# Donald Trump's Official Portrait and the Language of Lighting



## tirediron (Nov 5, 2017)

Donald Trump's Official Portrait and the Language of Lighting 

it would be very interesting to know whether or not Mr. Trump directed the lighting, or whether it was the same photographer for both, OR whether two different photographers came up with the same concept and why such an execution.  Regardless, I agree with the article's author, it's a horrible portrait.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 5, 2017)

Too bad Arnold Newman passed away.

Joe


----------



## Designer (Nov 5, 2017)

I agree that they're not excellent portraits.  The pinlights in both portraits are photoshopped in.  The general lighting on his face is not right.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Donald Trump's Official Portrait and the Language of Lighting
> 
> it would be very interesting to know whether or not Mr. Trump directed the lighting, or whether it was the same photographer for both, OR whether two different photographers came up with the same concept and why such an execution.  Regardless, I agree with the article's author, it's a horrible portrait.



One answer is simply that the flesh around Trump's eye orbit is low-hanging, and comes wayyyy down, to the eyelid itself...he has deep-set and "hidden" eyeballs/ Look at Pence's eye shape: the eye orbit's lower skin level is way up on the eyelid. Simply put, if you want to GET a main light's catchlight to show up on eyes like Trump has, then the main light has to be LOW. Period.

I agree, the portraits are not great, but Trump has eyeballs that are NOT "right out there". The eye orbits low nature causes his eyes to be quite hidden from light striking from normative main light placements. He would be a VERY tricky subject for almost any "normal" key light placement!


----------



## JonA_CT (Nov 5, 2017)

Really interesting analysis, Derrel. 

It seems to me that he is chin is pointed down in both portraits. Couldn’t he lift his chin a bit to mitigate those effects?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2017)

JonA_CT said:


> Really interesting analysis, Derrel.
> 
> It seems to me that he is chin is pointed down in both portraits. Couldn’t he lift his chin a bit to mitigate those effects?



A little bit of chin elevation would help, but his eyeballs themselves are hidden somewhat by his narrow upper and lower eyelids, and at the top, by that low-hanging eye orbit flesh. I think whoever shot the pics probably did not "direct" the sitter, but just snapped the photos. It's possible that very little time was allocated to making these shots.

Still, regardless of chin lift or not, contrast how very MUCH of the full eyeball is visible on the congresswoman' portrait, as opposed to the amount of eyeball that Mr. Trump shows in both shots. In simple terms, she has large eyeballs, and a lot of surface area AND she has an eye orbit/eye structure that allows light to hit the eyeballs, even when the light's placed in a number of different placements. Trump's unique face structure/eye shape/size is a challenging one. yet still, the "official portraits" are not as appealing as the one Vice President Pence has, and not as appealing as the one the congresswoman has.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 5, 2017)

Something else I missed initially as I was concentrating on the lighting is that bit of picture frame in the background.  WTF????

For the sake of an interesting exercise:  How would YOU light & pose Mr. Trump for an official portrait?


----------



## JonA_CT (Nov 5, 2017)

I have no idea, but I'm guessing that the genre is specific enough to have some rules. Obama's is definitely lit better, but still not super interesting or anything.







Just for the sake of comparison....PM Trudeau's official portrait. It's much more engaging...but it doesn't seem to require the patriotic background.






Angela Merkel






Emmanuel Macron






This page might be the best...many Putins to choose from:

Photo bank ∙ For the media ∙ President of Russia


----------



## Peeb (Nov 5, 2017)

The hair, OTOH- immaculate.


----------



## JustJazzie (Nov 5, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Something else I missed initially as I was concentrating on the lighting is that bit of picture frame in the background.  WTF????
> 
> For the sake of an interesting exercise:  How would YOU light & pose Mr. Trump for an official portrait?


I suppose I would enlarge the light source?
I'm envisioning two huge Foam boards... 6 feet + tall on either side of him, one Side lit with a flash and the second side just to reflect, just enough room in between for the camera view. Then I should end up with two vertical catch lights up the entire side of his eyes, vs the rounded ones from an umbrella or whatever.


----------



## Braineack (Nov 6, 2017)

what if the photographer was purposefully trying to make it unflattering?

