Annie Leibovitz

[Don_ih]

I would assume when she came on the scene she was doing something revolutionary.

When she was young, she worked for Rolling Stone as their chief photographer. She went on the 1975 Rolling Stones tour and took photos. She wasn't revolutionary - she just happened to land a good position and could do the work.

 

[Cholentpot]

When she was young, she worked for Rolling Stone as their chief photographer. She went on the 1975 Rolling Stones tour and took photos. She wasn't revolutionary - she just happened to land a good position and could do the work.

Any links to that work from back in the day? Aside from the Lennons.

 

[Don_ih]

Is that a bad photo?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

She is great, often depicting women in a strong feminine presence.
Off coarse some don't like that.
Women make the best photographers.
View attachment 326661

I agree this is a strong picture, painterly, and very English-looking. Interestingly, she digitally imposed the Queen in front of a picture of the gardens at Buckingham Palace.

Here's a great article with lots of photos Leibovitz shot of the Queen and family published in Vogue magazine. I think it would be better for folks here to view her entire work on the subject and the details that went into the two shoots over a number of years.

Annie Leibovitz Remembers Photographing Queen Elizabeth II

Leibovitz was invited to photograph the late monarch twice, in 2007 and in 2016, and both sittings yielded historic images. Here, she shares her memories of them.

www.vogue.com

 

[Cholentpot]

View attachment 326714
Is that a bad photo?

This is an excellent photo. Top tier. Everything I'd want from a photo is in it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

PS> I have to be nice to the Queen anyway. My wife follows the Royals and we're going to London in May and will be staying a few hundred yards from Buckingham. Maybe I can get a picture of the King-to-be.

 

[BrianShaw]

Is that a bad photo?

Despite all of the technical flaws... definitely not a bad photo.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When she was young, she worked for Rolling Stone as their chief photographer. She went on the 1975 Rolling Stones tour and took photos. She wasn't revolutionary - she just happened to land a good position and could do the work.

Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.

 

[Don_ih]

Despite all of the technical flaws... definitely not a bad photo.

She did have the disadvantage of not really knowing much about exposure, at that time.

 

[BrianShaw]

She did have the disadvantage of not really knowing much about exposure, at that time.

And, as you wrote earlier, the advantage of actually being there.

 

[cowanw]

Her face looks washed out.

Check out Thomas Gainsborough's paintings for a historical reference point.

 

[tom williams]

Can someone point me to a good photograph by her? Because her images leave me cold.

Her portrait of Stephen Petronius impresses.

 

[Pieter12]

Look, this isn't how criticism works. I don't have to defend my work while critiquing a public figure. For some reason people get all huffy when one points out flaws in photography but they're fine when someone says they don't like The Rolling Stones or they think that Beethoven's work is bombastic and over the top.

It does when you bring your work into it. "It it was me presenting that as my work I'd be lambasted. Subject is oddly cropped, the colors look cheap and overdone and honestly could have been shot on a 10 year old phone. But Annie shot it so it's amazing. I think time will judge her work and it won't necessarily be flattering."

It's like someone saying of an abstract work, Oh I could have done that. But you didn't. And you have no clue to what went into the work, everything done by the artist before that.

 

[Cholentpot]

It does when you bring your work into it. "It it was me presenting that as my work I'd be lambasted. Subject is oddly cropped, the colors look cheap and overdone and honestly could have been shot on a 10 year old phone. But Annie shot it so it's amazing. I think time will judge her work and it won't necessarily be flattering."

It's like someone saying of an abstract work, Oh I could have done that. But you didn't. And you have no clue to what went into the work, everything done by the artist before that.

Not buying it.

I'm not a public figure charging large figures for a photoshoot nor selling my work at a high price. I don't market myself as an upscale photographer.

However I am a photographer. I know how to take a photo, I can judge what is quality and what isn't. My blue collar day to day gigging as a working stiff taking photos of strangers can decipher what is and what isn't quality. If I presented a photo like the one of Lizzy to a client, chances are I would not get a call back the next time.

The 'stones photo would win me another gig no question. Sometimes an artist loses their touch. They have a period of creativity and it fades away. This happens all the time in music. The Beatles were not the same once they split into individuals. No-one cracks on a gigging guitarist for pointing out that Paul's solo stuff wasn't on par with his Beatles stuff. But people will defend Ann to the death if someone dares point out that her work can be someone uninspiring and insipid. And then throw in after that it's just people hating on women.

 

[MattKing]

However I am a photographer. I know how to take a photo, I can judge what is quality and what isn't. My blue collar day to day gigging as a working stiff taking photos of strangers can decipher what is and what isn't quality. If I presented a photo like the one of Lizzy to a client, chances are I would not get a call back the next time.

