Very glad you spoke to this topic. I was fortunate enough to meet Annie Liebovitz while I was attending RIT (I was studying Imaging and Photographic Technology). RIT was arguably the world's greatest photographic school at the time, certainly from a technical perspective. When Leslie Stroebel and Richard Zakia are two of your professors, it's hard to argue! Being cheeky, know it all young students, we too presumed she was a hack and was not technical (therefore unworthy) of the fame and fortune she achieved. Hell, if you weren't processing your own film, we thought you weren't worthy. Now, this was in 1991-ish. Photography was only analog. Proofing was done with Polaroid. At that point in her career, her shoots were big productions. I will challenge any photographer in 2024 to even comprehend what studio time looked like and cost in 1992. If she had a famous celebrity and it was going to be shot on large format chrome, she had to know her assistants had her back. No one was rolling in with a 100-megapixel digital camera and Photoshop in 1992. I don't think today's photographer can relate to a photoshoot of Demi Moore in 1990 to one that would happen today. We also have to understand the role of photographers and photography then versus now. We were not inundated with images constantly. When she started at Rolling Stone it was the only way we would see images of our favorite pop musicians and celebrities. She has always had a way of pulling out the nature of her subject, even if it was in a pop culture sort of way. Let's face it, that was her job, and no one has done it better. Most of the iconic pop culture images taken over the past fifty years are hers! Is that happenstance? If you say John Lennon, one of her images comes to mind. You say Bruce Springsteen, I see his ass in front of the American Flag. These are her visions. And yes, I do believe many of her images will stand the test of time, though it will always be impossible to separate her subject from the art. I think we can say the same thing for Karsh. She wasn't shooting weddings; she has been photographing kings. Frankly, I see a lot more value in her work than Ansel Adams'. My useless technical education (nowadays) in imaging may make me more astute in the physics of optics, the chemistry of photography and I may be a damned better printer than most, it doesn't make me Annie Liebovitz. I don't have her vision. What is art? In the end, I will liken it to music. A drummer feels incredibly accomplished when he learns to play a Neil Peart part almost as well as Neil did. But you always have to remember, his virtuosity on the drums is only part of the equation. He CREATED the music; he didn't just play it. Technology has laid waste to the art and skill required to be a photographer and there will be no more Annie Liebovitz's. However, the armchair quarterbacks abound now more than ever!
That's what I've come to realize about myself. I can look at a photo and think, I could do that. (I'm almost there anyway, sometimes) but then I have to ask myself, but would I think to do that? Could I come up with it?
@@Buttercup697 I think your overstating his role in the formation of the National Park System. John Muir and the Sierra Club deserve that credit, though he did help bring awareness.
The first time I saw Vivian Maier's photos, I didn't know who she was. I knew none of her back story. I didn't even know why she was famous; or that she was famous for that matter. I just knew her photos had completely blown me away. I was mesmerized by her photos.
@@ThePhotographicEye I would argue with that, sometimes knowing backstory is a part of understanding one's pictures. But in case of Vivian Maier, I found out about her in one of your videos a bit more than half a year ago, and i wasn't captivated by her story, even tho it is captivating. I was stunned by her photographs, by feeling of the moment, the feeling of life in her shots. Before that i was briefly interested in photography back in school in 2012, where our physics teacher invited us after school to photography class, where for a first time i looked at the picture that has nothing to do with me or my friends or relatives, the picture that captures the moment, not just shows it. It was Cartier-Bresson's Cyclist. I didn't understand shit about all that and a dropped it soon. But last year Meier's photos made me feel something. It inspired me to buy a camera and go out and shoot without thinking about who will see my photographs and who will like my photographs. Just shoot for myself, because i actually liked it this time.
@@ser_igel I think that's a problem a lot of photographers face - we get told that an image is 'great' or 'important', but yet it never really lands. It takes a little spark of something ,in your case Meiers back story, to ignite the fire
The very best way to approach pictures! Let them speak (or not speak) to you one by one! And dare to be disappointed by great names. The problem I see here: many people first have to put a label on everything. Tell them that the woman going upstairs with the many doves scattering about is from HCB. Ahhh, the master, big interest! Ask "wanna see a picture of Rui Palha?" Answer ist: WHO??? Same picture. Different "reading". I try to stay clear of that.
Yes Vivian's images show a human depth, everything that Leibovitz's images do not. With Leibovitz's images you can still sense the set director and his minions rushing around.
Here's the test of a good picture: If it was a shot of your grandmother, would it still be good? Just because the subject if famous doesn't make it a good pic.
Leibovitz’s strength is in the design and staging of her portraits. She’s become a combination of director, cinematographer and art director. The tableau is a very important element to her work. Someone like Avedon, while quite skilled in similar disciplines was more about eliciting a specific reaction and capturing that moment. Different approaches, different photographers, but two very adept artists. When I look at Leibovitz’s photos, there is, quite often, an immediate reaction of "I never would have thought to stage and make an image like this".
I met a celebrity photographer once at a seminar. Most of his celebrity clients treated him like crap. Can’t imagine what compelled him to keep working in that business.
With all due respect, I have been passionate about photography since I was about 7, had a film camera since I was 10, (Voigtlander Bessa 35), developed my own film, and studied and learned from many of the great photographers through books, etc. I was teaching photography, while still a student in school, and had a very good understanding of light, shadow, tone, texture, composition, etc. The reason I mention all of this, is because for several years, I ended up being a model for adverts, magazine and print, and would often get hired by agencies for projects. I found that there were many great photographers doing great work, but just as equally, there were quite a few 'Hacks' who had many minions running around and literally setting up the shot in minute detail and then having said 'Hack" press the shutter button, and getting credit for the brilliance of the final work. Note- the bigger the project, I found there seemed to be more 'Hacks' then not. - Just my two cents. Thanks.
I went to see an Annie Leibovitz exhibition in London around 12 years ago, it might have been at Somerset House. It remains to this day a major inspiration. I saw images I could only dream of creating. Anyone who thinks they can do better just should. Too many photographers miss the point, either on a technical level, that that is the subject, technical perfection, it isn't. Or they think it would be easy if they had all of that background support. Annie delivers time and time again. I can see her images in my head, very few photographers do that. Demi Moore was a sublime shoot, and on and on.
Exactly. Mediocre photographers are always talking crap about better ones
11 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
Rui Palha is absolutely amazing. His "live" street photographs are full of stories and reflections, stops and solitude.... full of beautiful shapes and moods wrapped in beautiful light. I want to write that Rui Palha is a living legend...
Musician Bryan Adams is considered a photographer now. And why? Because he has access to celebrities. Beyond that access, his work has the sophistication of a snapshot.
I believe the anonymous photographer at the end is Etienne Carjat (sp?) or Nadar? One of the sitters is Sarah Bernhardt and another is Franz Liszt. And I've seen a stunning, small print of the man with the scarf. I love his use of light, and show some of these to my students when we discuss light.
In the amateur art critic circle, it is very easy to say, "I could have done that!" But you didn't. In photography, a lot of uneducated viewers also need to know "who is it?" (or "What is it?") It brings a sense of familiarity to the image. As photographers, we pull familiarity from lighting, composition, etc PS. I own a couple of treasures, Photos of my mom, as a baby, taken (and signed) by Yousef Karsh. As a photographer, I love that one image shows my mom holding Mr. Karsh's light meter.
Very good points about our associations influencing our opinions of photographs (and photographers). It's so hard to extricate the immediate perception of the work from one's other knowledge about the photographer, and sometimes other things, like the milieu of history. Liebovitz has done some great photos, but she is still not one of my favorites, while Maier, IMHO, did a lot of amazing work that stands well on its own, apart from her unique story.
Thanks for this discussion. Because of this video I took the opportunity to return a library book I had and visited the photography section. I am now reading Annie Leibovitz: At Work. She may be a delegator/managing/ directing photographer now but it's clear that she started out like the rest of us. Working alone and lugging all her gear around. Respect to her.
I used to be of the opinion that a photographer should have to do everything on a shoot, but my last project completely changed my mind. I had an assistant for my project, but I was still very hands on, and this really effect the quality of images in the long run. We don't see people complaining about Steven Spielberg, not setting up the lighting, or operating the camera on a film. With photographers like Annie Leibovitz or Rankin, they are very much a photographer and director and the other members of their crew know their job and are their to full fill the image that the photographer is after
The second part is 100% spot on - And I think this comes from people from whom photography is a hobby: "how dare Annie not process her own images - I do and only I can know how to" Professional photography is a collaborative event.
