By now, President Donald Trump’s infamous photo of himself awkwardly holding a bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington D.C., is well known. That peaceful protestors were gassed to get that photo opportunity has also been established.
But this isn’t about any of that. This is about the photograph that resulted from the walk across the street, the one by official White House photographer Shealah Craighead. It’s about the fact that it is tremendously terrible. It’s a huge failure.
That’s not a knock on Craighead. She’s an excellent photographer who has a long career, even serving as first lady Laura Bush’s official photographer during the George W. Bush’s administration. She’s a consummate professional who has dutifully photographed the Trump White House since 2017 with nary a protest. Or so we think.
Take a look at this photo from Oct. 16, 2019, perhaps the first crack in the armor that signals that maybe, just maybe she disagrees with her boss here:
Craighead's October 2019 photo of Nancy Pelosi engaged in a heated exchange with President Trump.
In the photo, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is delivering a stern, standing rebuke to a seated Donald Trump about the ramifications of removing troops from northern Syria. At the time, it sparked a lot of debate about power and sexism, with each actor looking at it in different ways. Trump viewed it as Pelosi having a meltdown, tweeting out as much, while Nancy Pelosi viewed it as standing up for herself, and changed it to her Twitter banner to troll the president. With one photo, Craighead had managed to both please her employer and trolled him at the same time.
Maybe that was the first crack in the dam, with it finally breaking that fateful Monday, June 1. Perhaps it was the usual lack of preparation when it comes to the Trump team’s photography. He did, after all, just use a lazy, in-the-office, on-the-spot photo for an official portrait and didn’t even let his defense secretary know what was about to come. What are the chances a lowly photographer would be briefed so that they could prepare?
But no, Craighead is a seasoned pro. Even without warning, she could make something. From a technical standpoint, focus, exposure, and white balance are perfect. I argue that this photo, framed this way, and photographed so lackadaisically was a silent cry for help from a photographer who’s just had enough but is too professional to openly protest. Or it’s an intentionally bad photo created in a show of protest over what had just transpired.
Take a look at some of Craighead’s other photos from that failed photo opportunity here and here. What do you think? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
It's a photograph of their conflicting viewpoints.
The dictionary needs to add any picture of him under the definition of Troll.
I'm no Trump fan, but this just seems mean. A tremendously terrible photo? Does it show place? Context? Intent? Was it seen around the world? Perhaps you need to explain your viewpoint while you've got a worldwide platform to vilify others without explanation or rebuttal. What if you've just misrepresented her because of your own leanings? Who knows - you don't explain yourself at all, and the worst thing we can do, especially when photography as a community and a profession is in the doldrums, is to be tearing each other down needlessly.
Yeah, don't be mean to the morbidly obese moronic bully.
Agreed, calling it a tremendously terrible photo seems really unnecessary. Also all of these folks now fighting over this is tremendously entertaining, just saying.
Interesting. I had actually thought given the circumstances they were taken by a staff member rather than an official photographer as it’s more a snap rather than a portrait.
Exactly. Doesn't look like taken at the right moment or posr, poor composition, and like it was taken by a Huawei P10 phone.
I was super surprised to find out it was the official photographer as well!
“I hire the best people” 🤣
This article reads like a long-winded essay question.
Really, the only thing missing is the word "Discuss." at the end.
That’s a serious case of TDS to make that leap. She may be the WH photog, but nothing she shoots gets released that isn’t approved by the WH itself. To posit that these pics are trolling POTUS just belies your own interest in doing so.
The judgement, wild conjecture, and headline of this article are far below even the journalistic standards of FStoppers. While I also do not support our President, this article should not even exist. Please screen your articles better FStoppers.
Fstoppers creators and staff, don't ruin a wonderful and informative photography site with politics.
This writer and Andy Day or whatever his name is have been trying for years.
I for one come to this site to enjoy myself reading about photography. I get enough biased, rude, and offensive politics from both sides in other places. In this article, and in others by this author use thin relationship to photograph subjects as cover to write political garbage.
Honestly F-Stoppers I expect more from you. I expect that you would curate your content to eliminate such blatant political articles. Please do not host articles designed to divide us. Let's keep politics off this otherwise wonderful site.
It's hilarious to see people keyboard bashing "journalistic integrity" about an editorial website. It may have posts referencing the news, but it's never been journalistic. Know the difference.
Besides, for those screaming "journalistic integrity" at their screens, I fail to see where the writer made any negative comments about either side. Could someone please point it out for me? Just copy and paste the offending lines, please. I've read it twice and still haven't found any.
