UPDATED: The president’s official portrait is finally out – and it’s a good one, thanks to the wonders of Photoshop
Published:
May 19, 2014 at 5:36pm
Ah, the joys of Photoshop – but quite frankly, so what. It hasn’t been used to a Michelle Muscat/Marlene Mizzi extreme and if we’re going to be looking at that face in every government office (to say nothing of the people who work there) it’s a good thing they got rid of the ‘Duluri’ look.
UPDATE: Photoshop has in fact been used to a Michelle Muscat/Marlene Mizzi extreme and it took this, which a photographer friend just sent, to drive home the full extent of it. But you have to agree that the official portrait is 100% preferable to the Duluri look for those who have to look at it every day for five years.
71 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Ghal min ma jafiex lil Marie Louise jghid…..xi gmiel ta’ ritratt.
Possibbli li min hadilha r-ritratt ma setghax jaghmilha anqas ovvja li mbaghbas. Sinjura President, warajk hemm bandiera kahlanija bl-istilel sofor li kieku kien ghalik ma konniex nistghu inxejjruha.
Insomma, nawguralek hafna u j’Alla tkun success.
Dik qiegħeda f’gaġġa tad-deheb.
Nistħajilha l-anġlu tal-festa.
Tawha l-“Helena Dalli” look.
Too much lipshine I say. But she looks decent. Long live the President of the Republic of Malta. Viva Malta!
As a photograper of the old school , when photoshop was a place from where we bought roll negatives, developers, fixers and printing paper of various types, this is definitely a nice official portrait.
I fully agree that the photo of Her Excellency is a good one. However, the unfocused background (both the flags on the left and the garden features on the right) makes the whole photo look very unnatural and gives the impression that, rather than being actually one photo, is a cut-and-paste job of one photo over another. I repeat this is no discredit to Her Excellency who looks fab in this photo.
The flags should have been the second most prominent feature. That effect could have been easily created in Photoshop. Instead, the flags ended up mashed up with the hedge therefore their significance is lost. Where on earth do they find these photographers?
An unfocussed background and focussed subject is called “bokeh” and is deliberate in most portrait (and other) photography.
It ensures that the viewer’s focus (oops sorry) is on the face, and the background is not distracting.
Unfortunately photos are flat, not in 3D, so the image is all on the same plane and focal distance to the viewer’s eye so “good” bokeh is often very desirable, as otherwise the subject of the photo is lost in the background.
Large aperture and long lens does the trick, with a decent sized sensor, so bokeh is usually the preserve of DSLRs not compact cameras.
Bokeh is one thing. But this is another thing altogether. With bokeh, there is a gradual transition from what is focused on and what is unfocused in the background.
This photo is NOT bokeh as the distinction between Her Excellency’s image and the background is immediate and sudden.
No DSLR (or any other) camera can do this. It is amply clear that H.E.’s photo was not taken in that garden with the flags in the background, but rather her photo was PASTED onto another.
El Bandido, there are the flags which are important – all they needed was a very light touch of blurring. So different amounts of blurring were required, something that could have been easily done in Photoshop.
But there is little one could do with this photo as the composition and background choice are very wrong. This a presidential photo not a poster for Tarzan.
Paddy, what the photographer is likely to have done is blur everything except the main subject using the same Photoshop setting.
Very amateur indeed.
Paddy, whether the picture is to your liking or not, is entirely subjective.
But bokeh and the transition from focussed to unfocussed depends on the aperture selected, the distance to the subject, and the difference between the distance to the subject and the background. The preceding control the depth of field, or simply what range of distance from the lens is in focus, and yes, that picture is certainly possible.
You can take portraits where the depth of field is so shallow that only (say) the subject’s eyes are in focus and the other parts of the face that lie in the same plane, anything nearer or further is blurred.
Sometimes you have to be careful not to overdo it, such as when taking pictures of (say) a flower and only the stamens are in focus, when the intention was to make the entire flower (in sharp focus) stand out from it’s background.
I agree that it is a good picture. Frankly, I didn’t think that she could possibly look good, so was pleasantly surprised by this. I like the background too.
Don’t you think it’s a photoshop overkill. Although she looks good, there is no resemblance to the real thing.
Gordon, I agree. It’s been photoshopped to buggery. When the real president turns up to a function there is the distinct possibility that she be turned back because the ‘president’ is at ‘least 15 years younger than you madame’
Edgar Preca has the biggest problem. He is the one who sees her without make-up every morning.