I think often celebrity photos rely on the viewer knowing who the person is for their strongest effect. That doesn't mean the photos themselves aren't excellent but it's the reliance of the subject being well known that is key. The photos from the 19th century, while interesting seemed to rely on the viewer knowing who the subject was. There are many excellent photos of relative nobodies that are extremely famous because the photographer captured an essence about the person that comes through in the photo.
I bought Annie's thick book two years back. Although I like Gregory Heisler's images better, I have a deep admiration and respect for her. She may not be technical every time (bad focus, crooked walls etc.), but one can never say that her images are thoughtless or casual snapshots. Having a big team on big productions does not mean easier job for her in any way. Sure she does not shuffle lightstands and sandbags around, but she has the vision which is 90 % of the final photo. All the assistants are just there to move things around and make it happen. But none of them can tell what she wants the photo to look like. And hell, she built her carreer from nothing and she's keeping it up for decades, which I believe is the most difficult thing of all.
Interestingly enough, perhaps, I'm reminded of the problem with listening to Beethoven or listening to Mozart where you're so overwhelmed with the idea that THIS IS BEETHOVEN or THIS IS MOZART that you're unable truly to listen to the music and recognize why people revere the particular piece by Beethoven or Mozart (or Beethoven or Mozart themselves).
Originally studied painting for my degree in fine arts. We had way too many art history classes, but that’s another story. Saw the Liebowitz Exhibit at the Museum of Art in San Diego during early 2000s. It wasn’t the celebrities in her images that struck me. What caught my attention was that many of her compositions reminded me of famous paintings. That’s not a bad way to approach images, and we all are inspired by things we’ve seen. I found myself asking, what if the celebrities were not in those images? The answer at the time is that many of her images work without a celebrity being there. So a cynic could claim celebrities make her images, though really it’s the compositions. I’ve also met a few people who assisted on her productions, and told some interesting stories, though that’s best left for offline conversation.
My two bits: there is always a message, even with each and every entity in the era of instaphotography. The real passion is instantly recognizable (at least for me), the hard part is figuring out the exact language...there are so many.
Another great video with super inspiring photos. Many thanks for that. But as far as Annie Leibovitz is concerned, I think her very simple everyday photos are just beautiful. She may have become famous herself because of the famous people she photographed, but her banal, everyday photographs are without a doubt great works of art.
"Correctness" is the enemy of creativity. Almost definitively, conformity to established "standards" is the antithesis of art. That said, knowing how to do something "properly" is fundamental to the improvisation that is essential to the artistic process. Learning musical scales and modes provides a foundation from which you can depart in a creative manner. Studying the work of others is necessary in order to establish your own style. We all borrow selectively (whether we realize/admit it or not). I've no great interest in portraiture (I tend to avoid people in my photographs), but I can certainly appreciate it (I like a lot of your work). I remember a show years ago of Annie's work in Washington DC (Corcoran?). She's clearly far from being a hack, but that type of tableau photography requires time, effort, and staff few of us have. That doesn't mean we can't learn from her process. Also, thanks for pointing out how very different it is to see an actual print rather than an on-screen image. The only true photograph is a print! It's like the difference between a live performance and a digital recording--live is better!
Looking at timeless photos from the masters is a great way to inspire young photographers to learn analog photography. Annie Leibovitz early work for Rolling Stone Mag. was pretty cool. Once she started doing celebrity portraits, she lost her real vision. Highly art directed photos of celebrities are boring. However, she's a master of her art. And you cannot take that away from her. I had the privilege to assist Richard Avedon. He's my hero. As a portrait photogrpher, this man just love his art. And is highly respectful to everyone involved in the process. Unlike Annie. Extremely difficult to work with.
Quite a refreshing video. Cuts through received wisdom, to think about what matters most to the individual photographer. I like the quote "the less you know, the easier it is to jump in." Important to get to a state that allows you to be surprised at what you see, no matter who the photographer was. Worth referring back to Keats' "negative capability," I will quote from Wikipedia. "Negative capability is the capacity of artists to pursue ideals of beauty, perfection and sublimity even when it leads them into intellectual confusion and uncertainty, as opposed to philosophical certainty over artistic beauty." I would add - not just philosophical certainty, but also the certainty that if it's done by a great photographer, it must automatically be great, and you have to voice that opinion. And the reverse notion: an unknown or minor artist can create something of beauty. Though it's not easy to learn to think for yourself, it's a good exercise to try to do so.
Why are photo books so heavy? Why are they so expensive, is my question? Im a big fan of Nadar by the way, the Daguerreotype is amazing as art in itself.
I think the same argument applies to classical musicians, knowing who the performer is often ruins or at least puts a bias into my listening experience. Sometimes the best performances turn out to be by complete unknowns and some of the worst by classical superstars.
In a nutshell... People are free to like what they like and dislike what they dislike. However, what I feel has become weird normality is that people become nasty, impolite and rude about expressing when they dislike something.
I'm not sure what it is about Penn's work but I immediately recognize his images regardless of having seen them before. In the past, I've tried to replicate his techniques and recreate his look but never succeeded. Ultimately I connect with his work on a non-analytical-emotional level; for me, that's the secret sauce of great imagery. Making the view feel something. And many of my favorite images of his have nothing to do with celebrity.
Yes, shooting someone like Sean Connery or a super model with a staff of a dozen, battery packs, lights, and a huge budget to create a dreamy production, is different than most of us experience. But it doesn't make her a hack. I too love Hurrell and have burns on my fingers from my hot lights and use medium format film for some of my work. Even Avedon who was an ID photographer in the coast guard and many of his images look like ID photos, they all have something to teach us. Too few folks have studied the history of photography. I shot it with digital in 2008 but am now starting a project shooting it with film, starting with Nadar right through folks like Man ray and Ritts.
I feel a lot of people struggle to make the distinction you've pointed out there. Good call about Avedon's background btw - I'd never avtually made the connection!
People went gaga over his portraits that were blank expression id photos on plain white background. My concealed carry trainer took one of those for my ccw. I need another for my passport. But that isn't all his work, the snake tongue shot, amazing in the days before 9 fps burst mode. And like Lebovitz, his production shots like the elephant shot are beautiful. @@ThePhotographicEye
I've photographed a lot of unknown bands and you always try to make them look like famous rock stars. Looking for those iconic moments which might appear in a music mag, or album cover. But the camera does seem to know who the future stars are. Don't know if it's that certain glint in the eye, body confidence or natural talent of knowing what will attract the photographer.
There was a photographer (?) before the 1950's I believe who would, Like Anne L set up extravagant settings. But in his eyes, the skill was in the set up, actually pressing the shutter button was beneath him so he had a "technician" do it.
Nardar was the photographer. When I was in the military back in the seventies, I was assigned to create a Christmas Card for out photo lab to be sent out to other labs in the fleet. So, I designed the Gard I wanted to do and for my composition, I needed individual portraits shot of each person working in the Lab to be shot in a tight Horizontal format. A superior, who was incharged of the photography, who I was to work work, flatly refused the shoot the portraits in that format and insisted in following the "camera club" rule of shooting the portrait vertical. We got into a big argument back and forth to the point that I wanted to quit working on the project. I ended up doing it his way and the Christmas card was horrible.
I tend to look at a photo as a whole. I don't care who shot it, or what the subject is. Does it make me react WOW? If so, then maybe, I'll look for other photos by the same photographer. I may find that most or all their work makes go WOW, or might just be the one photo. Then, for my own photographer advancement, what made me go WOW? To me, that can be tougher than you would think. 🙂
Annie Leibovitz's work evolution is like seeing your favorite underground punk rock band suddenly wearing suits and selling out arenas. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with what she's done over the last 30 years, but if you told me the person who took the last photos of John Lennon, later took those super polished portraits of Queen Elizabeth, I'm not sure I'd believe you. Every once in a while, she'll do an intimate portrait that ticks all the vintage Annie boxes. I don't know how her photography will be looked at in a hundred years, but I'd imagine that those intimate portraits will stand out from the high gloss stuff.
I think it's also worth remembering that a lot of these are taken for a specific reason. What I see over that same time frame is Annie going back to her Art School roots - classical painted portraits for example.
