Annie Leibovitz on the cover of UK magazine with her Leica M

Kevin said:
It would be envy, if it were even the case.

She's the boss of a talented recruiter of some very talented assistants.
Don't ignore that team of talented assistants, Honey, and the experienced recruiter who found them.

These idea-rich assistants set up the shots and prep the models and even prepare the cameras for exposure.

Then she steps in, points a camera into the arranged composition and presses the button repeatedly.

The models work especially hard because they know the pictures created by this team will get global exposure.

You don't have to be overly bright to figure out who is spawning the creative ideas and preparing for session and who is taking advantage of her status/label/logo.

Best to All
Click to expand...

And, no doubt, she speaks highly of your work too……..
 
Great photographers usually photograph the poor for the rich people to see. Annie leibovitz photographs rich people for poor people to see.
 
While I respect your opinion …

You stated: “have a look at her latest "coffee table" size book, covering more of her personal work, in particular her relation to Susan Sonntag ...”

IMO this book is filled with some of the most mediocre fotos I have seen by a renowned photographer. It did not make the cut onto my library shelves. Not much to say about it really.

You stated: “Take a look at her photo of QE2. It is magisterial.”

Huh? This is a cliché photograph if I ever saw one.

You stated: “Real issues do not define what is "important" to anyone,.”

Quite the opposite; Chronicling war, famine, disease, and the oppressed is important, especially to those suffering the indignation. What is important appears on the front pages of newspapers and critical publications, not People magazine. Don’t get me wrong, I like some of her work. But important it is not.
 
Nh3 said:
Great photographers usually photograph the poor for the rich people to see. Annie leibovitz photographs rich people for poor people to see.
Click to expand...

Quite my opinion too. I have no doubt that she is a very talented photographer but I have no interest at all in what she photographs.
 
Earlier this year I went to see an exhibition about her and her work at the Legion of honor museum in here in San Francisco.
I was disappointed about what I saw. Pretty boring stuff.
The famous pictures of Bill gates sitting at his desk checking emails and Jack Nicholson in his morning robe hitting some golfballs. Were taken by surprise while they were getting bored during the shoot...
 
helenhill said:
Some of you Boys
are sooooooo Jealous
or is it Green with Envy.......

Shes a Woman & Talented!!

Best to All- Helen 🙂
Click to expand...

I find this type of ridiculous accusation to be nothing but a thought-stopper, here, as much as it would be in the political arena or a courtroom. I am frankly sick of hearing this type of offense offered as a defense.

When this tactic is used, we (whoever that "we" happens to be at the time - here, those that think her work is over-rated) are being accused of judging not on the deeds/works/remarks of an individual, but on the gender/race/faith/sexual persuasion of that person. Magicians call this type of sleight-of-hand "misdirection."

No matter who or what A.L. is, I made my evaluation of her work based on my viewing of her photographs.

Let's turn this around. What if I were to accuse Helen of being favorably biased toward Annie Lebovitz, solely because of her gender? I imagine she would be just as offended by that supposition because it implies Helen has no other criteria for evaluating the material.

For the record: one of my favorite photographers was/is Diane Arbus and I'll even add her mentor, Lisette Model; both brought a whole new direction or language to modern photography. Here I'll admit envy of their work, but that doesn't bring anything but positive comments.

Duke Ellington once famously said, "If it sounds good, it is good." This concept about music appreciation can successfully and reasonably be applied also to photography. There is just no reason for impugning anyone's motives for their opinion.

Sorry for the rant, but that type of remark makes the target (I guess that would be "Some of you Boys" in this case) appear to be mindless gibbering idiots for having an opinion counter to the attacker's. I've not been a boy in many a decade, but I do have an opinion, like it or not. And Helen's ending her silly remarks with "Best to All" doesn't help.
 
To begin :
I was not on a rant or a tirade against everyone here.
I'm a woman , a minority @RFF and I do speak with my tongue in cheek. I mean come on, LOOK at my avatar, its Betty Boop there was no ill will intended or sarcasm / I did put a smiley at the end and did mean Best to All....

Personally I'm not a big Fan of her work
but I do think the criticism is abit over the Top.
Ms. Leibowitz is Talented & Creative with respect to
the 'Glamour ' Photography Scene.

I do agree her work is more on the shallow hipster cool level but it works & sells very well. She has climbed to the Top of that arena through hard work, a good eye, & able to bring out the best in that b****y world of the Rich & Famous (the celebs adore her which is a talent in itself / bringing out the Best in people)

Don't forget in her more humble days of starting out she worked incredibly hard without the crew of talented assistants and now is able to reap the Rewards and have the Good Fortune to sell many a Magazine and be sought after.

I do agree with januaryman regarding:
Lisette Model, Diane Arbus
(& Helen Levitt who you did not mention)
Their work is Stunning & their Vision inspiring
but I do think Annie deserves an Applaud
and on occasion a Smile to one's face when viewing some of her Photographs.

Cheers ! 🙂 helen
 
Late as usual to the thread, but I'd really be pleased to have a sliver of her talent, as evidenced by her success in her chosen specialty. As far as the content or unevenness of her work, I think one can criticize subject choice or hit-rate of most successful photographers. (Perusing contacts of well-known photogs can be enlightening in this regard.) Even the documentarians of relatively unassailable moral stature, such as Nachtwey, are permitted a lapse or two, no? I tend to agree with Helen. AL didn't establish her place in the business without paying her dues. Truth is, I feel presumptuous in the extreme judging such work anyway ...
 
