Tree In Head A.Leibovitz

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[awty]

Probably had to do something to make boring people interesting.

 

[eli griggs]

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

The word and concept of "the rule" should be considered a simple warning that such and such, compositional choices or, any forthcoming considered decision taking, of the matter, visual, political, social, or as guidance of any type, must be approached with the vital forewarning that, in this case, such a resulting composition using the questionable choice, of breaking "the Rule", is most often unsuccessful, thus the reason it is commonly considered prohibited; the rational reason it becomes a "rule".

There are many, many reasons that artists break "rules" or work within their framework, too many to make much sense of, for most people and creative disciplines, which often embrace rules as sound dogma engraved in stone.

Flexibility and the ability, IMO, to intelligently or intuitively recognize the opportunities within a composition and fulfill that image or plastic design, is what all 'artists' AND crafts persons need to work at, knowing only a small percentage of folks will consistently make the mark, even if it is itself only a percentage of their own endeavors.

Creating within rules will never be appreciated 100%, by any audience, unless it consist of a very small group of approving, like minded, persons, who find their expectations clearly and cleanly met!

 

[Richard Man]

So first, the crop definitely changes the look so I wish the original cropper would not have done that, especially to try to make a point.

Second, Ms. Lebovitz of course has legion of photoshoppers working for her, so the final actual image is exactly how she wants it.

 

[Don_ih]

The line is less noticeable in the original shot - less noticeable in colour - so maybe wasn't really noticed or cared about at the time.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

 

[guangong]

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.

While there are no rules for pictorial composition, there are some general principles. However, unlike a painter, who can adjust the contents of a picture to improve composition, photographers deal mostly with found objects with little freedom for manipulation. The HCB picture above demonstrates a sharp eye for composition and taking advantage of it. Sometimes, as Sirius Glass example points out, by concentrating on a single element, we often fail to see the whole picture. This is my explanation for Liebovitz, etc.

 

[ic-racer]

Screen shot from a youtube video...

 

[Chuck1]

The full frame color and the cropped b+w images are worlds apart.
I like the full frame color image

 

[Pieter12]

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-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.

 

[Richard Man]

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.

I know right? To think that if that line is really a bother, that it will take more than 1 second of healing brush to fix is laughable ;-)

 

[Don_ih]

they won't settle for OK

But are the photos in the Vogue article better than "OK"?

 

[Pieter12]

But are the photos in the Vogue article better than "OK"?

In my opinion, and pretty obviously Ms. Leibovitz and the editors of Vogue, yes.

 

[Don_ih]

yes

I don't see it.

Look at their Pics of the Day photos and you'll see more interesting, better composed - better exposed - photos.

Cindy Crawford is actually blurry....

 

[cliveh]

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.

 

[Don_ih]

A photograph designed and produced by a group of people has no zen immediacy of perfection.

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.

 

[Rrrgcy]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

A photograph designed and produced by a group of people has no zen immediacy of perfection.

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.

 

[MFstooges]

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.

The digital artist work on the 2nd is very sloppy. I wonder if he/she's still employed.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

 

[MFstooges]

Not me.

 

[cliveh]

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.

I can.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

Take into account the great majority of MS Leibovitz’s work is commercial and directed editorial. I believe that should frame one’s view of the images.

 

[warden]

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.

You're not alone. Annie's early work is often fantastic.

Jörg Colberg made an interesting short book for Mack that featured Liebovitz, Crewdson and Gursky. He's not impressed with that trio for his own reasons, and it's the later Leibovitz that he has a problem with rather than the earlier.

 

[Don_ih]

I can.

No, you really can't. You can make a claim but you have no way to back it up. If all you know is the photo in front of you, not credited in any way, there is nothing you can say about what went into making it that's necessarily true. I'm not talking about stating an opinion that turns out to be correct. I'm talking about something that is necessarily true, just based on the viewing of the photo.

Selfie? Portrait? You probably know that's Dennis Stock - he's the guy that took the James Dean photo (walking down the street, famous Magnum dodge-and-burn mark-up available for purchase). You probably know Andreas Feininger took this photo. But what if you didn't? How many people were standing around when the photo was taken? What was the process of choosing this shot and not another one? Why has anyone seen this photo at all? None of these questions can be answered by just looking at the photo.