the buzz log

Not perhaps since John F. Kennedy's own beach photos has a nation been so stirred to seek out revealing images of the incoming commander-in-chief. Searches are soaring for "obama pictures" and, in a realm normally reserved for prepubescent idols, "obama shirtless." Yes, the man so far designated to stimulate the economy, restore American dignity abroad, and save the planet from global warming, has inspired lookups more befitting a, dare we say, heartthrob.

Reassuringly, other recent Obama searches do dwell on the more relevant issues at hand ("obama inauguration," "obama cabinet picks"). The photo exposé, however, once again underscores the celebritization of Obama (as a John McCain ad once famously pointed out).

The latest act of online voyeurism comes from a confluence of three recent pictorial events: Two include Barack Obama's return to Time magazine's cover as Man of the Year and the release of never-before-seen college photos, in which the future No. 44 posed in a Panama hat, leather jacket, and occasionally with a cigarette for a hopeful photographer's portfolio. That momentous puff induced a teacup-sized tempest as people zeroed in on the "obama smoking" pic. 

The third event is his holiday trip back to his home state. The president-elect did what any red-blooded American would do in a tropical isle: He stripped down to his swimming trunks and dove right into the winter surf. The ABC video showed a fleeting rear view of Obama descending into the water, but that was enough to trigger the buzz for "obama hawaii" (+130%), "obama vacation" (+113%) and, of course, the aforementioned shirtless queries.

To those who would defend the dignity of the Oval Office and all its inhabitants, will their brains eventually soften with four years of headlines like the New York Post's "O, My Bod!" (with yet another name twist in paragraph one: "Just call him 'Ab'-bama.'"). Forget tabloids—the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reported regular citizens turning into paparazzi packs. Meanwhile, a true paparazzo snuck a shot, and the hosting site was promptly overwhelmed by political oglers.

His photogenic vim and vigor have long evoked comparisons to the charismatic Kennedy, who similarly inspired a brouhaha over his beach photo. Former Vanity Fair magazine editor Tina Brown, in a CNN interview about Obama's enormous star power, claimed that Obama is aware of his appeal and "he deliberately dials back on his charisma" to spare the masses. (Brown by the way once ventured on Greek God territory and called Obama "Apollonian.")

Indeed, the president-elect himself, while courting the exposure, showed signs of being willing to draw the line: An AFP article noted Obama saying to news photographers, "Ok guys, come on...How many shots do you need?" Doubtless once the honeymoon period is over (and technically, the wedding's not until January 20th anyhow), this rapture will be tempered.

As for the shirtless searches, a slideshow of "Other Shirtless Presidents" reveals he is not the first, nor will he likely be the last. And as for shirtless celebrities versus shirtless politicians, Obama's Web appeal runs second to "Twilight" star Robert Pattinson, thereby upholding the right and proper balance in the world.

Filed under: Politics, Photography, Media, Barack Obama

OK, the twins are here. Now the question is, which charities benefit?

As paparazzi hope to make a small fortune with candid shots of Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline Jolie-Pitt, those in the business of trafficking celebrity baby pictures estimate the fraternal twins are worth up to $20 million. The sum not only beats out older sis Shiloh's $4.1 million paycheck (which went to Namibian hospitals), but it's more than double what J.Lo's lucrative pair, Emme and Max, earned. Either way, the final bid will make Forbes' April 2008 slideshow on Most Expensive Celebrity Baby Photos woefully obsolete.

The cutthroat bids over famous baby pictures really kicked off in 2002, but not all parents sell their offspring's mugs for money, charity-destined or otherwise. Britney Spears supposedly didn't want her ex to get a cut of any of Jayden James proceeds. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes went for a P.R. image cleanse with a 22-page Vanity Fair spread. The magazine not only didn't have to pay for the Annie Leibovitz shots, but its website got swamped and the monthly pulled in 4,000 new subscribers. Nicole Kidman and husband Keith Urban may one-up her ex and distribute photos for free, no editorial comment necessary. (The couple may try the charity route again, although their last attempt to get photo agencies to donate money by providing their wedding pics for free apparently didn't work too well.)

As to why magazines are willing to pay more than their entire staffs salaries for a year, the lure of readership isn't the only reason. In a chat with NPR, a Star Magazine editor says magazines don't hope to recoup the cost but do it for the "prestige"—although the real prestige would be getting candid shots of celebrity babes crying at 3 a.m. or spitting up strained peas. Whatever the amount, if history dictates, a lucky French nonprofit could benefit from the Jolie-Pitt twin-sized bounty, as Shiloh's earnings went to African children's charities as well as UNICEF.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many baby spreads are worth a mil? Check out this chart, with links whenever possible to the magazine cover. (Note that the payout for Patrick Dempsey's twins on People hasn't been widely reported, but doubtless would make the top 10.) Whatever the final offer, the Jolie-Pitt brood will doubtless lead the baby cash cows—although technically, one Shiloh was worth more than half a J.Lo twin.

Filed under: Photography, Money, Babies, Magazines

Nikon (top 5,000 searches), one of the giants of the photography industry, recently kicked its mid-range consumer line of film cameras to the curb. We thought we heard gasps from millions of backyard photographers around the world. But it turned out to be the sounds of shutterbug ecstasy as they caressed their sexy new multi-megapixel digital cameras.

Sure, svelte silver digicams are hot stuff, and convenient. They let you see immediately whether your last shot rivals an Avedon. But, a film camera -- the mystery and anticipation between the click of the shutter and the final print…call us luddites, but we think that's sexy.

We've unveiled further evidence that consumers have indeed lost their loving feeling for film -- digital photography queries far outnumber film-related ones. "Digital camera," within our top 1,200 searches, holds a very special place in the hearts of searchers. Though we are heartened to see that a few people remain loyal to film, searching for "35mm cameras" (top 300,000 searches) and "35mm film" (top one million searches). These might be freaks with a film fetish, but we suspect they're students and fine artists with a little bit of love left for the grande dame of photography formats. We wish them many more years of happiness, and smiles for the camera.

Filed under: Tech, Photography