Hi Alex, when I see a great photo it doesn't bother me to know who photographed it, I just enjoy and appreciate the photo and then I say this was a great photographer. Glad to hear about Cindy Sherman, I haven't heard of her. Enjoy the exibitions. Thanks for this video it was very enjoyable. 😊
I enjoyed this topic very much and have some definite views. The images you showed are fabulous, artistic and worthy. The photographer still makes most of the choices, lighting, composition, timing of the moment, etc. The famous photographer deserves their accolades and their place in history. However, having access to beautiful people - and you can't deny that many of the images are of beautiful people, having access to spectacular locations, having a stylist, hairdresser, make-up artist etc., all helps the process. With those resources I believe there is more opportunity, scope, etc., to do great photography. But you still need the talent and the skill. Not taking that away. I've been looking at the work of the likes of Julia Fullerton-Batton. Truly great photographer and you can't take anything away from that. But the level of resources she brings to a project and an image is amazing. One of my main sources of inspiration is Hollywood. I recently watched Poor Things and the stills that can be extracted from that movie are absolute masterpiece. Top marks to the artistry and skills of the director, actors, everyone. But it is an example of what you are talking about. Beautiful people, endless ligting resources, incredible setsand locations. You had to have lots of money and resources and the artistry. Look at the interiors of mansions and castles, etc. as backgrounds. I don't have access to that here in Australia. It sometimes frustrates me. But I'm not using these things as an excuse. I need to add other skills to my artistry to get the results I want. Improvisation, montage, begging, borrowing, but not stealing - lol. The greats are great - but they have access to resources and environmental factors that enhance their journey to success. Yes - they also had to trudge the road to getting to that level. Some also had kuck on their side but all still needed artistry and skill. Udo Bucher
Never look at the equipment, the planning, the technique, the time/ labor, or the reputational leverage and conclude if the photographer is deserved or not. Look at the photos. Annie accomplishes the most important part of portrait photography; she allows the subject to be part of a creative experience and she conveys a story and her interpretation of the subject that creates conversation and introspection. Too many people these days buy a camera with decent capabilities and then judge professionals through their sensibilities and esthetics. They may have even created a decent photo and think they are professional level. As a song writer we would say the difference between a one hit wonder and a songwriter is craft. The same is true for professional photography. It is a repeated process that creates muscle memory that then allows the photographer to forget the equipment or technique and begin to be expressive and creative. That is the difference. Annie knew the craft.
Thank you, Alex, for going into a deeper dive on the subject of this weekend’s news letter. I’m going to try your suggestion of going to a museum and studying photographs of unrecognizable people, by photographers I’ve never heard of or don’t know much about.
Your videos are the ones I learn from the most. Thank you so much! The portrait at 15:04 is stunning. Great selection in general! Lindbergh was my favorite photographer, because he wanted to capture the essence of the person in front of him. Also great photographers: Inta Ruka, Anton Corbijn and Paolo Roversi.
The issue with Leibovitz has little to do with technical expertise, it has everything to do with the fact that had she not been GIVEN a career that came with immediate access to famous people at such an early age, she wouldn't have such a portfolio of work that is revered simply because of the people in the images. She is given these assignments now because she's always had access to this world of celebrities the majority of photographers could never have not to mention the literal cadre of expert assistants that do all the heavy lifting for her.
Go back to her early work to understand why she's so talented. Her commercial work is outstanding regardless of her large productions - YOU try producing great images under that much pressure. She deserves the opportunities she gets. I only wish she treated her associates better. I've hired freelancers who worked for her and had nothing good to say about the experience.
Sad to hear that about her but as a woman she is maybe protecting herself as we are hearing all sorts of sh*t just as this dude here is saying. I myself come up with compositions under stress and it isn't easy
quite a meta-topic. I paused several times to think. But yes, the moment an artist releases his work, he or she loses the right to give the correct interpretation. The piece of art stands for itself.
Great video lecture thank you.... erm don't believe you have ever mentioned Lois Greenfield.... I know she is a studio only type photographer... but her images are in another world I do declare Alex......?
I needed to find a context that connected me where I understood the same interest/awe/jealousy. For me, it is Walter Iooss, Jr. While Matthew Brady would be the photographer of my History interests, Iooss captures the lifelong love I have for sports. I don't even have to go to a museum to see his work. The art is captured and produced on sports cards for all to share if they so choose, though it is better seeing it large in the Baseball Hall of Fame or other shrines to sports. I'm sure many have the same question about Iooss as the one posed about Leibovitz. Was it access to famous athletes that made him famous? No. There still had to be a vision to the image. Both photographers needed to somehow illicit the look that bore the soul of the individual they were shooting. Either could do the same in a photo of myself, who nobody knows from Adam, but they capture individuals for whom we already have feelings. Those are amplified with the images.
Leibovitz is an excellent photographer when she is doing personal work. Her production numbers, with a 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 few exceptions, are all gloss. They are about her, not the subject.
Enjoyed this video, thanks. I made a video about Harrell and Charles Bull just last week. Both highly influential on how I think of portrait photography. There is so much to learn by looking at how these photographers worked. They also prove to me that to get awesome photos you don’t need all the modern features. Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools.
Rules! Ignore them. What catches your attention when you look at the whole. Look at it as an artist not as a critic. My memory of visiting an exhibition of Dali's work was not of his impressive popular paintings, but what was conveyed to the viewer in some of his smaller paintings. Artist, photographers are trying to communicate an intimate reaction, as the viewer it is necessary to understand what that message is.
I have some trouble remembering photographer's names and work, there's so many. But I remember George Hurrell's work, from lighting class last semester. I was trying to imitate the style.
Oof, barely know what I'm doing. Taking portraiture this semester, and we can use the studios and lighting on campus, so I'm hoping to get better. (My name's Lorie, btw.)@@ThePhotographicEye
@@L.Spencer Oh, I'm so sorry, I thought you were someone else - there was a Lloyd who had the same surname who watched the channel a while back! IRT the lighting, - work with one light first. Once you feel comfortable, the add a background light, then more as you get better
The same really about any image - it's not up to the photographer to decide if it's good or not - it's the viewer. IIRC Ansel Adams said there are always two people in a photograph - the photographer and the viewer. Thanks for watching
I like Annie Leibovitz quite a bit, my personal favorite is her portrait of the diver Greg Louganis. I've also seen a lot of shade thrown her way over the years, though it should be pointed out probably less than Edward Steichen who, after all these years, is reviled in some quarters. I remember hearing a Q&A with with the fashion photographer Sheila Metzner. Some guy from the audience got up and essentially said that anybody could do what she did if they had the high end equipment she had. As I recall she deflected him gracefully by says that it was harder than it looked.
I think with people like Steichen etc there's a few things at play: 1- they're not around anymore, so not able to 'upset' people with their new ideas or approaches in their work 2 - Tall poppies syndrome - people want to cut others down to size.. There will always be people who think all you need is a fancy camera
Thank you for this video. Convinced me to go to the Crystal Bridges Museum in Bentonville Arkansas. Excellent museum if you're ever in this part of the world. They are featuring a Annie Liebovitz exhibit, which is ending the end of this month. Been debating on whether to go see it or not, as it's a 150 mile drive not that that really matters in this part of the world.
I think the only people that would think that Annie Leibovitz is just a hack are people who think their own abilities exceed hers and are jealous of her success compared to their own lack of it. The rest of us see photos of famous people taken by a celebrated photographer and just enjoy her success and the photographs.
You either like a photograph or you don't. I've been image editing for over 30 years, I'm of the opinion that the most unpleasant aspect of photography is photographers and photographic critics.
Image editing in what context? I really don't think it is that easy, a simple dichotomy between like and dislike. There are reasons behind our likes and dislikes and I see no problem with discussing them. If you like or dislike an image, tell us why. Don't just cut the conversation dead by pretending it's just a matter of taste.
@@philmartin5689 Unless it's a matter of bullshit! I go to a great many photography web sites and 95+% of the comments are just that. Not to mention the obliteration of intelligence by popular trends.
@@davidmilisock5200 you haven't really replied to what I said. You claim 90% of critcism is bullshit but I cannot agree or disagree because I don't know how you define "bullshit"?
@@philmartin5689 The reality is this, your reasons for disliking a image or feature therein are no more valid than your reasons to like them. They are simply an opinion by someone. I once discussed with a photographer his use of the focal plane. Then after several minutes I I realized that his process didn't allow him to even see the subtle but in my opinion a rather poor effect. Then I later realized that this was a dominating aspect of the process for many photographers.
@@davidmilisock5200 I haven't a clue what you're on about with the discussion about focal plain?? I don't know about you but I'm perfectly capable of explaing why I don't like an image or a specific photographer other than justcsaying "nah!! I don't like it".
My ex worked for Leibovitz as a personal assistant. Every night she came home in tears. I won't give the details, but calling Leibovitz a narcissistic monster would be an understatement. And yeah. Her photos bore me to tears. I'll take Wee-Gee or Smith over her opportunist garbage any day.
