Photographer Run Amok Won't Be Paid By Atlantic

A photographer who bragged about capturing John McCain in an unflattering light, and who duped the presidential candidate into posing for an even less flattering picture will not be paid for her photo, and may find herself the subject of a lawsuit, according to reports.

Jill Greenberg, whose work can be seen online at her site -- somewhat appropriately named "Manipulator" -- originally shot the cover image for Atlantic scribe Jeffrey Goldberg's October cover story, "The Wars Of John McCain." The New York Post describes how the session went down:

Greenberg, known for her heavily retouched pics of apes and babies, boasted to Photo District News that she submitted photos of the Arizona senator to the mag while barely airbrushing them.

"I left his eyes red and his skin looking bad," she boasted.

Greenberg also crowed that she had tricked McCain into standing over a strobe light placed on the floor -- turning the septuagenarian's face into a horror show of shadows.

Asking McCain to "please come over here" for a final shot, Greenberg pretended to be using a standard modeling light.

The resulting photos depict McCain as devilish, with bulging brows and washed-out skin.

"He had no idea he was being lit from below," Greenberg said, adding that none of his entourage picked up on the light switch either. "I guess they're not very sophisticated," she said.

According to the Post, Atlantic editor James Bennet was "appalled" at Greenberg's antics, saying, "Her behavior is outrageous. Incredibly unprofessional."

And, indeed, it is! But Goldberg himself says it best, "Suffice it to say that her 'art' is juvenile, and on occasion repulsive. This is not the issue, of course; the issue is that she betrayed this magazine, and disgraced her profession."

Bennet, who told Fox News that Greenberg "violated the terms of our agreement with her," is drafting a letter of apology to McCain.

NOTE: As has been pointed out to me, drilling down into Greeberg's site will unearth several photo renderings of John McCain that at least one Obama supporter, in an email to me, describes as "childish." It's only too true that the existence of these images is a testament to the photographer's juvenile sensibilities, but they seem to be a matter distinct from the concerns that led the Atlantic to take the actions they have taken.

Comments

[amandab42]

continued.­..

The "McCain Camp" is really so shocked? The people at Atlantic are really so appalled?
Well... okay... not only am I confused (not to mention indifferent), I will take this moment to
say that I am shocked and appalled as a human being and "citizen of the world" at the
cowardice, the laziness, the ineptitude, the dishonesty and blah blah blah of our politicians
and our media in general. So SHUT IT!! A-holes. You're not fooling anyone...

...except for maybe most people. Because most people, apparently, are dumb.

p.s. Then why did the Atlantic publish her work on their cover?

[lacasarosada]

i enjoyed reading your message and you are right. numerous meetings take place involving numerous people and numerous sign-offs before an image makes its way onto the cover of a magazine. to blame this on the photographer is really lame. its like Kenny boy Lay blaming the collapse of enron on the co-workers for never telling him the company was in trouble.

[RobotHouse]

Right on, and seriously if JM would stop acting like such an A-hole all of the time she wouldn't have had to do that. I'm a photographer, I would have done the same thing,

[Bettysdad]

Is Greenberg going to be charged with extortion for forcing the editor to run the pix?

[XME]

I don't defend McCain on the issues (or his actions!) but her attitude and efforts certainly seem VERY unprofessi­onal...to TRY to make a subject look bad.

[jick]

Seems like the people at the Atlantic took this more seriously than their counterparts at the New Yorker did with the Obama cartoon.

[Vote For America]

Sept 15 Polling Update
http://voteforamerica.net/editorials/Comments.aspx?ArticleId=55&ArticleName=Daily+Poll+Update

Cindy McCain's Fallacious Rebuttal
http://voteforamerica.net/editorials/Comments.aspx?ArticleId=54&ArticleName=Cindy+McCain%27s+Fallacious+Rebuttal

The Red November: An analysis on campaign marketing
http://voteforamerica.net/editorials/Comments.aspx?ArticleId=50&ArticleName=The+Red+November

Obama 264, McCain 274
http://voteforamerica.net/electoral.aspx

[widollar]

Carlie Fiorina is a fake ex-CEO who bilked Hewlett -Packard out of a large fortune until the board of directors finally woke up and threw this jerk under the bus. She is a pathetic denfender of little Johnny McCain and his Racist White Trailer Trash VP. They are all losers!

[greejambri]

HERE HERE!!! Agreed, on ALL counts!

[SwingVoter]

She is very talented; you can see her work on her website. I think she just let her emotions get to her on this hit piece.

[thinbluetorpedo]

She captured the essence of his being. Great work.

[athenasword]

From an artistic standpoint, she did great work - she looked at her subject, observed a quality or particular emotion and set about capturing it. What she created is an image that powerfully communicates. The one of him lit from below is stark and hard-hitting. As a photographer, I'd say she did her job. If it wasn't a good photo then it would not have been used, most especially on the cover. I guess the editors now are just covering their butts (though she didn't do herself any favors in bragging about what she did).

[MissingAmerica]

Reality sucks, doesn't it?

[ssengele]

Huh, it hardly seems notable to me--just the photographic equivalent of the Post's reporting. I mean, is it totally, objectively accurate to say that she "boasted" and "crowed"? She used lighting to create an image that meshes with her subjective viewpoint; there isn't a lot to fault in that (in this case; the images that aren't in the magazine are subjective in a clearly slanderous way).

I frankly don't think he looks bad on the cover anyway; sort of waxy and lumpy, sure, but it's just as flattering as most pictures out there. Granted, that's jarring on the cover of a major magazine, but it also gives him a human, just-folks look, so really what's to complain about? Yeah, the pictures on her website are childish and over the line, but does that really change how you view this picture?

[Diogenis]

Why does he resemble a turkey?

[Diogenis]

A recent poll suggests most Americans would rather look at porn.

[6bd]

Trival comment, but did you notice the placement of McCain's adopted daughter on the cover of People magazine. She is neatly tucked in the lower left corner, while remaining siblings remain center stage.

[KarlaElisa]

the only foolish thing she did wrong was tell people with glee. that's what put that rope around her neck.
i am fine with this getting big time exposure. it shows mccain doesn't want us to see how decrepit he really is.
and how stupid he is.