Here’s a good case to save all of your raw video and photo files on every shoot: It could one day be used to reveal the truth when a government official lies.
That’s what South Florida’s Sun Sentinel photographer Taimy Alvarez discovered when she found that she had full, unedited footage from 2015 of the opening of a new FBI building in her coverage area. This was the same opening event that was most recently referred to in a speech by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, where he accused Democratic Rep. Frederica Wilson of grandstanding about getting funding for the building when she actually didn’t take credit for it. The accusations from Kelly were in response to Wilson’s comments about Donald Trump’s condolence call to the widow of slain soldier Sgt. La David Johnson, a phone conversation that was largely considered insensitive.
According to Poynter, Alvarez’s friend had reminded her she shot photos that day, and she discovered that she had the entire speech recorded from her Nikon D810. Because no other TV stations aired the event, and the FBI wasn’t releasing the video, she had the only other footage. The newspaper decided to post the whole video unedited.
While the video clearly shows that there wasn’t any grandstanding, because the video lives on the Sun-Sentinel site, it doesn’t have as much traffic as if it was released on YouTube, and most video that lives on newspaper websites get far less traffic than on social media. Regardless, the White House hasn’t apologized over the misstatements.
You can watch the recap from CBS Miami above or watch the original video in its entirety at this link.
[via Poynter]
The assertion that General Kelly lied, as opposed to just being wrong is bias. I don't know he intentionally lied and neither does anyone else.
That's why I said apparently. I'm not so interested in the trivial matter to go look it up for exactitude.
In the adult world, you open your mouth in a disparaging comment and it is found on tape to be at odds with the truth, then you ... what? Misspoke? Ok, so when we see the good general misspeaking in a way that compliments an adversary, we'll know that this stuff just happens and let it slide. I certainly hope you give him no extra space just because he's been on the public dime his whole life.
I was referring to the article, not your comment.
Everyone lies (except me) and everyone is mistaken at times. I don't know if he addressed the error/lie or not. If he hasn't, that would appear to indicate a lie. In these matters, I always look for motivation and I can't think of any. Politics aside, Rep. Wilson is goofy enough to not warrant attention. I really do wish President Trump would stop for at least five minutes before twirking or whatever. I don't really know anything about social media. As for General Kelly's career, I don't believe "on the public dime" is accurate. Given five minutes of thought, I hope you would agree.
Rep Wilson was the person who created the program for young people under which Sgt. La David Johnson, KIA in Niger, progressed in life to become a member of the Special Forces.
Your idea of "goofy" perhaps merits that you go look in a mirror, as you've most likely done nothing in life as serious as she has. I dare say you simply look at her and make ugly claims ....
The military brass are well known by historians and writers to be trained liars on fool's errands, every problem is a nail requiring a hammer. Kelly may be a hell of a guy, but he's hitched his wagon to the most monumental liar of our time. You lie down with dogs you wind up with fleas. Personally I almost feel bad for him.
I was actually referring to her attire. I don't think she's ugly and am often surprised by what other people label that way. Since you say she started that program, and I have no reason to label you, or anyone, a liar, that's a good thing but has nothing to do with her being goofy.
If you think "goofy" is a terrible insult, perhaps you should look in the dictionary.
[being crazy, ridiculous, or mildly ludicrous : SILLY *a goofy sense of humor* *that hat looks goofy*]
Finally, as I already stated, everyone lies (with the above noted exception) at times. The fact you feel qualified to decide who lies more than others seems to indicate a lapse in objectivity. Maybe you're just having a bad day. :-/
We can't get to know each other here, so let's just exchange a couple thoughts, which we have, and let it lie.;)
I would love to talk with you under more amiable circumstances! :-)
Creepy.
Really? You think people talking is creepy? That's kind of creepy.
I think that the goofy statement refers to her trademark cowboy hats, I assume that is something she chose a long time ago. Google image shows a lot of different color hats!! "Hey it's the hat lady!!" Not really different from Roy Moore also wearing a cowboy hat and flashing his gun on stage. "Hey it's the hat and gun guy!!" Both politicians use techniques to appeal to their base and to be remembered.
They're both goofy. Not necessarily bad people but goofy. When John Kerry ran for president, everything else aside, I could never vote for him as he was too goofy looking. ;-)
Ok I'll bite...
The latitude of film makes shooting it easier (than digital) in my opinion. With the growing trend to make digital files look like film stock, I suggest people start shooting more film. It's going to give a legit look that the photographer wants and with good latitude, it's extremely easy to get a decent exposure. Film usually allows for safe overexposure. If you overexpose a stop or even two, you're likely to still get great results.
Just my 2 cents.
Thumb up for the humor value, as it has nothing to do with the story:)
I get that film costs more and the time to get results is dramatically longer but with a good lab the results will be legit and honestly it forces us to shoot with more thought and commitment because the roll only has so many exposures.
Are you sure you know what story you are responding to? This is about finding some footage that contradicts a statement by Gen Kelly. That's what I was making a joke in ref to.
I use a lot of tabs browsing, I can see how someone might post to the wrong tab once ... but now you've doubled down so I have no idea what's up or what you are meaning.
~~~
To your point: Film (especially slides 5 stops) has less latitude than digital. I have two full sets of primo Horseman 6x9 folding technical field cameras with many lenses and all the accessories if you want the best portable film units money can buy. I'll sell a set cheap! Digital does not force me to shoot with less thought. I just sold my seven year old 5DII with less then 5K shots on it.
Let me know if you are posting to the right article, I'm curious.
But getting a good exposure right out of the gate, film allows you to expose for a darker area and still not blow out the highlights. Each film will be different but with Portra400 you can rate it at asa200 and get consistent results.