/r/conspiracy


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 6, 2017)

this is posted in the open forum, not in the subscribers section so please keep all comments related to photography and non political. 
thanks


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 6, 2017)

disagree all you want, but rules are rules...
you know, those things you agreed to follow when you signed up for the forum?


----------



## jaomul (Nov 6, 2017)

It would seem to me that the leader of any country and indeed said country would want the best possible portait within the specified limits, such as backgrounds needed as a high quality representation of the person.

It's probably true that people who are not into photography or maybe art might not realize that these photos could indeed be better. I'm surprised that a photographer working at such a high level could not or did not do better. A few here have suggested how the shots could be improved. My question is why were they not better?


----------



## waday (Nov 6, 2017)

tirediron said:


> For the sake of an interesting exercise: How would YOU light & pose Mr. Trump for an official portrait?


Definitely not as the current portrait, which, as the article mentions, is rather sinister. I agree with @JonA_CT , probably something like Obama's or Macron's lighting.

While I like Trudeau's and Merkel's, they look like corporate head shots to me. There's nothing tying them to their country, or them as a leader. 

That said, I'm not a fan of either of Obama's or Macron's posing. Obama's crossed arms make him look like he's putting up a barrier, and Macron's sitting-on-a-desk looks like a sleazy boss.


----------



## MSnowy (Nov 6, 2017)

JonA_CT said:


> I have no idea, but I'm guessing that the genre is specific enough to have some rules. Obama's is definitely lit better, but still not super interesting or anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you take these photos?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 6, 2017)

On CNN's website (rather than speculation? observations? by a photographer/blogger from whom PetaPixel managed to 'beg, borrow, or steal' as the saying goes, or repost or rewrite or whatever...) there's an article telling there were two different photographers who did the official portraits. Pence's portrait was done by his official photographer, D. Myles Cullen.

Trump's portrait wasn't done til apparently August by Shealah Craighead. The gold frame you saw John in the photo (good eye, it's a portrait of Thomas Jefferson) as well as the wallpaper seems to show that the photo must've been done after the Oval Office was remodeled. The official portraits were commissioned by the US Government Publishing Office (which I didn't know we had) and will be distributed... etc. etc.

If you do a search of Pete Souza Obama, and Shealah Craighead Trump, I think you'll see the differences. Ms. Craighead seems to be shooting from a distance and nothing much behind the scenes, which seems to show limited access and poor available vantage points. She also was the photographer for Laura Bush.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 6, 2017)

Braineack said:


> what if the photographer was purposefully trying to make it unflattering?
> 
> /r/conspiracy



Speaking of which; there was a photographer who __admitted__ that he shot unflattering portraits of U.S. Senator John McCain of Arizona, a few years ago. McCain has some skin issues, which the guy purposefully (so he said!) emphasiszed, because he did not like McCain.

As far as these Trump shots go: they are simply NOT top-shelf work. Just.Are.Not.Very.Good.Presidential.Formal.Portraits. Lighting sucks. Posing is weak.Propping and sets are bad. I have this feeling that whoever shot the shots was rushed, or was simply NOT capable enough to make truly good portraits.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Nov 6, 2017)

'Whoever' did the official Presidential portrait is his official photographer, Shealah Craighead. Like I said, do a search of her current photos and those she did of Laura Bush when Mrs. Bush was first lady, and those done of Obama by her predecessor, Pete Souza. 

She seems to often have limited access and/or lousy vantage points, taking many photos from some distance or at odd angles. How much of her work is truly her style is probably better seen in her photos of Mrs. Bush.


----------



## Designer (Nov 7, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> 'Whoever' did the official Presidential portrait is his official photographer, Shealah Craighead. Like I said, do a search of her current photos and those she did of Laura Bush when Mrs. Bush was first lady, and those done of Obama by her predecessor, Pete Souza.
> 
> She seems to often have limited access and/or lousy vantage points, taking many photos from some distance or at odd angles. How much of her work is truly her style is probably better seen in her photos of Mrs. Bush.


Her story shows that it's far more important to have connections than mere talent and skill.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 7, 2017)

Just to save everyone a lot of grief, I'm going to assume this thread has run its course.


----------