Even her teeth have been whitened (also, possibly, straightened). She’s also been “given” a new pair of glasses for better effect. Oh, and the turkey neck has gone, too. Pity the lipliner’s still there though.
She’s got an “Arani issa – Trid tara biex temmen” makeover.
Gordon, I think you are wrong,as a smile changes a person’s look. Personally I think she looks good.
I assure you that is not her smile, not her cheekbone, not her jawline, not her hair colour, not even her glasses. Yes, it would be nice if she smiled.
She looks pretty decent here but I think she could have done with a little less foundation, because she looks as though she’s made of wax. Thumbs up for the smile.
I would rather think that the waxy look comes from the removal (Photoshop) of loose skin and wrinkles and not from the use of foundation.
No foundation removes jowls and double chins and neither does it hide facial asymetry.
Ageing is a fact of life but isn’t it nice to have a pleasant open expression to look at in offices etc instead of a scowling one? Perhaps life can imitate fiction in future?
I still think it’s been overdone, around the mouth/chin/jowl area. It’s not a bad pic though.
Did a Madame Tussauds open up in Malta?
I cant agree with you on this one. The editing used is fit for a magazine shoot and not a president’s official photo.
So what if she has imperfections? She’s a human after all. I am sure that if she had to smile in the right photo she would have been a thousand times more natural.
I have to say I agree with you, ZZ.
Personal discipline, grooming and hygiene, observance of protocol and ethics would easily take appreciation up a notch, but not a total make-over to the point of quasi non-recognition.
That may be greenery for Malta but it’s non-landscaped in a landscape shot. Did they want to make a point?
What should be landscaped isn’t and what should be natural isn’t either.
I agree, she looks artificial in the photo, twenty years younger. when ambassadors come to meet her, they Won’t believe it’s the same person. The picture should be as she looks today. A good try.
Oh look! Mrs Doubtfire!
Very well deserving of the title “Her Excellency”.
And Giggsy calls it a day http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27470554
The great thing about the Photoshopped subject in the picture is that the subject can then move around in public incognito. That said, having that photo hanging on the wall in government buildings will do anything to spoil the scene.
That should have read ” will not do anything”.
This isn’t a good picture of Marie blah blah, its a bad picture of Meryl Streep
I would have preferred this:
https://www.google.com.mt/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgozonews.com%2F44188%2Fmarie-louise-coleiro-preca-announced-as-maltas-ninth-president%2F&ei=fjh6U-aSMcrn7Ab0wIGADw&usg=AFQjCNHHK0V3Kt2oCymA7E-jXvTI-J1XoQ
I actually agree with you. She looks more natural and very pretty indeed.
Why persist with a landscape format?
Over photoshopped creating enormous platitudes in the facial region and very untidy background. Unacceptable by professional standards.
Mrs Doubtfire.
When it gets dirty, you can be sure that in spite of appearances, Muscat is not feeling confident.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-05-19/news/-after-yellow-card-proposal-muscat-challenges-busuttil-to-bring-it-on-5075697668/
Alfred Sant spoke as well and he did not lose the opportunity to hint negatively against the EU. I guess he does not know any better.
““These elections are important, since we are not realising what powers we gave the EU when we joined,” he said, adding that there are decisions being taken in Brussels which are affecting us directly.”
Madame President, I see you have been the President of Malta for at least the past fifteen years looking at that portrait. The people must really love you.
She actually looks 30 years younger. Straight back to the Golden Years, when she was the Secretary General of the Labour Party under KMB.
But then even the Muscat government has taken us back 30 years.
[Daphne – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZimkoWPFMxw ]
Photoshop or not, it is a good attempt.
Please stop criticising just for the sake of it.
It is very important that no Maltese citizen should feel ashamed of the Head of State, in spite of her past. Who are we to judge her?
We seem, slowly, to be getting there.
She looks like Mrs Doubtfire: http://old.toscana-notizie.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/doubtfire1.jpg
PhotoShop Disasters will enjoy this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnvoz91k8hc
Who’s that in the picture?
When using a photo as an official photo I think it makes sense that the image reflects what the person really looks like. Of course one must try and look his or her best but looking like someone else is not right.
Post Photoshop : Sarah Palin
Posture and expression are good. However she looks like a waxwork of Mrs. Doubtfire. Overdone in my honest opinion.
Ritratt falz, iktar tixbah lill Brad Pit milli Mary louise Coleiro Preca. Vera kienet svinturata Agatha ma kellix ic cans tirranga bhala.
Ghall-ewwel ma gharafthiex, u hsibtu ritratt ta’ xi hadd jigi minnha.