Off topic.
I know right?! How did Fstoppers get so off topic with an article like this? Just trying to keep the photography thing going.
Good luck.
I've found this to be the case with the D500 as well - I shot it alongside a D750 at an event last weekend, and there was a lot more leeway for recovery in both shadows and highlights with the D750 (which I guess is an obvious statement when you consider the sensor size of each camera). Very responsive camera, the D500, though, so a lot going for it in other areas.
While the clik-bait article is showing just one example of reasons to save files there are others, but I am sure this will go south pretty quickly.
The press conf was so small and inconsequential that nobody cared, until statements were made that were not true about the rep speaking at the event and the new rule "there are cameras everywhere" popped up again. Which sort of ended the discussion about what the hat wearing rep said or didn't say.
Didn't some no name photog take sexy pix of a Miss America before her coronation? Those became valuable too, not because the photos were good but because the times had changed and the subject of the photos became famous.
Maybe if a few more examples of useless footage or files becoming useful/valuable, like the Clinton Lewinsky photos, were cited it would not become so political which gets many readers here very upset.
Obviously this is not a 100% photo related article. like the best 30 ways to use the rule of thirds or a cute quirky couple or guy in a fedora explaining why gear does or doesn't matter in the hands of an amatuer or professional photographer.
But it does show the way that photos have value that we may not recognize at the time.
that damn photographic evidence always has a liberal bias
It's evidence of an error, certainly. I'm disinclined to accuse anyone of intentionally lying.
What a pathetic attempt to make this political story about photography. Funny I've only been a photographer for 5 years, but I still remember a time when the articles here were actually centered on the art and were able to leave politics out of it.
If you're so desperate to write about politics, find a better platform.
This piece suits this pop photo site perfectly, it's about one minor facet of ordinary photography - you may have a valuable record of something so keep that in mind. It's only about politics if you choose to take that point of view. If you want to look at art this has never been the place, try lensscratch.com ie physician, heal thyself.
This isn't a political comment but there's a big difference between being wrong and lying. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to know which one you're dealing with.
If the headline read, "A Recent Noteworthy Case of the Value of Old Files" then we'd have nothing here but that. Editors write headlines, not the author.
Re-read the first paragraph.
The point is the power of a large type headline. The case study includes a lie, it does not have to say so in the headline but it has to in the body or the found files would not matter. The 1st paragraph is perfectly appropriate and I don't need you to direct my attention in any way on this.
So you think nobody would have read the article had it been titled differently or they would have glossed over the actual content? The "case study" includes an error. Again, I wouldn't be so quick to label things "lie" or "liar". I hope you've noted my restraint in our conversations. Not patting myself on the back. Just saying, disparaging comments say more about the author than the subject.
While I'm a conservative, I really don't like President Trump. People like you have put me in the uncomfortable position of having to defend his behavior. I imagine many liberals have been forced into equally distasteful actions regarding some Democrat politicians.
The actual content is proper enough, while the headline is pure clickbait.
No I have not noticed your restraint, nor do I care. I've noticed your disingenuousness. I recommend that people who constantly use "I" in comment forums, as you do five times in this sidetrack of a reply, find a chat room instead.
You've made that observation before. Since I only speak for myself and from my point of view, I use the word "I" more often than I like. I try to find ways to avoid overusing the word "I" but I haven't had a lot of success. Thanks for your concern. Next time, I'll try to make it all about you. :-)
So every time you've ever been wrong (probably 2 or 3 times), you were lying. Noted.
she wears dumb hats. she is not from texas.
At least she's not signing her name to an ignorant comment post.
because you say so.
The reactions here are just too predictable at this point. "It's not the right avenue!" "This isn't the place for politics!" "I thought this site was about X"
It would seem a lot of right wing trolls got pretty triggered here. The NFL safe space gone, now Fstoppers? Whatever will you all do?
It's relevant to photography, it's relevant to current events and it's interesting. If it triggered you, you might want to do a little introspection and try to figure out why you're such a delicate snowflake.
Excellent
Don't be so quick to assume who doesn't like these articles. I'm pretty left leaning yet also one of the people who wish content like this would be kept out of Fstoppers.
Remember when it used to be just Nikon versus Canon??? Let's get back to photography and leave the politics to Drudge and Huffpo...
I understand the point the article is trying to make (which is a valid one), but it's tip toeing on the edge of a slippery slope that, I think, will start to push many people like myself away. With political agendas shoved in our faces everywhere we turn now days it's refreshing to come to a site like this, that is usually void of political talk, and just focus on learning more about something we all love, photography. Hopefully this isn't the start of a trend. Maybe I'm wrong and others don't feel the same way, but that's just my two cents on it. Happy shooting!
It’s not a political story people.
It’s an article about the value of saving your original material.
It's both IMO.
Excellent article and very appropriate for this page. To those who don't like it you can cancel your subscription and stop paying.
The old "gift horse" trope remains valid even when some people probably could not recognize a horse if they saw one. Nice.
Stop with the editorializing! Your interpretation of her "not grandstanding" is w-r-o-n-g. She clearly took credit for fast-tracking the naming process. ("Aw, hell naw!") This is lame on your part. Keep your politics out of this site, please.
Going political is screwing up football. Let this site be about photography please.
CTE is screwing up football. Owners referring to players as "Inmates" is screwing up football. Non-violent Social Protest is the backbone of a democracy and as American as Apple Pie.
Football is subject to larger things. Thank the non-existent gods if you wish.
One of the reasons why photojournalism actually matters: it sometimes helps to expose blatant lies. Democracy dies in darkness, remember?