They could have cropped out Vanessa, rotated her ninety degrees, then pasted her over (above) the other girls’ heads.
That’s the question, isn’t it?
If the subject matter of the photo is ‘a group of young climate activists’, then Nakate should have been included. She was clearly part of the group.
Ridiculous; it reduced the visibility of the subject matter by at least 20%.
It’s very likely that AP is being truthful; it’s also likely that the editor never even decided whether to crop out Vanessa. She is black, and therefore wasn’t weighed equally with the white people in the first place.
Well if I was a photographer I’d assume that the most famous person in the picture, Thunberg was the subject matter, if she wasn’t in the picture nobody would have taken it in the first place. Nobody knows who the other people are, I’ve been reading this thread and I still can’t tell you who they are.
…I am an experienced professional photographer and most experienced professional photographer in the world don’t make assumptions like this. It isn’t our job to make editorial decisions like this: we shoot, we cull, we caption then we deliver. We don’t remove context and we certainly shouldn’t be cropping people out of a group photo like this. That was a mistake by the photographer in question and the AP have acknowledged the mistake.
If the subject of the editorial assignment **was **Thunberg then the other people in the photo aren’t needed. You would isolate the subject using a tighter lens and it wouldn’t surprise me if the photographer did this exactly this as well as the other images that we saw get published.
People don’t know who most people are in most photographs taken editorially: which is why accurate captioning is an important skill for photographers who do this sort of work. Yes: the photojournalist has to have a notebook with them, and yes the photojournalist has to find out the names of the people they’ve photographed. That’s how it works. If you can’t tell who they are then that’s what the captions are for. I suggest you read them: then you will know who they are.
So is it your contention that the photographer didn’t know who Greta Thunberg was? That doesn’t seem very likely.
…what on earth leads you to believe that this was my contention?
Something I didn’t say doesn’t seem very likely? I concur.
People take pictures of all sorts of other people; not only of the ones that you happen to have heard of. If the photographer wanted a picture only of Thunberg, then yes, Thunberg alone would be the subject of the picture – and there’d be no reason to have anyone else in it at all. And if Thunberg alone were trying to fight global warming, she’d have no chance of accomplishing anything, and nobody would be paying her attention.
It’s pretty clear to me that the point of this picture, if it’s got one at all, is that Thunberg has allies, and here, in the picture, are some of them. It seems to me that the fact that her allies are from multiple continents is also important, and shouldn’t have been cut out of the picture.
Probably too late to edit: but I expect there are people in the world who have heard of Nakate more than they’ve heard of Thunberg. It would also be accurate to say that Nakate’s got allies and Thunberg is one of them.
Notice the badge is different on the croppee? I thought the excuse would be, “We wanted a picture of Xs and she was a Y.” Didn’t see the composition argument coming.
Hard to believe a professional photographer took that picture. The building may be distracting, but so is the tree growing out of the one kid’s shoulder. And the blown out highlights don’t help. It’s a terrible shot any way you look at it.