Welcome Back

I might be a little in love with this picture because of the dog sitting in the bottom corner.  It doesn't even look real.  And its face is the essence of beauty and perfection - a dog-level model.

I have an extremely hard time believing that this picture is real.  The color, the bolts of lightning, the way the reflection is captured, the mountains, the clouds--almost everything about this picture is my definition of perfection.  It's a dream photo.

The lion looks so majestic, gazing at wherever its eyes are glued to.  He blends in with the grass (which was probably on purpose, on the lion's side of things), but he stands out in a beautiful way.  Also, the lighting, and how the grass frames the lion makes it look gorgeous.




What was the best song of 2015?

The best song of 2015 was Pentatonix's cover of "Lean On."  The very beginning of the song is amazing--and human voices replacing all of the electronics from the original version by Major Lazer is interesting and really freaking beautiful.  The glissade from the singer Mitch, and the bass from Avi, and the general groove of the song are extremely uplifting and make you want to dance to it.

What was the best movie of 2015?

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation was the best movie of 2015.  Half the reason is THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT--a Mission Impossible movie should be like this more often.  It was action-packed, and it was funny, and the acting was great.  The other half of the reason is that I didn't go to the movies much this year and come out really appreciating the movie--this was the only one.

What was the most important news story of the year?

The most important news story of the year was the Same-Sex Marriage Debate.  It's really significant to me, personally, because I was in New York (Manhattan Island) when the news was released that same-sex marriage became legal, and everything went completely crazy.  It was amazing.  Times Square was lit up with the good news.
Also, it's important to me (and a LOT of other people) emotionally.  It was and still is a very big deal, and a huge step forward for the US.

Who was the most important person of 2015?

It's really not my place to choose the best of anything for 2015, because I don't get out there much.  I had never heard of anyone on the list of the eight most important people in the US except Putin and Trump.  I just read about Caitlyn Jenner, though, and she seems very significant.
TIME says her coming out prompted "widespread conversations about gender identity and issues of equality for the LGBT community."  I, personally, think it was brave of her, especially with people all over the place who are openly against everything to do with the LGBTQ+ community.

What was the biggest sports OR entertainment story OR sports/entertainment person of 2016?

I Googled this and almost the full first page on Google was Caitlyn Jenner, so she is my answer again, and for all the same reasons.

Annnnnd, MY holiday:

1).  One thing about this Christmas that I'll always remember was how terrible it was.  It was completely different, and nobody was there, and we had our giant meal extremely late, and there was half as much food as usual.  Nobody seems to be willing to put in the effort for a good Christmas anymore--people aren't even showing up.  It was all just extremely depressing.

2).  I didn't really bother to make an resolutions this year, probably mostly because I had an overall terrible break and didn't feel enthusiastic about it.  I can try to procrastinate less, but I make this one every year and I never really succeed.

3).  This is very short-term, but I'm looking forward to the second part of the fifth season of Teen Wolf, and also Supernatural (with season 11) and the Flash (season 2).  Also, I want it to be summer.  Another thing:  THE TRIALS OF APOLLO: THE HIDDEN ORACLE COMES OUT IN MAY, AND I NEED IT TO COME FASTER.  Percy Jackson+Teen Wolf+Harry Potter = Extremely Happy Jaye.

Final Exam Extra Credit

I accidentally posted this on my Journalism blog instead of Photojournalism.  Oops.

Apologies.  I totally used all these questions and this situation to rant.

1).  The man, Ki Suk, had been pushed onto the tracks by a panhandler who was harassing people after trying to calm him down.  The photographer says he'd tried to help, but when he realized he couldn't, he started taking picture with his flash in hopes of warning the operator about the person in their path.

2).  To warn the operator about Ki Suk with his flash.

3).  No.  NO, he shouldn't have taken the photo.  He should have kept trying to help, even if he'd thought it was hopeless.  If the operator of the subway hadn't already seen the person, he wasn't going to anytime soon--people (such as tourist) probably take pictures of the incoming subway with their flash on all the time.

4).  I don't think he did the best he could in this situation.  Ki Suk was about to die, and the photographer got out his camera to take pictures with the illogical excuse that the operator would stop the train because he used his flash as a warning.

5).  I strongly disagree with the decision to use this photo as the cover of the New York Post.  This man, Ki Suk, is famous now--not because he tried to help the people being harassed by a panhandler, but because a picture was taken of him right before his death.  He's now famous for being hit by a subway train.  The cruelty of putting him on the cover of the New York Post is...unexplainable.

6).  Stopping bad things from happening should be more important to a photojournalist than capturing pictures of bad things happening.  This death might have been avoided if he'd just kept trying, instead of trying to take a picture of the event.  Photos and stories of terrible things wouldn't have to be famous and making people nationwide sick to their stomachs if they'd never happened in the first place.