I'll even pay the first person $10 for each personal attack made by the writer, quoted from this editorial, made against either Trump, Pelosi or Craighead.
He teaches journalism. You read the article twice but didn't read about the author?
This: "She’s a consummate professional who has dutifully photographed the Trump White House since 2017 with nary a protest. Or so we think."
The author very clearly suggests that Craighead is purposely creating and publishing photo's that are "tainted" by her personal political or personal opinions that are (so the author suggests) at odds with the views of the White House. That is quite something to say and potentially very damaging for Craighead. Imagine what would happen if someone from the White House reads this article?
You may donate the $10 dollars to whatever charity you choose.
He's not a journalist , but an activist. Miss the days when this site was about photography and not politics.
.
Why can't a photography website just stay away from politics. And what did they gas those peaceful protesters with that not a single policeman had gas mask on?
Politics aside, the reason why Craigshead photos are lacking compared to Pete Souza who we admire is due to lack of access and poor communication within their own staff. Craigshead is a seasoned photographer who has worked with prior administrations but she isn’t on the same trust level with this current administration. On top of that the communications office is pretty nit picky what goes online to convey a certain message and sadly they miss the mark on that. The videography team however has upped their game though compared to Obama’s. I’m saying this as a government photographer and been in this field for sometime. I’ve seen better usage of photography in previous administrations. I probably lost my chance to ever work with a Republican administration by just saying this but that’s my own opinion on how the Trump administration uses photography and seriously undervalues it.
Linked source in opening paragraph is Aljazeera? Stopped reading after that.
I laughed when that was the source, and I went no further
I really loath Trump, but you're really reaching with this article. Really, really reaching. And while Trumps photo with bible is used to lure readers in, you're not discussing this photo at all. To me this is a very politically motivated article that has no place here.
After reading all those comments here I really wonder what happened to the USA, the so called land of the free? One cannot speak or write freely any more? Has Trump divided you, destroyed your society? You have my sympathy!
Regarding any photo of that person the photographer sure has my sympathy as well.
This is a photography site, not a soap box. Free speech is not an excuse to insert politics in any discussion. But, to be fair: FStoppers has a likening for controversial subjects and with this article promotes divisiveness, not surprisingly the one thing this Trump administration is very good at implementing.
Craigshead is probably neutral and there is no proof whatsoever that she leans one way or the other. This article does a very bad attempt to drag her into this and artificially creates a controversie around her.
Fstoppers is a business. These "political" articles get more comments and more clicks by far than anything else they post. It's money in the bank and a tactic as old as religion.
Controversy sells.
And the haters and trolls are the ones juicing the bottom line here.
Really very funny to see it unfold.
It's a shame that the majority here wish the site to remain politically neutral but are pretty much ignored. It's a case of wanting clicks more than producing articles that reflect the sites core and that's photography.
And, it's exacerbated by articles written by people with a political agenda. That's not objective journalism, it is barely hidden activism.
Business is business and these articles get more eyeballs because of the controversy. It's money in the bank. Keep putting your 2 cents in. They can use the money I'm sure!
I know, I know. But I keep getting back to this site hoping for some honest photography-news. These kind of articles put me off. It's a pity.
It's funny since they have many articles that are legitimate photo related and get almost no comments. The ones everyone complains about get the most attention and make Fstoppers the most money. If people just ignored them Fstoppers would post fewer and fewer of them. Yet people can't resist.
Again: I know :) I find myself in the comment section of these articles thinking : "Darn it, I did it again!"
Wasim Ahmad mensioned how President Trump is awkwardly holding a bible, but doesn't explain what he thinks is the proper way. Then he go on to say his article isn't about that. So why did he even mention it? Perhaps he should get back to writing articles about photography and leave his political opinion for sites where it's better suited. Fstoppers is truly going down hill these days.
It's true, I did not go into proper Bible-holding technique, and perhaps that would have improved the article here. That said, now that you got me thinking about it, I looked at photos where one would be holding a book that would look better than this - Shutterstock has more than a few examples: https://www.shutterstock.com/search/man+holding+book?kw=shutterstock&ds_...
I feel like if Craighead knew this was coming, she would have been able to plan this better, but something tells me that wasn't the case.
:-) touché. That link does really make a point. Let' see how Craighead's following photos do look like. I understood your story right away. How must a photographer feel if being used this way? Check out Heinrich Hoffmann's story. This man would have never in any way trolled his employer.
Oh dear....aaand another "anti Trump" article for the SJW fraction to wank off too.
