McCain vs. The Manipulator

Pop quiz, hot shot: You’re a internationally renowned photographer — you’ve done shoots for album covers, national magazines*, memorable ad campaigns, and you’re good at making people look really shiny. You’re also a die-hard (and I mean die-hard — you once made toddlers cry so you could photograph them for an exhibit that obliquely commented on the Bush Administration) Democrat, and you’ve been asked by Atlantic Monthly to shoot a cover portrait of Republican presidential candidate John McCain. 

What do you do?

If you’re Jill Greenberg, you jump at the chance — and hey, while you’re at it, you dupe the poor geezer into taking some “special” shots that might make him look like, I don’t know … a vampire.

There’s more (a lot more) at Greenberg’s official site, and they’re definitely meant to shock and offend (McCain supporters).

At first I have to admit to being unsure of what the controversy was. Skimming the headline, I thought, Uh-oh, somebody didn’t put those magic words, “photo illustration,” somewhere on the cover. (There’s plenty of wiggle room for editorial satire, thankfully.) But no, the photo Atlantic ran on their cover wasn’t the issue: It was Greenberg’s unused out-takes, which she repurposed for her Photoshopped political statements and are now spreading around the interweb.

Now that — that’s a problem.

As someone who designs a publication, I’m pretty stunned at Greenberg’s audacity and contempt for Atlantic. I mean, I send photographers on assignments on a regular basis, and if one of them pulled a stunt like this on our time — and dime — then that’s worthy of blacklisting. By taking the gig and then purposefully shooting the subject with the express purpose of making them look (more) like a vampire, you’ve spit on the trust that the publication has placed in you. It’s not her politics (or her Photoshopping skills — which are pretty damn good) that I disagree with, it’s her disrespect for the magazine that she has wrapped up in controversy that really doesn’t have anything to do with them. I feel bad for those guys, and I think their statement regarding the issue is fair. And then! She never really apologized either, only to say that it was Atlantic’s fault for hiring her in the first place, knowing what her personal feelings about Republicans were. 

Right. 

However, as someone who is incredibly annoyed at the vast number of photoshopped Obama pictures out there — many of them poorly crafted, racist, or both — I can’t help but feel like the cosmic scale has been tipped a little. And while she’s definitely shot her first, last, and only cover for Atlantic, there are enough sympathizers in the liberal elite media who will still keep her in their talent pools. So she’s not exactly washed up — this will probably make her more popular than ever (except with McCain supporters.)

Going back to Atlantic’s statement, I find it interesting that they denounce her “manipulated” images as though their cover shot wasn’t manipulated. I mean, John McCain just isn’t that shiny — nobody is. It’s possible that Greenberg achieves this effect through lighting alone (photographers, is this possible?), but I’m guessing that there was still a fair amount of airbrushing/retouching/Photoshopping going on. The fact is that everything you see in print has gone through Photoshop first, and everything gets minor adjustments ranging from brightness to sharpness. Notice I didn’t include putting a mouth full of blood-encrusted shark teeth in there — I think that falls outside the normal Photoshop procedures.

Googling around brought me to this video interview with Greenberg circa 2006 for coolhunting.com where she describes her philosophy about photo manipulations and goes into detail about how she got those poor, well-paid toddlers to cry. It’s pretty interesting. Plus: bonus Gwen Stefani cameo!

*Henry was the first person to show me this cover, and I still think it’s awesome.