Concept, gesture, expression. Leibovitz is brilliant. She is extremely technical and very familiar with her tools. You may think these people just waltz in and push the button but you would be wrong. I’ve had the pleasure of working for many of the great photographers through the 90s and early 2000. Most at the level of Leibovitz have incredibly strong photographic foundations. It’s odd that people think that separation or a hand in the shot are technically wrong. It’s art….. forcing it into a narrow viewpoint of “technically correct” seems a bit formulaic and quite frankly absurd. The best of the best all have some things in common, concept, gesture, expression, light, but also the ability to achieve a rapport quickly, direct them effectively, and timing to “capture the moment”.
When I see an Annie Leibovitz photograph, my first reaction is that it was made to get my attention. She does this in two ways. She photographs celebrities. She frequently puts them in bizarre situations. We have to look. After a moment, we realize that we are being manipulated, and that her work has no substance that matters beyond the superficial interest that it screams for in its demand. The best portraits make a statement about our common nature. Her pictures don't do that. In the grand scheme of things, her subjects are entertainers, and unimportant. They are themselves simply fleeting entertainment crafted for a mass audience and likewise, unimportant. If we didn't know who her subjects were, we wouldn't care about her pictures.
My apologies. Of course you are correct. I only speak for myself, though I would like to believe that everyone should agree with me. ;-) @@geraldricoguevara3340
The issue I have with Leibovitz is the uncritical, hagiographic nature of her work. She is simply a passive propagandist and a cog in the American hyper-capitalist meat grinder.
Portrait photography is not an easy topic to handle. You have to know lighting, posing, how to work with a model. It's not about snapshots. You really have to understand what you're doing, and who you're doing it with. One could easily say Annie Leibovitz is overrated. However as a photographer, I wouldn't agree with that sentiment. She has a talent only few can really achieve. If anything, she is inspiring.
I don't think Annie Leibovitz is a talentless hack but there has been more than a few times when I thought some of her photos were just OK. I've seen what I consider to be much better portfolios, from no-name photographers, but to be fair her style may not just be my cup of tea.
I use a photograph by Dorthea Lange from 1952 taken in San Francisco of a woman and a child to query people on what they think. I get about 3 or more descriptions of what's going on in the image, those opinions flavor what these people think of the photographer. As long as people aren't attacking the photographer I'm OK with that because in many cases what's going on in your mind was made up there.
'Attacking the photographer' - much like play the ball, not the man. The photography world would be much nicer if that were the case, that people stopped throwing stones. But hey ho, unlikely to happen!
Wow, I am so bad at photography that I have never looked at a Leibovitz, Mapplethorpe, Liberman, etc image and thought "Gee, that image is technically flawed." I have always just enjoyed the picture and then, upon subsequent views, tried to understand what the photographer was trying to say with the image. Were there any secondary stories that were less obvious that I could discover? I guess this is because believed that they, as photographers that had risen to a level that allowed them access to their famous subjects, had something to teach/tell me with their image and were not just taking snapshots (although some look like it). Apparently, I have been doing it wrong.
Nah. Take away the gimmicky setups and the celebrities, and there's not much to Liebovitz. Penn or Karsh or Arnold or Nadar or most of the jobbing photographers in Hollywood in the 1940s did work that stands on its own. I wouldn't call her a "hack", but I think she's over-rated. Just my two bob's worth. 😁
Fair enough, each to their own. What I found was that as a younger photographer I was too much 'oh she's just famous because of xyz', so I didn't bother to see if there was anything I could learn from her. Thanks for watching Shane
Gaspard-Félix Tournachon alias Nadar is the photographer of the 19th century photographs. At first I thought it was Julia Margaret Cameron but I was incorrect. I admit I had to do a little searching to get it right.
I wouldn't say she is a hack, but she does just about the same type of thing over and over There is not much surprise I much prefer urban photos. You know finding the good, the bad, beautiful and ugly in life around you.
Annie’s best work was done at the start of her career whilst working for “Rolling stone” To be honest, I find Marco Grob a better photographer of personalities…. Annie has just become so much of a star herself, she produces the images the big magazes expect of her…
I always liked her images but her photo shoots are Hollywood productions if you will. She is not alone. There are other famous photographers who have a similar set up.
Do you say the same thing about Tarantino or Scorsese? She directs her team. Sounds like victim mentality. Ask government to guarantee equal access for all photographers 😂 World is so unequal when people who don't want to commit, sacrifice and put hard work don't get the same outcome as those who do.
Not at the beginning … she too was once a one woman show. And realistically, it does take a team to create what her TEAM creates… but no one starts off that way, you build up to it.
I'm almost certain when you reach a certain level, the ONLY thing the powers that be want you focusing on is releasing the shutter. Not dicking around with lighting, or dialing in exposures, etc. That is just *not* a good use of the photographers time/the clients budget.
her old stuff is a lot better then her new stuff, even her journilist work is great, or more conceptual famous people shoots she used to do. her stuff is great but pefer older work of hers
For me it all comes down to the end product. Is it interesting? Is it compelling? Is it provocative? Is it beautiful? That's what matters. I'm not drawn to celebrities and Leibovitz's photography has never been all that interesting to me. But, if her work is good it doesn't matter if I like it or not and, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't even matter how she gets it done. If she has a good team and all she does is waltz in and click the shutter and the picture is good, more power to her and her team.
I think it's a stretch to put Libovitz and Gainsborough in the same sentence. There is a reason behind the axiom, it's not what you know but who you know.
In the distant future people will still linger over Annie Leibovitz photos. If they don’t know that Cindy Sherman was a Big Deal, it will be, “Meh. What are these doing in here?”
BTW in my opinion the hand over the shoulder in the image of Jane Fonda works well. It draws your eye to the young lady which is a subtle way of accenting the younger generation.
@@ThePhotographicEye You should try and show Dorthea Langes image of a verybyoung boy walking with his mother inn1952 San Francisco! Wow you'll get a cat fight.
Simply as images, I find many images self absorbed and very often banal and dull. Is that a reflection on me? Or is it the photographer has failed to inspire.. Every time I review a photograph I ask the question ' is this a keeper for me or potentially my audience', the latter being the voice that matters. It's probably the reason why I have so few keepers. Self absorption in photography is evident everywhere. The last judge of a photograph should be the photographer.
That's the one - the last sentence. Everyone interprets an image differently - that's part of the joy. What is sad though is so many people throw away images because they think they are rubbish. :( Thanks for watching
US and UK Events: www.eventbrite.co.uk/cc/the-photographic-eye-in-person-events-2966449
Very glad you spoke to this topic. I was fortunate enough to meet Annie Liebovitz while I was attending RIT (I was studying Imaging and Photographic Technology). RIT was arguably the world's greatest photographic school at the time, certainly from a technical perspective. When Leslie Stroebel and Richard Zakia are two of your professors, it's hard to argue! Being cheeky, know it all young students, we too presumed she was a hack and was not technical (therefore unworthy) of the fame and fortune she achieved. Hell, if you weren't processing your own film, we thought you weren't worthy. Now, this was in 1991-ish. Photography was only analog. Proofing was done with Polaroid. At that point in her career, her shoots were big productions. I will challenge any photographer in 2024 to even comprehend what studio time looked like and cost in 1992. If she had a famous celebrity and it was going to be shot on large format chrome, she had to know her assistants had her back. No one was rolling in with a 100-megapixel digital camera and Photoshop in 1992. I don't think today's photographer can relate to a photoshoot of Demi Moore in 1990 to one that would happen today. We also have to understand the role of photographers and photography then versus now. We were not inundated with images constantly. When she started at Rolling Stone it was the only way we would see images of our favorite pop musicians and celebrities. She has always had a way of pulling out the nature of her subject, even if it was in a pop culture sort of way. Let's face it, that was her job, and no one has done it better. Most of the iconic pop culture images taken over the past fifty years are hers! Is that happenstance? If you say John Lennon, one of her images comes to mind. You say Bruce Springsteen, I see his ass in front of the American Flag. These are her visions. And yes, I do believe many of her images will stand the test of time, though it will always be impossible to separate her subject from the art. I think we can say the same thing for Karsh. She wasn't shooting weddings; she has been photographing kings. Frankly, I see a lot more value in her work than Ansel Adams'. My useless technical education (nowadays) in imaging may make me more astute in the physics of optics, the chemistry of photography and I may be a damned better printer than most, it doesn't make me Annie Liebovitz. I don't have her vision. What is art? In the end, I will liken it to music. A drummer feels incredibly accomplished when he learns to play a Neil Peart part almost as well as Neil did. But you always have to remember, his virtuosity on the drums is only part of the equation. He CREATED the music; he didn't just play it. Technology has laid waste to the art and skill required to be a photographer and there will be no more Annie Liebovitz's. However, the armchair quarterbacks abound now more than ever!
