Look at all the photos in the story as posted in #17. I doubt the line was intentional for that purpose, just part of the informal, loose look of the whole shoot.
Look at all the photos in the story as posted in #17. I doubt the line was intentional for that purpose, just part of the informal, loose look of the whole shoot.The line in the backdrop is a pointing finger insisting "Look at these people!".
Besides which Annie Leibovitz is so thoroughly beatified into the photographic pantheon, both by accomplishment and acclaim, that
I should be asking why is the line in the backdrop is right rather than suspecting it could be wrong.
Unless I'm a contrarian insisting some skepticism is a necessary anodyne to passive consensus.
No one has the authority to say a composition is "wrong". Period. It may not work for them but hey that's why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream.There are those that are rule followers. Rules mean everything to them, it keeps them in the correct lane and provides them with a "tribe" with which to belong. Those that are NOT rule followers are the inventors, explorers, creators etc. Once one of the rule followers gets their head around a new concept created by one of the non-rule followers, they along with respected tribe members make it a "rule". The cosmos is brought back into alignment for them.
As far as the image in question is concerned I like it. The vertical demarcation and the subsequent light falloff to the right in the background was done on purpose. The artist may have sensed a power dynamic between the two subjects or maybe there was tension between them. Who knows, only Anne knows why she did it but what she did do is create a story with her composition. That's what creative photography should strive for.
Eric
I don't think you quite understand. It is not a matter of just applying rules, as there are no rules for good composition. The assessment of a crap photograph and composition is not determined by rules, but by the beholder.
What separates the pros from the wanna-bes is that the pros really look at their shots, in the viewfinder and today on a computer screen during the shoot. Plus, there will usually be a client and or an art director or editor on the shoot who are all looking at the shots as they are made. Not to mention stylists, hair & make-up. All scrutinizing what is happening during the shoot and stepping in when necessary. And believe me, Ms Leibovitz shoots with an army of people around. Beyond the obvious blinking model, the only reason pros throw out work is they are taking chances an amateur wouldn't or they won't settle for OK when they know better. Whenever I hired a photographer, there were no excuses (except things beyond their control, like weather or availability of talent or locations). They delivered.I doubt if she even noticed the line when she shot it. People take shots like that all the time, even so-called experts. You're giving her too much credit. Maybe she noticed it afterward, maybe not. Most pros throw out 99% of their work because it;s crap. All sorts of issues pop up they didn't notice when they shot them.
What separates the pros from the wanna-bed is that the pros really look at their shots, in the viewfinder and today on a computer screen during the shoot. Plus, there will usually be a client and or an art director or editor on the shoot who are all looking at the shots as they are made. Not to mention stylists, hair & make-up. All scrutinizing what is happening during the shoot and stepping in when necessary. Beyond the obvious blinking model, the only reason pros throw out work is they are taking chances an amateur wouldn't or they won't settle for OK when they know better. Whenever I hired a photographer, there were no excuses (except things beyond their control, like weather or availability of talent or locations). They delivered.
But are the photos in the Vogue article better than "OK"?
What separates the pros from the wanna-bes is that the pros really look at their shots, in the viewfinder and today on a computer screen during the shoot. Plus, there will usually be a client and or an art director or editor on the shoot who are all looking at the shots as they are made. Not to mention stylists, hair & make-up. All scrutinizing what is happening during the shoot and stepping in when necessary. And believe me, Ms Leibovitz shoots with an army of people around. Beyond the obvious blinking model, the only reason pros throw out work is they are taking chances an amateur wouldn't or they won't settle for OK when they know better. Whenever I hired a photographer, there were no excuses (except things beyond their control, like weather or availability of talent or locations). They delivered.
A photograph designed and produced by a group of people has no zen immediacy of perfection.
A photograph designed and produced by a group of people has no zen immediacy of perfection.
oh my. Sinister rules? grid diagonals, figure ground relationship (gestalt psychology), “gamut” and arabesques - here’s video analyzing her composition on a different work. All I did was point out the “tree” in my OP. Had no idea this content was a thing but I know so little. Ive always just tried to avoid that tree in mine, don't consciously consider much else really…
and the inverse lighting law… 4-MADs. Ugh. .I’d not noticed vanity fair editor Graydon Carter looked so un-lit, maybe that too was intentional.
Why? You don't get access to the making of the photo - you see a print or a digital version (online, for example). You can't say anything for certain about what made it.
Are we bashing Lebovitz?
I love her earlier work, where she cut her teeth and was hungry. The later stuff always comes across to me as either lazy or try hard. And before anyone says 'So you do better' Maybe I have, maybe I haven't. that doesn't invalidate an opinion. Her later work doesn't speak to me but apparently it speaks to lots of people who will go to the mat for her.
To each their own as the farmer kissed the cow. Or something like that.
You're not alone. Annie's early work is often fantastic.I love her earlier work, where she cut her teeth and was hungry. The later stuff always comes across to me as either lazy or try hard.
I can.
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?