Min jista’ jaghtini tort? U ghal li jista’ jkun, il-photoshop huwa giddieb?
Reminds me of Mrs Doubtfire.
She’s either wearing a plastic mask, or her facial muscles have been botoxed into oblivion.
My hope is that she has second thoughts about the Hyde Park project at San Anton Gardens.
I think the photo is fine. Let’s be realistic here, if your picture was going to be hanging all over the island wouldn’t you want it to be one in which you look good?
Yes, it is photo shopped but that is the beauty of the modern age. Technology can make you look better than you actually are.
http://www.maltastar.com/userfiles/image/newslead/JM.jpg
I just picked the official photo of Muscat.
What you see is not what you get.
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSd8bFJ7U6E4AjFNb1xABFIW9Q_zgIXeOUi4yzxHQ8lwRNKFj9h7g
The chin and neck area were amateurishly reconstructed
The schoolyard bully is waiting in the yard, with the ball.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140519/local/muscat-chides-busuttil-for-refusing-direct-contest.519688
“He said that while at the beginning of the electoral campaign Dr Busuttil called on people to give him a yellow card, he was now refusing to play the game.
“First he told people to give me a yellow card and now that I am in the pitch waiting for him and he doesn’t want to play. “
PL supporters should listen to Joseph Muscat. They should vote for him in this election. And since his name won’t be written on the ballot sheet, they should write it down themselves boldly right across the page. That would show their immense support to their unique leader.
They used to do it in Soviet times, so it must be a good thing. No, really, and without Photoshop too. That’s why Brezhnev’s official photos at 70 looked like they came from his wedding album. Today, we can make our president look 16 again.
Why not.
Too much Photoshop and too much make up, reminiscent of a toothpaste ad.
The least the photograph could have done when playing around with Photoshop is to remove the lighting glare from her eyes because that makes it obvious that her spectacles are just a frame without lenses.
And the presentation of the flags leaves a lot to be desired.
Her teeth are very white.
Someone was really giving her a hard time before Cinderella Fairy God Mother turned up…
Why can’t we simply accept that life has its own aging process and that to age naturally and with grace is a good and I dare say, a healthy thing too.
Why do we need to nip and tuck at arms, waistlines, hairline or wrinkles? Why do we need to showcase the very same defects that we strive so hard to conceal, by the very same act of concealment?
All this sends out the wrong message to those who aspire to us.
Yes, I am greying and my body has surely seen better days. And yet, I am proud of myself and would not accept to have anyone “photo shop” my true self into oblivion.
To accept to have this level of cosmetic editing done to you implies that you are truly self obsessed and narcissistic.
How can you look the poor, the sick, the suffering straight in the eyes when they look tired, beaten and downtrodden, whilst you, a relatively healthy person, have accepted to have your photo doctored to such extent?
Portraits have always been ‘touched up’. Do you think Henry VIII really looked the way artists like Holbein portrayed him?
You can hardly compare the painting of Henry VIII with a photograph of our President. Whereas one is an artistic interpretation created on an otherwise blank canvas by an artist, and which automatically lends itself to minor embellishment and artistic interpretation (in order to please the monarch), the other is supposed to be a photograph, a true likeness of our President.
If Coleiro Preca wants to be touched up, then she can commission an artist to paint her portrait, hanging this behind the closed doors of San Anton or her personal residence if she must. But for a photo that bears so little resemblance to her real self, to be placed in government offices, hospitals, schools etc. goes way beyond the mere embellishment of a portrait intended for a monarch, and starts to sound like a lie.
I will not go into the merits for or against the Office of the President. My mind has long since been made up on that particular issue. However, if we are to have a president, who claims to be a down to earth person, who dislikes pomp and ceremony, and who intends to embellish her presidency with a social conscience, then this is yet another faux pas that follows her ‘low key’ installation ceremony.
Forgive me for thinking that she would be fine if photographed as the woman that she really is. And whilst you are at it, forgive me for thinking that the fact that she must have had a say in this matter not only detracts from her appeal as a person, but also reeks of vanity.
‘Duluri Look’. Just LOVE IT! Minn fejn taqlaghhom, Daphne!!:)
The president’s official picture is both dishonest and sexist. If you compare it to pictures of Helga Ellul, another mature woman of a certain age, you will see they are poles apart, where Helga Ellul’s pictures have had very little retouching, presenting her as a dignified honest person.
Her Excellency should understand that it’s okay for a woman to look older than 35.
My gut feeling is that she’ll be President when she’s much much older.
She smiles!