That's what I've come to realize about myself. I can look at a photo and think, I could do that. (I'm almost there anyway, sometimes) but then I have to ask myself, but would I think to do that? Could I come up with it?
Thanks for sharing that. Really appreciate it. you and I must have studied around the same time - I was at photo school in Pretoria 93-95
Ha! If it weren’t for Ansel Adam, we would have no National Parks system.
Exactly, it`s the spark of inspiration that makes the difference@@L.Spencer
@@Buttercup697 I think your overstating his role in the formation of the National Park System. John Muir and the Sierra Club deserve that credit, though he did help bring awareness.
The first time I saw Vivian Maier's photos, I didn't know who she was. I knew none of her back story. I didn't even know why she was famous; or that she was famous for that matter. I just knew her photos had completely blown me away. I was mesmerized by her photos.
In a lot of respects knowing about a photographer and their backstory is a bit of a hinderance.
@@ThePhotographicEye I would argue with that, sometimes knowing backstory is a part of understanding one's pictures.
But in case of Vivian Maier, I found out about her in one of your videos a bit more than half a year ago, and i wasn't captivated by her story, even tho it is captivating. I was stunned by her photographs, by feeling of the moment, the feeling of life in her shots.
Before that i was briefly interested in photography back in school in 2012, where our physics teacher invited us after school to photography class, where for a first time i looked at the picture that has nothing to do with me or my friends or relatives, the picture that captures the moment, not just shows it. It was Cartier-Bresson's Cyclist. I didn't understand shit about all that and a dropped it soon.
But last year Meier's photos made me feel something. It inspired me to buy a camera and go out and shoot without thinking about who will see my photographs and who will like my photographs. Just shoot for myself, because i actually liked it this time.
@@ser_igel I think that's a problem a lot of photographers face - we get told that an image is 'great' or 'important', but yet it never really lands.
It takes a little spark of something ,in your case Meiers back story, to ignite the fire
The very best way to approach pictures! Let them speak (or not speak) to you one by one! And dare to be disappointed by great names. The problem I see here: many people first have to put a label on everything. Tell them that the woman going upstairs with the many doves scattering about is from HCB. Ahhh, the master, big interest! Ask "wanna see a picture of Rui Palha?" Answer ist: WHO??? Same picture. Different "reading". I try to stay clear of that.
Yes Vivian's images show a human depth, everything that Leibovitz's images do not. With Leibovitz's images you can still sense the set director and his minions rushing around.
Here's the test of a good picture: If it was a shot of your grandmother, would it still be good? Just because the subject if famous doesn't make it a good pic.
Leibovitz’s strength is in the design and staging of her portraits. She’s become a combination of director, cinematographer and art director. The tableau is a very important element to her work. Someone like Avedon, while quite skilled in similar disciplines was more about eliciting a specific reaction and capturing that moment. Different approaches, different photographers, but two very adept artists. When I look at Leibovitz’s photos, there is, quite often, an immediate reaction of "I never would have thought to stage and make an image like this".
That is what talent is. Knowing stuff easily others dont
I met a celebrity photographer once at a seminar. Most of his celebrity clients treated him like crap. Can’t imagine what compelled him to keep working in that business.
Nadar took me back to my student days studying history of photography. Another great video. Thank you
With all due respect, I have been passionate about photography since I was about 7, had a film camera since I was 10, (Voigtlander Bessa 35), developed my own film, and studied and learned from many of the great photographers through books, etc. I was teaching photography, while still a student in school, and had a very good understanding of light, shadow, tone, texture, composition, etc. The reason I mention all of this, is because for several years, I ended up being a model for adverts, magazine and print, and would often get hired by agencies for projects. I found that there were many great photographers doing great work, but just as equally, there were quite a few 'Hacks' who had many minions running around and literally setting up the shot in minute detail and then having said 'Hack" press the shutter button, and getting credit for the brilliance of the final work. Note- the bigger the project, I found there seemed to be more 'Hacks' then not. - Just my two cents. Thanks.
I went to see an Annie Leibovitz exhibition in London around 12 years ago, it might have been at Somerset House. It remains to this day a major inspiration. I saw images I could only dream of creating. Anyone who thinks they can do better just should. Too many photographers miss the point, either on a technical level, that that is the subject, technical perfection, it isn't. Or they think it would be easy if they had all of that background support. Annie delivers time and time again. I can see her images in my head, very few photographers do that. Demi Moore was a sublime shoot, and on and on.
Exactly. Mediocre photographers are always talking crap about better ones
Rui Palha is absolutely amazing. His "live" street photographs are full of stories and reflections, stops and solitude.... full of beautiful shapes and moods wrapped in beautiful light. I want to write that Rui Palha is a living legend...
Musician Bryan Adams is considered a photographer now. And why? Because he has access to celebrities. Beyond that access, his work has the sophistication of a snapshot.
I believe the anonymous photographer at the end is Etienne Carjat (sp?) or Nadar? One of the sitters is Sarah Bernhardt and another is Franz Liszt. And I've seen a stunning, small print of the man with the scarf. I love his use of light, and show some of these to my students when we discuss light.
In the amateur art critic circle, it is very easy to say, "I could have done that!" But you didn't.
In photography, a lot of uneducated viewers also need to know "who is it?" (or "What is it?") It brings a sense of familiarity to the image. As photographers, we pull familiarity from lighting, composition, etc
PS. I own a couple of treasures, Photos of my mom, as a baby, taken (and signed) by Yousef Karsh. As a photographer, I love that one image shows my mom holding Mr. Karsh's light meter.
Very good points about our associations influencing our opinions of photographs (and photographers). It's so hard to extricate the immediate perception of the work from one's other knowledge about the photographer, and sometimes other things, like the milieu of history. Liebovitz has done some great photos, but she is still not one of my favorites, while Maier, IMHO, did a lot of amazing work that stands well on its own, apart from her unique story.
Great video I fly to Lisbon at the end of this month for a 4 day photographic trip and have planes to meet Rue Palha. His work is incredible.
Thanks for this discussion. Because of this video I took the opportunity to return a library book I had and visited the photography section. I am now reading Annie Leibovitz: At Work. She may be a delegator/managing/ directing photographer now but it's clear that she started out like the rest of us. Working alone and lugging all her gear around. Respect to her.
I used to be of the opinion that a photographer should have to do everything on a shoot, but my last project completely changed my mind. I had an assistant for my project, but I was still very hands on, and this really effect the quality of images in the long run.
We don't see people complaining about Steven Spielberg, not setting up the lighting, or operating the camera on a film. With photographers like Annie Leibovitz or Rankin, they are very much a photographer and director and the other members of their crew know their job and are their to full fill the image that the photographer is after
Rankin? 😂
The second part is 100% spot on -
And I think this comes from people from whom photography is a hobby:
"how dare Annie not process her own images - I do and only I can know how to"
Professional photography is a collaborative event.
I think often celebrity photos rely on the viewer knowing who the person is for their strongest effect. That doesn't mean the photos themselves aren't excellent but it's the reliance of the subject being well known that is key. The photos from the 19th century, while interesting seemed to rely on the viewer knowing who the subject was. There are many excellent photos of relative nobodies that are extremely famous because the photographer captured an essence about the person that comes through in the photo.
I bought Annie's thick book two years back. Although I like Gregory Heisler's images better, I have a deep admiration and respect for her. She may not be technical every time (bad focus, crooked walls etc.), but one can never say that her images are thoughtless or casual snapshots. Having a big team on big productions does not mean easier job for her in any way. Sure she does not shuffle lightstands and sandbags around, but she has the vision which is 90 % of the final photo. All the assistants are just there to move things around and make it happen. But none of them can tell what she wants the photo to look like. And hell, she built her carreer from nothing and she's keeping it up for decades, which I believe is the most difficult thing of all.
I'm not a fan of Annie Leibovitz's work. But, I can't deny the talent and skill she has. Her composition with group shots are really good.
I agree this guy is giving jealousy vibes. Not trying to sound like a troll aren't we supposed to discuss him just as he discusses others
The early images were made by Jaques Felix DeTournachon (sp?) aka Nadar- an early Parisian photographer and the first aerial photographer.
Interestingly enough, perhaps, I'm reminded of the problem with listening to Beethoven or listening to Mozart where you're so overwhelmed with the idea that THIS IS BEETHOVEN or THIS IS MOZART that you're unable truly to listen to the music and recognize why people revere the particular piece by Beethoven or Mozart (or Beethoven or Mozart themselves).