Perhaps your clients want something different than "Lizzy" might have wanted.
I agree with the post above about the nod to Constable, even if the choice of colour palette is not to my taste:

Constable: "Portrait of a lady, in a red cape and a black hat, a view to a landscape beyond"

 

[Cholentpot]

Perhaps your clients want something different than "Lizzy" might have wanted.
I agree with the post above about the nod to Constable, even if the choice of colour palette is not to my taste:
View attachment 326732

Constable: "Portrait of a lady, in a red cape and a black hat, a view to a landscape beyond"

A bit of a stretch don't you think? There are similarities but the Queen photo looks like a badly rendered B flick zombie movie.

 

[Pieter12]

A bit of a stretch don't you think? There are similarities but the Queen photo looks like a badly rendered B flick zombie movie.

Your opinion, which you are quite entitled to. Not the opinion of others, though. Every artist's work goes through stages, as do other aspects of their life. Taste changes, too. As primarily a commercial photographer (I include editorial for mass-market magazine's as part of the commercial world) Ms Liebowitz needs to reflect the tastes and trends of the time, all the while remaining accessible to the general public. I can't say she has ever really been a trend-setter, her work takes few risks. Her work has moved toward the narrative style and has taken on a bit of a painterly look.

 

[MattKing]

A bit of a stretch don't you think? There are similarities but the Queen photo looks like a badly rendered B flick zombie movie.

I agree about the "badly rendered" part - but as the internet available versions all seem to be courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, a very old and quite conservative entity, perhaps there are some other issues involved
Perhaps you prefer Chris Levine's photograph from 2004:

 

[Cholentpot]

Your opinion, which you are quite entitled to. Not the opinion of others, though. Every artist's work goes through stages, as do other aspects of their life. Taste changes, too. As primarily a commercial photographer (I include editorial for mass-market magazine's as part of the commercial world) Ms Liebowitz needs to reflect the tastes and trends of the time, all the while remaining accessible to the general public. I can't say she has ever really been a trend-setter, her work takes few risks. Her work has moved toward the narrative style and has taken on a bit of a painterly look.

Ms. L doesn't need to do anything. She's a legend in her own right. It very much looks like she's doing what she pleases with her later work. That doesn't always mean its going to be quality.

I agree about the "badly rendered" part - but as the internet available versions all seem to be courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, a very old and quite conservative entity, perhaps there are some other issues involved
Perhaps you prefer Chris Levine's photograph from 2004:
View attachment 326734

Oh gosh. Why? Put it on some velvet next to a framed Elvis. I get it that it's from 2004 and this kind of processing was new and cutting edge but sometimes you need to step back and ask yourself if you should rather than could. This looks like it should belong on a Myspace page with some MIDI of Fall Out Boy chirping in the background.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Your opinion, which you are quite entitled to. Not the opinion of others, though. Every artist's work goes through stages, as do other aspects of their life. Taste changes, too. As primarily a commercial photographer (I include editorial for mass-market magazine's as part of the commercial world) Ms Liebowitz needs to reflect the tastes and trends of the time, all the while remaining accessible to the general public. I can't say she has ever really been a trend-setter, her work takes few risks. Her work has moved toward the narrative style and has taken on a bit of a painterly look.

How inspirational can every picture be, especially portraits? Not every song hits number one that a writer writes. Just being able to shoot a good picture and get along with important people and get them to sit for you is an accomplishment.

Finally, these are portrait shots made for the person sitting or their family. As long as the client is happy, that's what it's about. My daughter went to a pro for a family portrait who took one of the pictures that I thought included too much. My daughter loves the shot. I kept my mouth shut.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I agree about the "badly rendered" part - but as the internet available versions all seem to be courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, a very old and quite conservative entity, perhaps there are some other issues involved
Perhaps you prefer Chris Levine's photograph from 2004:
View attachment 326734

What's wrong with this picture? My wife thinks the diamonds, pearls and fur are great.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Ms. L doesn't need to do anything. She's a legend in her own right. It very much looks like she's doing what she pleases with her later work. That doesn't always mean its going to be quality.



Oh gosh. Why? Put it on some velvet next to a framed Elvis. I get it that it's from 2004 and this kind of processing was new and cutting edge but sometimes you need to step back and ask yourself if you should rather than could. This looks like it should belong on a Myspace page with some MIDI of Fall Out Boy chirping in the background.

Elvis on velvet is perfect.

 

[MattKing]

What's wrong with this picture? My wife thinks the diamonds, pearls and fur are great.

The colour is terrible - in the internet representations.

 

[cliveh]

When I was younger I thought the National Portrait Gallery was about great portraits. However, it is about famous people and perhaps where her pictures fit in.

 

[Pieter12]

When I was younger I thought the National Portrait Gallery was about great portraits. However, it is about famous people and perhaps where her pictures fit in.

"...the aim of the National Portrait Gallery, London is to promote through the medium of portraits the appreciation and understanding of the people who have made and are making British history and culture, and to promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media."