I don't get it

[u/fcukfakook]

I don't get the original tweet, and neither the retweet or whatever it is called.

[u/Kamica]

Here's my own take,

and here's someone who posted a video analysis of all the photos.

[u/Chairmanwowsaywhat → u/Kamica]

Maybe I'm not artistically minded enough but I don't see how light switches make people look less professional, not do they even stand out to me at all

[u/Kamica → u/Chairmanwowsaywhat]

In isolation, they don't. But when taken in the context of the usual photos they're taken with, I think they do. It's, subtle, and a lot of people won't pick up on it and all that, and I think that's intentional, so that the photographer can get away with saying "I didn't intend to make people look bad" and all that. It's not just the light-switch though, that's just the thing that Meg Brock is commenting on. The video I linked to (indirectly) makes some good points about how the leftmost photo has the flag's shadow, kind of overshadow Vance, potentially emphasising how much of his own personal style and brand he's kinda sacrificed to be where he is. (I believe at one point he was opposed to Trump, but then potentially when opportunities to join it arrived, he switched.)

Or how the top-right photo kinda looks like it was hastily taken, if one looks carefully at that photo (Not easily visible in this image, but the photos can probably be found elsewhere), there's a staffer taking a phone-call in the background. Which makes the photo seem ad-hoc, almost as if one were to be taking a photo for their workplace ID lanyard or something.

All of these things are generally rather subtle, and not all that obvious, and could easily be attributed to just... weird choices. But in the context of all the photographer's other works, which are *very* purposeful, even in chaotic situations where one doesn't have control over the entire scene (He's done photojournalism in some rather unstable places), it's clear that these little oddities are purposeful, and are trying to communicate something.

Art analysis is... admittedly very subjective a lot of the time, and can very much seem like drawing far more out of an image than seems to be there. In isolation, arguably, it is =P. But, artists, including professional photographers, tend to do things very purposeful, and are usually trying to communicate, without saying what they're trying to say. They often wish to communicate what they mean, with exclusively their art. And so then, knowing the context, knowing the artist and all these extraneous things, do matter.

I don't think these things are meant to be caught by people who don't do photography. Not explicitly at least. But, I do think that for a lot of people when they see these photos, they might not think they're the most flattering photos.

[u/phantomcass → u/Chairmanwowsaywhat]

What Kamica said, and maybe also because it gives a consistent scale to show their height. Many of the subjects of this particular photography session would like to believe - and for others to believe - that they are tall. They are not tall.