Originally studied painting for my degree in fine arts. We had way too many art history classes, but that’s another story. Saw the Liebowitz Exhibit at the Museum of Art in San Diego during early 2000s. It wasn’t the celebrities in her images that struck me. What caught my attention was that many of her compositions reminded me of famous paintings. That’s not a bad way to approach images, and we all are inspired by things we’ve seen. I found myself asking, what if the celebrities were not in those images? The answer at the time is that many of her images work without a celebrity being there. So a cynic could claim celebrities make her images, though really it’s the compositions. I’ve also met a few people who assisted on her productions, and told some interesting stories, though that’s best left for offline conversation.
Hi Alex, you always find these thought provoking subjects to cover. Thank you for that.
My pleasure, thank you so much for watching
My two bits: there is always a message, even with each and every entity in the era of instaphotography. The real passion is instantly recognizable (at least for me), the hard part is figuring out the exact language...there are so many.
IMHO the message comes primiarily from the viewer projecting their experiences onto the image and seeing it reflected back
@@ThePhotographicEyeA good photographer is an artist behind a camera
@@austerepotato3159 or in my case, a frustrated and no very good artist :D
@@ThePhotographicEye I beg to differ
You haven't seen my drawings!
Another great video with super inspiring photos. Many thanks for that. But as far as Annie Leibovitz is concerned, I think her very simple everyday photos are just beautiful. She may have become famous herself because of the famous people she photographed, but her banal, everyday photographs are without a doubt great works of art.
"Correctness" is the enemy of creativity. Almost definitively, conformity to established "standards" is the antithesis of art. That said, knowing how to do something "properly" is fundamental to the improvisation that is essential to the artistic process. Learning musical scales and modes provides a foundation from which you can depart in a creative manner. Studying the work of others is necessary in order to establish your own style. We all borrow selectively (whether we realize/admit it or not).
I've no great interest in portraiture (I tend to avoid people in my photographs), but I can certainly appreciate it (I like a lot of your work). I remember a show years ago of Annie's work in Washington DC (Corcoran?). She's clearly far from being a hack, but that type of tableau photography requires time, effort, and staff few of us have. That doesn't mean we can't learn from her process.
Also, thanks for pointing out how very different it is to see an actual print rather than an on-screen image. The only true photograph is a print! It's like the difference between a live performance and a digital recording--live is better!
Looking at timeless photos from the masters is a great way to inspire young photographers to learn analog photography. Annie Leibovitz early work for Rolling Stone Mag. was pretty cool. Once she started doing celebrity portraits, she lost her real vision. Highly art directed photos of celebrities are boring. However, she's a master of her art. And you cannot take that away from her.
I had the privilege to assist Richard Avedon. He's my hero. As a portrait photogrpher, this man just love his art. And is highly respectful to everyone involved in the process. Unlike Annie. Extremely difficult to work with.
Quite a refreshing video. Cuts through received wisdom, to think about what matters most to the individual photographer. I like the quote "the less you know, the easier it is to jump in." Important to get to a state that allows you to be surprised at what you see, no matter who the photographer was. Worth referring back to Keats' "negative capability," I will quote from Wikipedia. "Negative capability is the capacity of artists to pursue ideals of beauty, perfection and sublimity even when it leads them into intellectual confusion and uncertainty, as opposed to philosophical certainty over artistic beauty." I would add - not just philosophical certainty, but also the certainty that if it's done by a great photographer, it must automatically be great, and you have to voice that opinion. And the reverse notion: an unknown or minor artist can create something of beauty. Though it's not easy to learn to think for yourself, it's a good exercise to try to do so.
Very good point & observation Alex Kilbee, a century from now things will be looked at in a different way for sure!
They sure will!
Why are photo books so heavy? Why are they so expensive, is my question? Im a big fan of Nadar by the way, the Daguerreotype is amazing as art in itself.
I think the same argument applies to classical musicians, knowing who the performer is often ruins or at least puts a bias into my listening experience. Sometimes the best performances turn out to be by complete unknowns and some of the worst by classical superstars.
In a nutshell...
People are free to like what they like and dislike what they dislike. However, what I feel has become weird normality is that people become nasty, impolite and rude about expressing when they dislike something.
I'm not sure what it is about Penn's work but I immediately recognize his images regardless of having seen them before. In the past, I've tried to replicate his techniques and recreate his look but never succeeded. Ultimately I connect with his work on a non-analytical-emotional level; for me, that's the secret sauce of great imagery. Making the view feel something. And many of my favorite images of his have nothing to do with celebrity.
Yes, shooting someone like Sean Connery or a super model with a staff of a dozen, battery packs, lights, and a huge budget to create a dreamy production, is different than most of us experience. But it doesn't make her a hack. I too love Hurrell and have burns on my fingers from my hot lights and use medium format film for some of my work. Even Avedon who was an ID photographer in the coast guard and many of his images look like ID photos, they all have something to teach us. Too few folks have studied the history of photography. I shot it with digital in 2008 but am now starting a project shooting it with film, starting with Nadar right through folks like Man ray and Ritts.
I feel a lot of people struggle to make the distinction you've pointed out there.
Good call about Avedon's background btw - I'd never avtually made the connection!
People went gaga over his portraits that were blank expression id photos on plain white background. My concealed carry trainer took one of those for my ccw. I need another for my passport. But that isn't all his work, the snake tongue shot, amazing in the days before 9 fps burst mode. And like Lebovitz, his production shots like the elephant shot are beautiful. @@ThePhotographicEye
I've photographed a lot of unknown bands and you always try to make them look like famous rock stars. Looking for those iconic moments which might appear in a music mag, or album cover. But the camera does seem to know who the future stars are. Don't know if it's that certain glint in the eye, body confidence or natural talent of knowing what will attract the photographer.
There was a photographer (?) before the 1950's I believe who would, Like Anne L set up extravagant settings. But in his eyes, the skill was in the set up, actually pressing the shutter button was beneath him so he had a "technician" do it.
John French famous British photographer I believe of whom you are referring to. David Bailey studied under him briefly back in the late 1950's.
Nadar's portrait of the composer Giuseppe Verdi. I also recognised Franz Liszt.
Nardar was the photographer.
When I was in the military back in the seventies, I was assigned to create a Christmas Card for out photo lab to be sent out to other labs in the fleet. So, I designed the Gard I wanted to do and for my composition, I needed individual portraits shot of each person working in the Lab to be shot in a tight Horizontal format. A superior, who was incharged of the photography, who I was to work work, flatly refused the shoot the portraits in that format and insisted in following the "camera club" rule of shooting the portrait vertical. We got into a big argument back and forth to the point that I wanted to quit working on the project. I ended up doing it his way and the Christmas card was horrible.
I tend to look at a photo as a whole. I don't care who shot it, or what the subject is. Does it make me react WOW? If so, then maybe, I'll look for other photos by the same photographer. I may find that most or all their work makes go WOW, or might just be the one photo. Then, for my own photographer advancement, what made me go WOW? To me, that can be tougher than you would think. 🙂
Annie Leibovitz's work evolution is like seeing your favorite underground punk rock band suddenly wearing suits and selling out arenas. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with what she's done over the last 30 years, but if you told me the person who took the last photos of John Lennon, later took those super polished portraits of Queen Elizabeth, I'm not sure I'd believe you. Every once in a while, she'll do an intimate portrait that ticks all the vintage Annie boxes. I don't know how her photography will be looked at in a hundred years, but I'd imagine that those intimate portraits will stand out from the high gloss stuff.
I think it's also worth remembering that a lot of these are taken for a specific reason.
What I see over that same time frame is Annie going back to her Art School roots - classical painted portraits for example.
the rather simple technique Re: lighting and backdrop- in the Jane Fonda Jennnifer Lawrence portrait gives it an honesty and immediacy.
Hi Alex, when I see a great photo it doesn't bother me to know who photographed it, I just enjoy and appreciate the photo and then I say this was a great photographer. Glad to hear about Cindy Sherman, I haven't heard of her. Enjoy the exibitions. Thanks for this video it was very enjoyable. 😊
Thanks for that!
@@ThePhotographicEye Your very welcome Alex thanks 😊
I enjoyed this topic very much and have some definite views. The images you showed are fabulous, artistic and worthy. The photographer still makes most of the choices, lighting, composition, timing of the moment, etc. The famous photographer deserves their accolades and their place in history.
However, having access to beautiful people - and you can't deny that many of the images are of beautiful people, having access to spectacular locations, having a stylist, hairdresser, make-up artist etc., all helps the process. With those resources I believe there is more opportunity, scope, etc., to do great photography. But you still need the talent and the skill. Not taking that away. I've been looking at the work of the likes of Julia Fullerton-Batton. Truly great photographer and you can't take anything away from that. But the level of resources she brings to a project and an image is amazing.
