House portrait or the first official presidential portrait
taken with a DSLR.
It was taken with a Canon 5D Mark II, shot at 1 - 1/25th of a second ISO 100 and f/10
with the 105mm.
So look how sharp this photo is and look how sharp the pin is.
Now, I don't think this is the greatest portrait in the history of the world at all, but of
course it’s iconic because it's a presidential portrait.
So that becomes an iconic image whether it's good, bad, or indifferent, it is what it is
and that's not the problem.
Now, if you notice this you might say is there too much headroom.
Now I would assume that Pete Souza shot this knowing that it would be printed as an 8 x
10 in most places, because if we look at the other four on here they are already cropped
to 8 x 10.
So if we went up here to crop and we went to 8 x 10 you would see what would happen
right there, it would give you the 8 x 10 aspect ratio and you can crop it any which
way that you wanted to go ahead and do that.
Moving on to the second presidential portrait, this is a much happier look, I still don't
think it's lit the best way, but it's great.
It's in the Oval Office, he's smiling, it conveys that message of welcoming, done with
a Canon EOS 5D Mark III with the 85mm 1.2 which is a fantastic lens for portraits ISO
200 this time.
You can see that everything is straight up sharp from top to bottom except for obviously
the background right there.
Now, moving on back to President Donald Trump's portrait, you can see this was taken at – get
out of here – 1/320th of a second at f/2.8 ISO 640 but with the Canon EOS 1DS Mark III.
That is a 10-year-old camera.
Keep in mind this is a 10-year-old camera.
Now, I will always say that it doesn't matter what you shoot pictures with you should be
able to get fantastic results with anything, but when you're photographing the President
of the United States you would think that they would be using at least a 5D Mark IV
if not a 1DX Mark II as well as with the latest 70 to 200 2.8 version 2 or the 85 1.2 which
would give a great portrait shot.
Now, we don't know the situation.
We don't even know at the time of recording this who the photographer was officially that
shot this.
I think the portrait is fine from the standpoint of the portrait aspect of it and what they
were trying to convey, but the use of the old camera that is 10 years old and shooting
it at 640 ISO, that camera maxed out at 1600 ISO.
You are at places where it's not going to look too good because that camera 10 years
ago was great, but now it doesn't compare with even some of the lower end entry-level
cameras that are out on the market.
So let's break this down.
One of the things that I noticed first was that the pin wasn't sharp.
Now of course, in terms of a portrait the point is to draw you into the subject because
it's a portrait of this person; so maybe that’s meant to just draw you right into him.
The other thing is I don't think it's sharp, the eye – yes, you could make an argument
that this eye is sharp but why it shot at 2.
8?
You have to ask that question.
Is it shot at 2.8 for the effect that they just one isolate his face, or is it because
he's 70-years-old?
He's 20-some – Barrack is what?
Yeah, he's 20 years older or so compared to when George W. and Barrack also came into
office, so he's a little older, he has a little more wear and tear on the face, so maybe shooting
a 2.8 would soften that up, but also so with 3.2 and all of that.
But just the fact it was shot with a 10-year-old camera at 640 ISO when it maxed out at 1600;
to me is a problem, not everybody else out there in the world that's not a photographer,
they don't care, the picture does what it's supposed to do.
But it does look like they went to Sears, Roebuck & Company and got a portrait there
and said, "Hey, what backdrop would you like to get?
Wide like the American flag in the background and then I would like you to put the White
House back there."
The reason I think that it's a composite is because if it was taken outside at this time
– if it was taken outside it would have been taken during the day and you wouldn't
have needed to be at 640 at 1/320th of a second at 2.
8.
It would have been shot at f/8.0 or something along those lines because it would've been
awfully bright at 640 ISO.
So you want to keep that in mind with why I'm saying that it looks like a composite.
What do you guys think?
Do you think it's a composite, did they just drop a photo where it is and make this – drop
the background in there?
So that's really what I think about it.
I think the photo is fine the way that it is.
It's not the greatest portrait, it's not the worst portrait, it does what it's trying to
do, but I just don't understand using a 10-year-old camera, a 7200 version 1 and shooting at 640
ISO when the max on that bad boy is 1600.
It just looks like it was taken with – I mean, I don't think there's a flash, it's
like what, did they light this, with a phone or something along those lines?
I also think it's too blue, right, too blue.
Warm it up a little bit, even though that's a little not too far but whatever, that's
beside the point.
So that's what I think about the photos.
I don't think any of them are tremendously the greatest portraits; I love candids.
I think this portrait is fine, but I don't understand most of it for all the reasons
that I explained.
So, I'd love to hear what you guys think about this portrait, is it a composite?
Do you think it matters what it was shot with?
I personally think it should have been shot with something better in this day and age;
but this is the photo, you can't complain about that.
It is the photo that's out there in the world, and congratulations to whoever took it, because
they have an official portrait of a President for his presidency.
So, we'll leave it at that.
Let me know what you think.
Jared Polin, froknowsphoto.com.
See you.