Are you going to be a new Buzzfeed or Vice?
What about the article is anti Trump? Aren't this all facts which are mentioned? And doesn't the author explicitly refer to that one photograph? I think you guys lost it completely. That man is not holy, he is not untouchable. To me it looks like fanaticism and a complete lack of critical distance paired with a tendency to suppress any other point of view. Poor country it is at this times. What once was a beacon of democracy is not to be recognized. Shame on you!
We don't care about what the author thinks. What many of us do care about is that this PHOTOGRAPHY site is being turned into a political sounding board. Worst, it's a sounding board for activists posing as authors.
Want to post an opinion that has little or nothing to do with photography? Find the address of your local paper and send them a 'Letter to the Editor'.
We?
And it is not the author who is expressing political statements but rather the comments, don't you think?
Agree with your first sentence, even though I'm among the "we" he speaks of. Do you really think Wasim's article is apolitical? Phrases like "infamous photo", "awkwardly holding", "silent cry for help", "show of protest", et. al. are commonly used in writing to guide the audience's view without overtly appearing to do so.
Any business with this president is political. Surely, I agree with you that the publication of such a story leads to many and violent comments and therefore traffic, as we can see here. I think the problem is more with that person involved than with the story.
We're all adults here and we shouldn't be so touchy. Nobody was hurt, no foul language was used. And if the author dislikes this person, he is not the only one. So what?
Getting back to the subject I'd say that image above is indeed below average of the regular work of the photographer. As said, I feel pity with the photographer. I don't know about you, but I for my part, when taking portraits of the same person over and over and never see a real smile or a sympathetic expression, I'd put not all my energy in taking this kind of photos any more. And this is not about politics. Compare to the previous president. I am sure that any photographer would prefer him as a subject over this person.
Having spent years doing corporate photography, I know exactly what you're talking about and I'll be the first to say, I would prefer to photograph President Obama over President Trump but wouldn't assign qualities to either man's expressions (e.g. "sympathetic"). I also agree that everyone can like who they like and dislike who they dislike but, in this case, Mr. Ahmad is being disingenuous, at the least. The photographs presented aren't wonderful and that is likely due to the value of photography assigned by the President. Frankly, I don't see that as surprising at all since, in my aforementioned former experience, people who photograph well have a high opinion of photography and those who don't, for whatever reason they don't, tend to have a low opinion. If that were the extent of his article, there would be no issue, or at least shouldn't be: some people will find any reason to bicker. Instead, he prompts the reader to see dispute between the photographer and the President, and more specifically, due to his perceived negative qualities in the latter.
I appreciate the polite, thoughtful comments; would that all people who disagree, did so.
Her name is Craighead? That's epic on its own!
Just getting back to the article let me ask Wasim a question or two.
How would you do the St John's Church photo to improve it?
Shealah Craighead may be the official Whitehouse photographer but was she allowed move about freely or was she told "Stand here - photograph that"?
Does she have control over what photographs are released?
Another issue she had with the St John's Church photo is all she had to work with was - man - book - sign, and she probably could not move around to change her view point. Plus she could not show the amount of riot police holding back the demonstrators. Shealah did what every photographer should do to cover the bases, a wide, medium and a tight shot.
I couldn't have done any better under those circumstances and I don't think anybody else could either.
I thought about this in response to a commenter above - I suppose if I knew a book was involved, I would have researched some poses with books to at least make it look like he's contemplating a passage or page in the bible. Shutterstock had some good examples that I thought would work here: https://www.shutterstock.com/search/man+holding+book?kw=shutterstock&ds_...
Seriously, research good poses ? She was probably told grab your camera and a bible. POTUS is going to the church across the street in 3 minutes. LET"S GO!!!
Mike, my guess is you are correct. When even General Mark Milley did not really know what was happening the photographer would not have know.
Good luck with asking President Trump to pose. I have had the pleasure of photographing Presidents (not US Presidents) and Royalty. Where thay are is where you take the photo. How they stand is how you take the photo. Unless you are commissioned by their office to take the photograph of course. Anybody else then you can move and pose them but not heads of state.
On the "has been established" claim (and link), I followed the link, downloaded the images, and examined the metadata. Four of the pictures were taken the day AFTER Trump's photo op. On the day of Trump's photo op, the EARLIEST picture taken was Trump holding the Bible. The rest were taken AFTER his picture was taken, which means that NONE of the shocking images of tear gas and police action support the story's claim.
FYI, I am an Independent, and not a Trump supporter.