I am not sure what to make of the official Royal photos taken by Annie Leibovitz to celebrate the Official Royal Birthday. They have a very desaturated look and are not a patch on the work of previous Royal Photographers like Lord Snowdon and Patrick Lichfield. Whilst I konw not what medium was used for the shoot, they dont look like the carefully crafted royal images of the past and the shot of Her Magesty and Princess Anne looks poorly composed and amateurish, especially the randomness of Princess Anne's hand appearing out of the Queens side !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...lotte-and-george-share-the-spotlight-in-offi/
I kinda like the photo...I know there are going to be a bunch of haters come in here and blast Annie
for this and that...but she is very talented and hard working and immensely successful.
Leibovitz was probably economizing with something like a Hasselblad H series camera - e.g.: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1040910-REG/hasselblad_h_70380534_b_h4d_40_le_dslr_camera.htmlTypical digital crap. Sorry 'bout that. It's the Queen, for corn sake. Too damn cheap to go out and buy a roll of film? Then there'd be some substance behind it. All I see is cheap-ass electrons. Not worth a penny. What do I care about the Queen of England? Not much really, being an American. But I got enough common respect to figure she's worth at least measely 7 dollar roll of film.
Typical digital crap. Sorry 'bout that. It's the Queen, for corn sake. Too damn cheap to go out and buy a roll of film? Then there'd be some substance behind it. All I see is cheap-ass electrons. Not worth a penny. What do I care about the Queen of England? Not much really, being an American. But I got enough common respect to figure she's worth at least measely 7 dollar roll of film.
My sentiments precisely... .
I really hope Annie was mocking the project... if not she's just mocking herself; the images are quite poorly done, by any standard, if you ask me. The queen is not worth anymore respect than anyone else - but I know what you mean by at least buying a roll of film for such subjects that are regarded by many morons as 'more important.'Typical digital crap. Sorry 'bout that. It's the Queen, for corn sake. Too damn cheap to go out and buy a roll of film? Then there'd be some substance behind it. All I see is cheap-ass electrons. Not worth a penny. What do I care about the Queen of England? Not much really, being an American. But I got enough common respect to figure she's worth at least measely 7 dollar roll of film.
And that "Riiiight" comes from a loyal Commonwealth subject of the Queen"
Very diffrrent than the work of Snowden but I quite like them. If I were to offer on suggestion it would be to the Princess Royal - it is okay to put your arm around your Mum... At 90 and in the 21st century there should be at least a little affection shown!
It is a curious phenomenon that I have noted -- any mention at APUG of a successful, well-known, moderately well-off contemporary photographer seems to be met with a chorus of disapprobation for them and their work.
(Except Salgado, who appears to be some sort of Saint, until someone is rude enough to mention he uses digital cameras)
heigh-ho
WindsorWhat are their last names? Always was curious about that.
Windsor
The family name was changed in 1917 from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?