Hmmm...I've found many old acquaintances among the arguments. Some sound very similar to "everybody can make a good Portrait/nude/whatever when he/she has such a celebrity/beautiful model"
One POV I did not find was that one of people who are not so into photography but use AL as a yardstick to explain to photogs how good photography should be.
Anyway I asked my firend S.Ch.Monzes for some tips

The purist Photographer:
1) Fancy Cameras are for pretentious buffoons. Take a shoebox , a needle and a roll of film
2) Do everything yourself and alone this will make it a spiritual experience. So what if your model has to wait while you have to arange the background, that's what models are for
3) For nudes you should limit the age of your model to 78 years and up!
4)Take Phgotographs of the unexpected: Britney Spears wearnig underpants, Matthew Mac Conaughey wearing a Shirt on the beach, Naomi Campell embracing her PA

The fancy Photographer
1) There are no stars. There is only you and and you make the stars
2) Tkae the best equipment like Leica, Hasselblad or Alpa. If you have problems memorizing these names look at the pricin labels and take the most expensive one.
3) Whatever equipment is launched buy it immediatly!
4) trifle work like changing film or data cards, metering light and arranging lighting is for assistants. You are there for much higher purposes.
5) Always try to be a unique brand! So if there are to many Photogs who copy your style take
a shoebox.....
Best regards
Des
 
Spider67 said:
...
Anyway I asked my firend S.Ch.Monzes for some tips

The purist Photographer:
1) Fancy Cameras are for pretentious buffoons. Take a shoebox , a needle and a roll of film
2) Do everything yourself and alone this will make it a spiritual experience. So what if your model has to wait while you have to arange the background, that's what models are for
3) For nudes you should limit the age of your model to 78 years and up!
4)Take Phgotographs of the unexpected: Britney Spears wearnig underpants, Matthew Mac Conaughey wearing a Shirt on the beach, Naomi Campell embracing her PA

The fancy Photographer
1) There are no stars. There is only you and and you make the stars
2) Tkae the best equipment like Leica, Hasselblad or Alpa. If you have problems memorizing these names look at the pricin labels and take the most expensive one.
3) Whatever equipment is launched buy it immediatly!
4) trifle work like changing film or data cards, metering light and arranging lighting is for assistants. You are there for much higher purposes.
5) Always try to be a unique brand! So if there are to many Photogs who copy your style take
a shoebox.....
Best regards
Des
Click to expand...

Sorry. What exactly do you want to express?
If I had to choose between these two extremes I would like to be the fancy photographer and make lots of money with it.
 
"What exactly do you want to express?"

"I would like to be the fancy photographer and make lots of money with it."

->you see answer given.
Schlaf gut!
 
victoriapio said:
Wrong. Her work IS compelling and cutting edge for those clickers who want to excel in that same genre, just as Salgado is important with his branch of photorgaphy. Real issues do not define what is "important" to anyone, the viewer decides that.
Click to expand...

Truth.

Furthermore, if any of her detractors have seen her Sarajevo work, they'd be less quick to criticise.

Now can we discuss Platon's portraiture?
 
Of course it's fun to slag her off. Like all the people at the touch-line, or more likely watching on TV, who watch footballers or whoever and contend "I could do that". But could you really deliver, on the day, whoever's watching, and whatever petulant, troubled, Hollywood character or royal you have to deal with? You will never know.

I reckon she uses a Hexar AF for all her reportage, but poses with a Leica, just to suggest she doesn't need autofocus.
 
Some interesting comments in this thread, It would seem AL is a bit like Marmite (i.e. you either love or hate her work)

I've always felt that in some ways you can tell an important artist or practitioner by the level and intensity of debate/argument they attract 🙂
 
There was a pretty hilarious and scathing article in the Guardian about the Vanity Fair exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery in London. My favorite passage imagines a Leibovitz protrait of DH Lawrence in the 1920s:

"What would Leibovitz have done with DH Lawrence? [...] The chief photographer of the magazine since its relaunch in the early 80s is famous for her set-ups - photographic contrivances that play with elements of the subject's public persona. In the early days, these tended to be rather literal-minded - the Blues Brothers with blue faces; Bette "The Rose" Midler on a bed of roses.

"I pictured her telling DH of the two options she had envisaged. The cover image would feature him naked from the waist up. If he was OK with it, she was planning to duct-tape his mouth, to represent censorship. His triumph against the forces of repression would be indicated by a raised eyebrow, representing self-expression. For the inside spread, he would pose as Mellors the gamekeeper with a brace of live pheasant and Virginia Woolf as his Lady Chatterley. Whatever the indignities, he would suffer them in the knowledge that these high-impact portraits would appeal to a broader audience than the one who read his books. Women at the hairdressers, flicking through magazines, would pause when they got to the gamekeeper shot. His reservations about the integrity of this process would be silenced by its obvious effectiveness."

The full article: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/photography/story/0,,2264552,00.html
 
Thanks for the link Andrew! As good as as good satiric cartoon. But anywaqy the article on AL is also worth reading:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article4860955.ece

interesting her statement that she has to go back if the first session yields no results. Who does have or who gets the time to do something like that nowadays. I have the impression that very often photogs don#t get their 15 minutes of fame but are given only 15 minutes in order to take pics of celebs....except AL who get#s noer thanks to her work and her reputation
 
Kevin said:
I bet an assistant loads it for her.
Click to expand...

If you watch the documentary about her, you see her load the leica really fast. Literally 1-2-3-done.

The camera she used was a M6 TTL or M7 since you see the large shutter speed dial with the current Motor-M attached. Not sure about the lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom