Tree In Head A.Leibovitz

[cliveh]

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: -

 

[eli griggs]

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

Nice work

 

[chuckroast]

There are no rules, there is no truth, only assertions and assumptions.

It depends on the context.

If there is no truth broadly spoken, then there is no basis for normative morality. This isn't the place to get into it, but this postmodern reduction of epistemology to all being self-referential is incredibly damaging to humanity, robs us of virtue, and makes it every man for himself.

OTOH, if the context is art generally and photography in particular, there is some - dare I say it - truth to what you say. All pictures are artifacts and thus lie to some degree in that the artist makes choices about what to show and how. But for something to be lie, there must be objective truth behind it.

Like I said, I don't plan to go down this rathole here, but starting with the Existential Phenomenologists, through the Deconstructionists, and ending with Postmodernism, 20th Century philosophers managed to destroy the quest for art, beauty, truth, and morality. It took them less than 100 years to kill all the progress mankind made in the past 4000 or so.

I've mentioned it before, but if you want proof positive than I not just randomly ranting, I cannot recommend Kimball's "Rape Of The Masters" highly enough. If you love art, read this book.

 

[markjwyatt]

It is possible to have some fun with tree in head...


Crappy Surfer with Tree in Head Scans for Waves by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[Pieter12]

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?

 

[cliveh]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

Unless you have specific information about this photo, I would bet otherwise. Mr. Bailey is (was) the original "celebrity" photographer, moreso than Ms. Leibovitz. I would guess he had an entourage of assistants and stylists.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I like the lines.

 

[MattKing]

Sure. But their technique, execution, and vision on their worst days far exceeded anything dear old Annie has ever done at any point.

I like a lot of her work.
And it has lots of life to it - as did Avedon, Newton and Karsh in their day, and in the circumstances they worked within.
I wouldn't trade any of them for the other, but I would certainly pick each of them for different needs.
The people who show fashion in Vogue wouldn't choose Karsh today - they probably mostly wouldn't choose Annie Liebovitz either, because like all the others, she is too old.
And I GUARANTEE that neither of us are in the target demographic for the fashion Artists whose work is shown in Vogue, or the advertisers who advertise there.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

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.

 

[Don_ih]

Leibovitz is an overrated hack

That's a bit much. The photos in this particular article were banal - probably with the scenario set up by other people - but she has taken more good photos than a lot of well-known photographers - and more significant photos than almost all photographers.

All pictures are artifacts and thus lie to some degree

Photos do nothing but sit there. Someone makes a claim about them - the viewer, the photographer, the publisher, doesn't matter - that's what can be a lie or honest.

 

[Pieter12]

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?

 

[Mike Lopez]

And what story does an Aaron Siskind photo tell, for example?

I think I know what you’re going for here, but I also suspect you are forgetting about Siskind’s Harlem/Bowery work in framing your question. And those pictures, of course, are full of stories.

 

[Cholentpot]

And what story does an Aaron Siskind photo tell, for example?

Depends on what era. Some are presentations of light and shadow. Others are intimate spaces.

But of the top everbodyknows greatest photographers of the past 100 years, what are they known for? When Lebovitz is done and gone what will her legacy be? The schmaltzy over the top stuff she's been doing for a while? Stuff that looks like it was shot on a phone and had filters slapped over it? Or the stuff from back in the day where she was up and coming?

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I actually do an assignment with my photo students, to go out and break all the rules. This one is most popular amongst them.

 

[Cholentpot]

I actually do an assignment with my photo students, to go out and break all the rules. This one is most popular amongst them.

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.

 

[MattKing]

One of the most important things to understand about the rules of composition is that, to the most part, they have evolved through a process of induction, rather than deduction.
By that I mean that they reflect observations - many of them over a long period of time - as to what tends to strengthen an image, or at least avoids detracting from it.
Essentially they are guideposts gleaned from lots of experience, rather than fenceposts designed to keep photographers on the one true path.
Understanding them can help a photographer accomplish a certain communicative task, or understand why a particular image may be just a little bit unsuccessful. There are no fines or incarcerations resulting from failing to follow them, but when one does so, the viewer may end up going somewhere other than what the photographer intended.
The rules aren't deduced from some sort of divine first principles, they are gleaned from lots of trial and error and observation.
So if we intentionally decide to flaunt one of those rules - just be sure to do so definitively, well, and with at least some flair.
And if instead we feel like a bit more comfort is in order, there is nothing quite as reassuring as, say, a welcoming S-curve

 

[bjorke]

Wait, what...? There are RULES about composition?

 

[Pieter12]

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.

She also photographed the Queen of England. I think her talent and ability were factors in the choice of photographers for the assignment.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

I believe the subject here is composition, not technical.

 

[Milpool]

Nice work

But there’s a vertical coming out of the top of her head. I guess this thread has now come full circle.

 

[Cholentpot]

She also photographed the Queen of England. I think her talent and ability were factors in the choice of photographers for the assignment.

And she told her to remove her crown...

I believe the subject here is composition, not technical.

Yes but technical rules must be followed ja? Cannot break the rules unless we're told that these rules are breakable yes?