Jill Greenberg has balls

She used her access to take the unflattering spooky image under the guise of doing something she was requested to do.

Sean, you beat me to my second point. Darn.

Guess we know how The Atlantic really feels about John McCain too then, eh? Why else would they have accepted this photo for the cover. I mean really. McCain looks AWFUL. It does beg the question though: should every unflattering photo of red eyes, etc. be retouched to look plastique perfect (just because we can)? Everything in photography is so fake these days, it's almost refreshing to see an untouched photo. Although some (like this one) are downright frightful.




(Edited on 2008-09-13 22:53:00 by risamay)

Well you hire Jill Greenberg to get the "Greenberg look" and that's what they got... 90% of people looking at the cover don't know who the hell Jill Greenberg is, or her politics, albeit cracking her gossip and views to PDN is a little tacky, and I personally don't feel it's the job of the Portraitist to have an OP-ED photo of their subject or to deceive their model; nor did the Atlantic as they picked the "Greenberg look" not her monster shot.... Any press is good press?

(Edited on 2008-09-13 22:52:36 by bttoro)

Maybe they overlooked her politics her because she's his type?

Excellent question . . . but who wants people looking at their (own) photos saying "OMG, he/she looks awful!"?



But that's not what they got. Have you seen her other celebrity photos? They are beautiful, but most definitely photoshopped to the hilt.

ROFLOL! I like your logic.

ETA: Wait. Were you talking about McCain or the orangutan? You meant his (McCain's) type, as in underhanded and ballsy. Right?



(Edited on 2008-09-13 23:33:14 by risamay)

Very true! She was hired for a job and not for making statement.

It is not right to fool someone like that no matter who the person is! I don't think it would win votes for the democrats.

Very true. I couldn't agree more. Especially when it's the American people that you're seeking to fool with outrageous, outright lies in advertising. Jill could learn a thing or two from McCain, and vice versa. It's unlikely on both counts though. Sadly.

Again, I'm not talking about the cover shot. If the McCain people weren't smart enough to have refusal rights before allowing Atlantic to use the shot, that's their fault.

Sneakily snapping a completely off assignment image for her personal agenda purposes is where the issue lies with untrustworthiness and unprofessionalism.

That's not pro at all. It's disturbing. How old is she?

Being a manipulator doesn't mean you have to be deceitful, and a self impossed titled doesn't give you a free pass to be a unprofessional. It's McCain's campaign manager job to understand the media, not McCain solely. And finally the statement I take issue the most is "photography is the King of lies", yes it can be, but it also the Queen of truth, just depending on how much photoshop and tricky lighting you use determines which one.

I think what she did was disgusting. This man's face was disfigured by cruel beatings during his captivity when a POW in Vietnam. Whatever your opinions are of this man -- to do this knowingly under the guise of being a professional is extremely cruel.

Huh? He doesn't look disfigured to me, except for his left cheek, where he had that cancer. And if you see photos of him when he returned from Vietnam, his face doesn't look disfigured. In fact, he looks quite handsome.

What is everyone else seeing? Im really confused. To me thats exactly how John McCain looks. I think its actually flattering. He looks pretty good for his age and the stress he must be under. Im just confused as to what shouldve been done. Erase his wrinkles, his sagging chin, his tired eyes, his gray hair. Work on him until he looks fifty,forty, or like Brad Pitt? Do you really consider his face disfigured?? I see where his nose couldve been broken if thats what you mean by disfigured. He did cheat on his badly disfigured wife with his current wife not long after coming home so Im sure he is okay with it.

^Agreed. I've seen Obama made to look worse than that photo of McCain.

Look, I don't necessarily agree with McCain's politics, but his jaw was broken several times and never set properly. Look at how the left side of his face has a rather prominent bulge.


Just one excerpt from "Faith of My Fathers":


"The next day the beatings started in earnest, he was knocked down and kicked in the head. They cracked several ribs, and knocked out several teeth. Again he was lying in his own blood, vomit and waste when guards came in and gave him his worst beating yet. One guard hit him in the face knocking him down. He fell on the waste bucket and broke his left arm again. They left him lying on the floor, the pain in the re-fractured arm was excruciating. He considered taking his own life."


I don't agree with the Time's photo of Obama either (the second one). He looks demonic. The point is that a photo can be manipulated just as much as words can. Also, I'm not saying McCain looks terrible in the photo -- what I had an issue with was Jill Greenberg's publicly admitted intentions.

I think Jill Greenberg got insulted to be asked to shoot John McCain. It's like someone went up to her and told her she was full of it. Jill is totally anti war and has dedicated some of her work to that cause and anti creationism - her monkey series and book is focused on that and she does call out Bush in the preface of that book. Now some moron comes up to her and ask her to make John McCain look heroic. It's at best ignorance, at worst an assumption that she has no integrity and will do anything for the money. That's pretty insulting. Looks like Jill is not the passive type to just refuse and decided they deserve to be shown just how stupid they are. Which she did.


I think it's pretty refreshing to see that money and power does not always reign supreme with people up there.

Jill Greenberg loves craves attention. What she really wanted is exactly what she's got ... everyone talking about her. No, she doesn't care what you think of her, just as long as you are talking about her. She did this for herself and her own notoriety and nothing more.

Well said Rob. Personally I don't see why people are worked up about it. This is lipstick, not issues.