And WTF is “zen immediacy of perfection” and what does it have to do with a fashion photo—that by nature requires a group of people to produce.
Not all fashion photographers rely on a group of people. Many great fashion photographs are the result of one photographer and his/her instant picture. Take this picture by David Bailey for instance: -
View attachment 377400
There are no rules, there is no truth, only assertions and assumptions.
Fashion photos by nature are assignments/commissions, so there is a client or agency or magazine editor involved even if they are not present at the time of the photo session. Similarly if the photographer is in-house staff, there is an employer involved. Granted, some fashion photos can be the result of a photographer working alone, with the clothing on a mannequin or spread on a table or other surface. But in the image you offer up, besides the photographer there is a model, who is wearing clothes designed by someone, who may or may not be the client. And how do you know there was no stylist or hair & make-up person? Location scout/manager? Or if Mr. Bailey had any assistants?Not all fashion photographers rely on a group of people. Many great fashion photographs are the result of one photographer and his/her instant picture. Take this picture by David Bailey for instance: -
View attachment 377400
Fashion photos by nature are assignments/commissions, so there is a client or agency or magazine editor involved even if they are not present at the time of the photo session. Similarly if the photographer is in-house staff, there is an employer involved. Granted, some fashion photos can be the result of a photographer working alone, with the clothing on a mannequin or spread on a table or other surface. But in the image you offer up, besides the photographer there is a model, who is wearing clothes designed by someone, who may or may not be the client. And how do you know there was no stylist or hair & make-up person? Location scout/manager? Or if Mr. Bailey had any assistants?
I don't, but looking at the shot, I would bet only the photographer and model are involved. Don_ih has previously said I can't possibly know this, but I would guess in this case I am correct.
This becomes especially clear when you look at the work of great portraitists like Avedon, Karsh, and even Newton.
Avedon - died 20 years ago.
Karsh - died 22 years ago.
Newton - died 20 years ago.
Fashion photography - mostly photography of a particular moment in time.
Sure. But their technique, execution, and vision on their worst days far exceeded anything dear old Annie has ever done at any point.
IMO Leibovitz is an overrated hack who became the darling of the New York Is Everything crowd by documenting the stoned degeneracy of a generation. I find almost none of her work all that interesting. It's is the visual equivalent to Sontag's gawd awful drooling prose on photography. It is provocative for the sake of provocation, self important, and dull as dirt.
This becomes especially clear when you look at the work of great portraitists like Avedon, Karsh, and even Newton. She recedes into complete irrelevance by comparison. Even Weegee told better picture stories.
Leibovitz is an overrated hack
All pictures are artifacts and thus lie to some degree
Stories.
Every photo should have one, I don't care if its paint drying. If a photo picture isn't telling a story well it's not a good photograph. Annie seems to have lost to story to my eyes.
And what story does an Aaron Siskind photo tell, for example?
And what story does an Aaron Siskind photo tell, for example?
I actually do an assignment with my photo students, to go out and break all the rules. This one is most popular amongst them.
The other thing about Annie Leibovitz is that she has a modern reputation that includes being a photographer who shoots the sort of group shot that Vanity Fair puts in a two page spread full of "stars". Which in turn means that it is relatively easy to get this year's "stars" to participate in this year's group shot - because their agents know that Annie Leibovitz is the photographer.
Not all that dissimilar from the afore-mentioned Karsh, Avedon and Newton - one's past successes serve as encouragement for potential current subjects.
No doubt the same applied to David Bailey. I expect Jane Bown as well.
Ya see, I get this 'break all the rules' Until you start breaking rules people don't want you to break.
So here's the rules I broke this week that make many users uncomfortable.
I went out to a nice spot, near the lake partly cloudy good light excellent. What did I take? I took a Nikkormat with no meter that hasn't been worked on in 40 years. Shutter? Who knows. I used a 105 2.5 for landscapes and I was using a roll of Agfa 200 that was stored in a basement with an expiration date of 1999. Oh, I had also already shot half the roll. I eyeballed it at ISO 25 and am planning on developing it in very very used up C-41 kit that I have kicking around. Thinking of roll 40 for a kit rated for 8 rolls.
So how many rules did I break? Does this make me an artist?
Next I'm going to go shoot street photography with a 500mm mirror lens using Portra 160 at noon. Better yet, use an autofocus SLR with a wide open telephoto to take photos of people walking around before a midday baseball game. I'm such a rebel.
Nice work
She also photographed the Queen of England. I think her talent and ability were factors in the choice of photographers for the assignment.
I believe the subject here is composition, not technical.
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?