One of my main sources of inspiration is Hollywood. I recently watched Poor Things and the stills that can be extracted from that movie are absolute masterpiece. Top marks to the artistry and skills of the director, actors, everyone. But it is an example of what you are talking about. Beautiful people, endless ligting resources, incredible setsand locations. You had to have lots of money and resources and the artistry.
Look at the interiors of mansions and castles, etc. as backgrounds. I don't have access to that here in Australia. It sometimes frustrates me. But I'm not using these things as an excuse. I need to add other skills to my artistry to get the results I want. Improvisation, montage, begging, borrowing, but not stealing - lol.
The greats are great - but they have access to resources and environmental factors that enhance their journey to success. Yes - they also had to trudge the road to getting to that level. Some also had kuck on their side but all still needed artistry and skill.
Udo Bucher
Fascinating video and discussion. Thanks for constantly opening up meaningful narratives surrounding photography.
Never look at the equipment, the planning, the technique, the time/ labor, or the reputational leverage and conclude if the photographer is deserved or not. Look at the photos. Annie accomplishes the most important part of portrait photography; she allows the subject to be part of a creative experience and she conveys a story and her interpretation of the subject that creates conversation and introspection. Too many people these days buy a camera with decent capabilities and then judge professionals through their sensibilities and esthetics. They may have even created a decent photo and think they are professional level. As a song writer we would say the difference between a one hit wonder and a songwriter is craft. The same is true for professional photography. It is a repeated process that creates muscle memory that then allows the photographer to forget the equipment or technique and begin to be expressive and creative. That is the difference. Annie knew the craft.
Thank you for this - it helped me switch my perspective and view images in a different way.
Thank you, Alex, for going into a deeper dive on the subject of this weekend’s news letter. I’m going to try your suggestion of going to a museum and studying photographs of unrecognizable people, by photographers I’ve never heard of or don’t know much about.
Awesome, thanks for watching
Your videos are the ones I learn from the most. Thank you so much! The portrait at 15:04 is stunning. Great selection in general! Lindbergh was my favorite photographer, because he wanted to capture the essence of the person in front of him. Also great photographers: Inta Ruka, Anton Corbijn and Paolo Roversi.
Portrait of Eugene Pelletan by Nadar Gaspard-Félix Tournachon
Awesome, thank you!
The issue with Leibovitz has little to do with technical expertise, it has everything to do with the fact that had she not been GIVEN a career that came with immediate access to famous people at such an early age, she wouldn't have such a portfolio of work that is revered simply because of the people in the images. She is given these assignments now because she's always had access to this world of celebrities the majority of photographers could never have not to mention the literal cadre of expert assistants that do all the heavy lifting for her.
Go back to her early work to understand why she's so talented. Her commercial work is outstanding regardless of her large productions - YOU try producing great images under that much pressure. She deserves the opportunities she gets. I only wish she treated her associates better. I've hired freelancers who worked for her and had nothing good to say about the experience.
Sad to hear that about her but as a woman she is maybe protecting herself as we are hearing all sorts of sh*t just as this dude here is saying. I myself come up with compositions under stress and it isn't easy
quite a meta-topic. I paused several times to think. But yes, the moment an artist releases his work, he or she loses the right to give the correct interpretation. The piece of art stands for itself.
Great video lecture thank you.... erm don't believe you have ever mentioned Lois Greenfield.... I know she is a studio only type photographer... but her images are in another world I do declare Alex......?
I have heard of her, but thanks for the suggestion!
I'm a real fan of dance photography :D
15.04 portrait of Eugene Pelletan by Nadar aka Gaspard-Félix Tournachon
got loads of her books. A big inspiration for my photography.
Same. Talented people are always torn into pieces by mediocre photographers
I needed to find a context that connected me where I understood the same interest/awe/jealousy. For me, it is Walter Iooss, Jr. While Matthew Brady would be the photographer of my History interests, Iooss captures the lifelong love I have for sports. I don't even have to go to a museum to see his work. The art is captured and produced on sports cards for all to share if they so choose, though it is better seeing it large in the Baseball Hall of Fame or other shrines to sports. I'm sure many have the same question about Iooss as the one posed about Leibovitz. Was it access to famous athletes that made him famous? No. There still had to be a vision to the image. Both photographers needed to somehow illicit the look that bore the soul of the individual they were shooting. Either could do the same in a photo of myself, who nobody knows from Adam, but they capture individuals for whom we already have feelings. Those are amplified with the images.
Leibovitz is an excellent photographer when she is doing personal work. Her production numbers, with a 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 few exceptions, are all gloss. They are about her, not the subject.
Good point, and an important distinction to make IMHO.
Shoot for the sale, or shoot for the soul
Enjoyed this video, thanks.
I made a video about Harrell and Charles Bull just last week. Both highly influential on how I think of portrait photography. There is so much to learn by looking at how these photographers worked. They also prove to me that to get awesome photos you don’t need all the modern features.
Rules are for the guidance of the wise and the obedience of fools.
Love the quote there :D
I might have to use it myself one day!
Thanks so much for watching
Rules! Ignore them.
What catches your attention when you look at the whole.
Look at it as an artist not as a critic.
My memory of visiting an exhibition of Dali's work was not of his impressive popular paintings, but what was conveyed to the viewer in some of his smaller paintings.
Artist, photographers are trying to communicate an intimate reaction, as the viewer it is necessary to understand what that message is.
I have some trouble remembering photographer's names and work, there's so many. But I remember George Hurrell's work, from lighting class last semester. I was trying to imitate the style.
How did you get on Lloyd?
Oof, barely know what I'm doing. Taking portraiture this semester, and we can use the studios and lighting on campus, so I'm hoping to get better. (My name's Lorie, btw.)@@ThePhotographicEye
@@L.Spencer Oh, I'm so sorry, I thought you were someone else - there was a Lloyd who had the same surname who watched the channel a while back!
IRT the lighting, - work with one light first. Once you feel comfortable, the add a background light, then more as you get better
Good advice! :)@@ThePhotographicEye
So, can context make or ruin a photograph for a viewer? What does that say about the photograph?
The same really about any image - it's not up to the photographer to decide if it's good or not - it's the viewer.
IIRC Ansel Adams said there are always two people in a photograph - the photographer and the viewer.
Thanks for watching
I guess in every photography school they ask you to reproduce famous photographer work, mine was Helmut Newton - that was fun 35 years ago
I do enjoy looking at Kenny Rogers work.
I like Annie Leibovitz quite a bit, my personal favorite is her portrait of the diver Greg Louganis. I've also seen a lot of shade thrown her way over the years, though it should be pointed out probably less than Edward Steichen who, after all these years, is reviled in some quarters. I remember hearing a Q&A with with the fashion photographer Sheila Metzner. Some guy from the audience got up and essentially said that anybody could do what she did if they had the high end equipment she had. As I recall she deflected him gracefully by says that it was harder than it looked.
I think with people like Steichen etc there's a few things at play:
1- they're not around anymore, so not able to 'upset' people with their new ideas or approaches in their work
2 - Tall poppies syndrome - people want to cut others down to size..
There will always be people who think all you need is a fancy camera
Thank you for this video. Convinced me to go to the Crystal Bridges Museum in Bentonville Arkansas. Excellent museum if you're ever in this part of the world. They are featuring a Annie Liebovitz exhibit, which is ending the end of this month. Been debating on whether to go see it or not, as it's a 150 mile drive not that that really matters in this part of the world.
That’s awesome, thanks for watching
I think the only people that would think that Annie Leibovitz is just a hack are people who think their own abilities exceed hers and are jealous of her success compared to their own lack of it.
The rest of us see photos of famous people taken by a celebrated photographer and just enjoy her success and the photographs.
Interesting live show, thank you
Thank you too
Arnold Newman, one of the greatests
Coffee in your coffee mug huh. There was never a thought it might be whiskey until you mentioned that🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You either like a photograph or you don't. I've been image editing for over 30 years, I'm of the opinion that the most unpleasant aspect of photography is photographers and photographic critics.
Image editing in what context?
I really don't think it is that easy, a simple dichotomy between like and dislike. There are reasons behind our likes and dislikes and I see no problem with discussing them. If you like or dislike an image, tell us why. Don't just cut the conversation dead by pretending it's just a matter of taste.
@@philmartin5689 Unless it's a matter of bullshit! I go to a great many photography web sites and 95+% of the comments are just that. Not to mention the obliteration of intelligence by popular trends.
@@davidmilisock5200 you haven't really replied to what I said. You claim 90% of critcism is bullshit but I cannot agree or disagree because I don't know how you define "bullshit"?