7).  If something isn't going to end in death, a photojournalist probably shouldn't involve him or herself in the photos they're taking (such as, if they were taking photos of a presidential debate, or a person being interviewed for a news story).  If something completely serious (such as this) is happening, they shouldn't be taking photos in the first place; they should be helping.  I'm not saying they should have a reckless Harry Potter personality, throwing themselves into danger to help people--but they should try.

8).  There are circumstances in which a photojournalist should probably try to avoid influencing events as they happen (such as, again, a presidential debate), or something that involves an environment that they could somehow ruin with either their cameras or their bodies.  Something like this, though, isn't normal.  It's special circumstances, like when your orchestra director says you can't miss more than two rehearsals unless you're lying sick in a hospital bed or got lost somewhere over the rainbow.  With this, and anything like it, I find it almost disrespectful to the subjects of the photo if the photojournalist is taking pictures instead of helping.  Imagine how terrified Ki Suk must have been when the photojournalist gave up helping him--seriously???

9).  How does “taking pictures” tell a conductor to stop a train? Huh? Is this photographer guy a moron? Throw down your camera and run to help the guy. If you fail, at least you tried. Taking pictures isn’t trying. What conductor would think, “Oh, look, someone’s taking pictures…maybe I should stop the train.”

I completely agree with this (this was the point I made earlier).  I can't make myself believe anything the photographer is saying about helping with the flash, and if he meant it...I seriously question the intelligence of today's society.

Magazine Covers

Portraits and Self-Portraits

FASHION

1).  First off, the amount of makeup is astounding and transforming in itself.  After that, though, these things are changed:  they make her lips bigger, they give her more hair, they lengthen her neck, they lower her eyes and eyebrows, they reduce the size of her shoulders, they make her eyes larger, they cleaned up her hairline, they reduced the size of her jaw.

2).  Again, the amount of makeup is astounding and transforming in itself, along with the added hair.  After that, these things are changed:  they clear up her skin, make her eyes larger, they make her shoulder bonier, they reduce the size of her stomach and breasts, they lengthen her thighs, reduce the size of her calves and feet, they lengthen her calves, they lengthen her neck, reduce the size of her jaw, they make her hair more blonde, they making all of her skin more fair, they reduce the size of her thighs.

3).  They pretty much reduce the size of everything to start, but enlarge the size of her breasts.  And then they go on to reduce the size of everything even more, and then even more, and then even more. They lift her butt.  They lengthen her hair--a lot.  Seriously.  They make minute changes to her face (like lessening the size of her cheekbones), and then proceed to clean up the hairline and make hair hair fuller.

4).  I don't believe it's ethically acceptable to change a woman's (or even a man's) body or face in this way.  It's extremely offensive to women everywhere.  This is people telling us that we can only be eligible for covers of magazines or billboards until there's nothing left that actually us.

5).  Of course, if the person being photoshopped on doesn't know it's happening.  If this happens at all, they need to have the model's consent--because, seriously, everyone involved with the photoshopping would just be complete jerks if the model didn't know about it first.

6).  I think changes of lighting, in general, are okay, or highlighting a person's hair or something along those lines.  Everything else--it's just rude.

7).  Photojournalism is definitely more real than fashion photography.  Photojournalism is usually pictures that tell a story, or accent a story.  They don't need to be edited to be accepted by "society," they just are.

8).  I, personally, don't think they're tied to reality in any way except for the fact that they show blatantly how distorted our view of beauty is.  It's sort of an unwelcome truth revealed to the people who spend their time wishing they could look like the people on the fronts of PEOPLE magazines, or giant billboards.  I've probably repeated this ten times over,  but it's wholly rude and offensive, completely changing a woman's body to fit their view of beauty.  It's unethical, to the point where it's scary.

9).  To make me sick and angry and indignant..?

10).  It might be because girls are more pressured into looking amazing all the time.  I'm not saying guys aren't, but...it's more of a struggle for girls.  It's a long-standing stereotype.

Prompt Shoot (11/23)

Purple:

 Cold:

 Electric:

Magazines Part II

For the earliest magazine covers, it is said that they are modeled after the covers of books.  This in itself is an attribute (at least to me, because books are amazing).  They're informational, in place of the visual appealing-ness of more modern magazines.  For the Poster Covers, they're appealing because the pictures on them are very good at portraying a story or emotional without having to use words.  It's very simple, and makes the magazine seem like it wouldn't be cluttered with useless information.  For Pictures Married to Type, the background of the photo suits the subject/portrait of the photo almost perfectly.  It's appealing, and makes the magazine seem like it would be neat and organized on the inside, too.  The way something is always overlapping the title of the magazine is somehow extremely visually appealing (I honestly think having the magazine title over the subject isn't as appealing as the former).  For the Forest of Words...well, it doesn't look very visually appealing at all.  It makes the whole cover seem really scattered and cluttered, and it wouldn't compel me to pick up the magazine and spend my money on it.