@@philmartin5689 The reality is this, your reasons for disliking a image or feature therein are no more valid than your reasons to like them. They are simply an opinion by someone. I once discussed with a photographer his use of the focal plane. Then after several minutes I I realized that his process didn't allow him to even see the subtle but in my opinion a rather poor effect. Then I later realized that this was a dominating aspect of the process for many photographers.
@@davidmilisock5200 I haven't a clue what you're on about with the discussion about focal plain?? I don't know about you but I'm perfectly capable of explaing why I don't like an image or a specific photographer other than justcsaying "nah!! I don't like it".
My ex worked for Leibovitz as a personal assistant. Every night she came home in tears. I won't give the details, but calling Leibovitz a narcissistic monster would be an understatement. And yeah. Her photos bore me to tears. I'll take Wee-Gee or Smith over her opportunist garbage any day.
Excellent.
Concept, gesture, expression. Leibovitz is brilliant. She is extremely technical and very familiar with her tools. You may think these people just waltz in and push the button but you would be wrong. I’ve had the pleasure of working for many of the great photographers through the 90s and early 2000. Most at the level of Leibovitz have incredibly strong photographic foundations. It’s odd that people think that separation or a hand in the shot are technically wrong. It’s art….. forcing it into a narrow viewpoint of “technically correct” seems a bit formulaic and quite frankly absurd. The best of the best all have some things in common, concept, gesture, expression, light, but also the ability to achieve a rapport quickly, direct them effectively, and timing to “capture the moment”.
When I see an Annie Leibovitz photograph, my first reaction is that it was made to get my attention. She does this in two ways. She photographs celebrities. She frequently puts them in bizarre situations. We have to look. After a moment, we realize that we are being manipulated, and that her work has no substance that matters beyond the superficial interest that it screams for in its demand.
The best portraits make a statement about our common nature. Her pictures don't do that. In the grand scheme of things, her subjects are entertainers, and unimportant. They are themselves simply fleeting entertainment crafted for a mass audience and likewise, unimportant. If we didn't know who her subjects were, we wouldn't care about her pictures.
Pls avoid using "We" say "I", subjective...your eye is not my eye, vice versa. It is a matter of taste. Isn't it?
My apologies. Of course you are correct.
I only speak for myself, though I would like to believe that everyone should agree with me. ;-)
@@geraldricoguevara3340
The issue I have with Leibovitz is the uncritical, hagiographic nature of her work. She is simply a passive propagandist and a cog in the American hyper-capitalist meat grinder.
Portrait photography is not an easy topic to handle. You have to know lighting, posing, how to work with a model. It's not about snapshots. You really have to understand what you're doing, and who you're doing it with. One could easily say Annie Leibovitz is overrated. However as a photographer, I wouldn't agree with that sentiment. She has a talent only few can really achieve. If anything, she is inspiring.
I really like your style
I have followed you from the beginning! I really like your videos.
Oh hello! I recognize the avatar!
How are you?
Thanks so much, and wonderful to have you here still :D
Enjoyed the vlog, always making me think
Thanks - I'm glad you enjoyed it
I don't think Annie Leibovitz is a talentless hack but there has been more than a few times when I thought some of her photos were just OK. I've seen what I consider to be much better portfolios, from no-name photographers, but to be fair her style may not just be my cup of tea.
Great video. The mystery photographer? Gaspard-Félix Tournachon (pseudonym Nadar).
I use a photograph by Dorthea Lange from 1952 taken in San Francisco of a woman and a child to query people on what they think. I get about 3 or more descriptions of what's going on in the image, those opinions flavor what these people think of the photographer.
As long as people aren't attacking the photographer I'm OK with that because in many cases what's going on in your mind was made up there.
'Attacking the photographer' - much like play the ball, not the man.
The photography world would be much nicer if that were the case, that people stopped throwing stones.
But hey ho, unlikely to happen!
Wow, I am so bad at photography that I have never looked at a Leibovitz, Mapplethorpe, Liberman, etc image and thought "Gee, that image is technically flawed." I have always just enjoyed the picture and then, upon subsequent views, tried to understand what the photographer was trying to say with the image. Were there any secondary stories that were less obvious that I could discover? I guess this is because believed that they, as photographers that had risen to a level that allowed them access to their famous subjects, had something to teach/tell me with their image and were not just taking snapshots (although some look like it). Apparently, I have been doing it wrong.
Some people mistake talent for unlimited budget, unlimited resources and access to the rich and famous..... QED A.L.
Nah. Take away the gimmicky setups and the celebrities, and there's not much to Liebovitz. Penn or Karsh or Arnold or Nadar or most of the jobbing photographers in Hollywood in the 1940s did work that stands on its own.
I wouldn't call her a "hack", but I think she's over-rated.
Just my two bob's worth. 😁
Fair enough, each to their own.
What I found was that as a younger photographer I was too much 'oh she's just famous because of xyz', so I didn't bother to see if there was anything I could learn from her.
Thanks for watching Shane
Gaspard-Félix Tournachon alias Nadar is the photographer of the 19th century photographs. At first I thought it was Julia Margaret Cameron but I was incorrect. I admit I had to do a little searching to get it right.
I wouldn't say she is a hack, but she does just about the same type of thing over and over There is not much surprise I much prefer urban photos. You know finding the good, the bad, beautiful and ugly in life around you.
It's worth remembering that a lot of these are created for a specific purpose - magazine photography
Annie’s best work was done at the start of her career whilst working for “Rolling stone”
To be honest, I find Marco Grob a better photographer of personalities…. Annie has just become so much of a star herself, she produces the images the big magazes expect of her…
Annie Leibovitz, all her photo's are staged events. the average photographer does not have that access.
I always liked her images but her photo shoots are Hollywood productions if you will. She is not alone. There are other famous photographers who have a similar set up.
So what?
Do you say the same thing about Tarantino or Scorsese? She directs her team.
Sounds like victim mentality. Ask government to guarantee equal access for all photographers 😂
World is so unequal when people who don't want to commit, sacrifice and put hard work don't get the same outcome as those who do.
@@Roman_4x5 ah yes, the even playing field myth.
Not at the beginning … she too was once a one woman show. And realistically, it does take a team to create what her TEAM creates… but no one starts off that way, you build up to it.
I'm almost certain when you reach a certain level, the ONLY thing the powers that be want you focusing on is releasing the shutter. Not dicking around with lighting, or dialing in exposures, etc. That is just *not* a good use of the photographers time/the clients budget.
her old stuff is a lot better then her new stuff, even her journilist work is great, or more conceptual famous people shoots she used to do. her stuff is great but pefer older work of hers
For me it all comes down to the end product. Is it interesting? Is it compelling? Is it provocative? Is it beautiful? That's what matters. I'm not drawn to celebrities and Leibovitz's photography has never been all that interesting to me. But, if her work is good it doesn't matter if I like it or not and, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't even matter how she gets it done. If she has a good team and all she does is waltz in and click the shutter and the picture is good, more power to her and her team.
I like the “productions”
I think the photographer was Felix Nadar?
Yes, it is
I think it's a stretch to put Libovitz and Gainsborough in the same sentence. There is a reason behind the axiom, it's not what you know but who you know.
But it helps to know things :D
Thanks for watching John
By the 2nd photo, I was pretty sure it was Mathew Brady.
I have the same mug!
In the distant future people will still linger over Annie Leibovitz photos. If they don’t know that Cindy Sherman was a Big Deal, it will be, “Meh. What are these doing in here?”
BTW in my opinion the hand over the shoulder in the image of Jane Fonda works well. It draws your eye to the young lady which is a subtle way of accenting the younger generation.
See how easy it is to interpret an image in two totally different ways?
Thanks
@@ThePhotographicEye You should try and show Dorthea Langes image of a verybyoung boy walking with his mother inn1952 San Francisco! Wow you'll get a cat fight.
Simply as images, I find many images self absorbed and very often banal and dull.
Is that a reflection on me? Or is it the photographer has failed to inspire..
Every time I review a photograph I ask the question ' is this a keeper for me or potentially my audience', the latter being the voice that matters. It's probably the reason why I have so few keepers. Self absorption in photography is evident everywhere. The last judge of a photograph should be the photographer.
That's the one - the last sentence.
Everyone interprets an image differently - that's part of the joy.
What is sad though is so many people throw away images because they think they are rubbish. :(
Thanks for watching
Can't hardly hear what your saying. The volume is way to low. Please turn up. You do a great job. Never miss one of your sessions. Thanks
Hi. Thank you for your feedback. Sorry you can't hear - I've asked a few people and it's fine for them - have you checked your own settings?