If this was my christening, I'd be asking for my money back

[Frontman]

Based on the photographs in the link I would say Mario whatever-his-name has an inflated ego and over values his "talent". In other words, an artistic jack-ass based off how uncomfortable the Duke and Duchess look in the photos (force smiles, awkward stances). These photographs are supposed to be of a joy-filled day. What I get is a stiff, painful photo shoot where everyone just wants to get it over and done with. It's obvious the photographer did not connect with the royal family.
As for the technical qualities, they are what they are. Mario obviously was trying to put is mark on them. Based on the general reaction by those who have posted in this thread, his attempt is a failure.
He's no Annie Leibovitz.

There was a lot of criticism directed toward Annie Leibowitz on this forum a few years ago for her photos of Obama and his family.

I agree that the christening photos are nothing but ordinary, but that might have been the intention. The royal family has a publicity agency manage such things, and these photos would not have been released without their agency's consent. Most of the public are not that knowledgable about the art of photography, so it is no surprise that there is little in the way of art visible in the photos.

 

[sevo]

But then maybe all of us who call it as we see it are missing Testino's point. Is he making a political point by producing crap while collecting (what I would guess) is a large commission from the royal family that he despises?

It is more likely that it is the Royal Family itself which is making a political point with that representation of themselves. After all, they have been publicity experts for centuries. The pictures are remarkable for more than their photography, the awkward poses and having neither makeup nor postprocessing puts them even more apart from the current mainstream self-representation of the British upper and upper-middle class. That is too much to be a mere accident - in representing themselves like that they make a point of their commonality with the lower 2/3 of the British class society...

 

[Ranchu]

Well, the net effect here where they are concerned hasn't been how much they have in common with others, but OH THE HUGE MANATEE WHAT DID HE DO TO THOSE POOR PEOPLE!! SOOO UNFAIR!!

So, maybe that was the intent. Wasn't that the same reaction before, when the first kid was produced?

 

[nongfuspring]

The pictures are remarkable for more than their photography, the awkward poses and having neither makeup nor postprocessing puts them even more apart from the current mainstream self-representation of the British upper and upper-middle class. That is too much to be a mere accident - in representing themselves like that they make a point of their commonality with the lower 2/3 of the British class society...

I agree, I can't help but find these images tactfully (if also cynically) produced. Imagine the average person coming across these photos in their facebook news feed on their iphone during the X-factor ad breaks - I seriously doubt they'd get distracted by the technical details, more likely they'd be flattered by the superficial similarity between these photos and the pictures they themselves would post.

 

[Axel]

If this was my christening, I'd be asking for my money back

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33467384

Really?

No. I don´t think so.

 

[tyrone.s]

Wow, there's a lot of hostility for these photos! And serious disdain for a photographer who's presumably giving what was desired. It's the Royal family. Traditional, anyone? Conservative, anyone?

What are people hoping for? The Archbishop of Canterbury hosing the kid down whilst the Duke says something inappropriate and Kate, the prince and the little prince take selfies and the Queen looks off to the horizon, pensive and uncertain about the future...

 

[FrankS]

Wow, there's a lot of hostility for these photos! And serious disdain for a photographer who's presumably giving what was desired. It's the Royal family. Traditional, anyone? Conservative, anyone?

What are people hoping for? The Archbishop of Canterbury hosing the kid down whilst the Duke says something inappropriate and Kate, the prince and the little prince take selfies and the Queen looks off to the horizon, pensive and uncertain about the future...

Wouldn't that have been a fantastic photo?


😉

 

[rumbliegeos]

Apart from their social/political significance, I am tired of the high key/pastel world/human anemia faded color look that at this point seems a very affected approach. I agree completely that the informal aspect of the photos in composition, posing, etc, is deliberate and that Testino was probably told to go for that "message".

 

[Merlijn53]

Part of the problem seems to be the printing/the way this site is showing the file.
Saw the group portrait in a local newspaper (also online) and it looked definitely a lot better. Better colours.
Frank

 

[taemo]

Mario Testino is a good fashion photography, a master with lights and colors so if he really wanted to, he could have applied those for these shots too.
FYI I'm not a fan of Testino and while I like Leibovitz work, that portrait of the queen feels lifeless to me.

Count me in on being one of the few that like the pictures, the muted colors and B&W gives a candid feel.
It's as if Mario just asked Will and Catherine to step out for a few minutes so he can take some quick shots of them.

It's also hard to judge the overall work based on 4 photos that perhaps weren't Mario's favourite or best, and the 4 pics may have also been heavily compressed for the net.

Regarding the group shots, it's great and looks just like any of the other royal family group shots.
what were you guys expecting?
wacky group shots?
or perhaps
jumping group photo?

 

[tyrone.s]

And of course, there was probably also the Prince Philip factor helping the compositions along ...

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/...pher-to-take-the-f-ing-picture?OCID=ninemsnob

 

[Lss]

The group photo looks good, the other shots are technically pretty poor but they are good moments. These are decent family shots.

 

[Photog9000]

Testino's images remind me of another time. I was shooting a local event for a small weekly newspaper when I ran across a fashion photographer that I assisted with on occasion to help pay the bills. I watched the photographer for a while to see what I might be missing. As I watch him/her work, I notice the photographer seemed almost lost. He/she was not in control like when there is a fashion or portrait where there is total control. I never saw what images he/she produced so I do not know what the final outcome was.

Maybe Testino is in the same boat. Unable to control the situation and not having a trove of assistants to set up his lighting, he is just lost. On the US Weekly page of the event, several images were run that were shot by obvious photojournalists, i.e., Matt Dunham & Chris Jackson. Those images, to my eye, are the real keepers. They are just priceless images of people being people instead of being royals. For me, and I am sorry if this sounds derogatory, there are photographers and there are shooters. As a former news shooter, I put myself in the latter category. Never really liked doing portraits shoots and the few weddings I have done are straight documentary style because that is the way I work best. In looking at Testino's fashion work, it appears quite good to my eye but putting him in a situation where he has little to no control he is at a disadvantage.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Where is the priest, pastor?

Where is the priest, pastor?

The only thing missing (IMO) is the priest, or pastor. Or, is it there?

 

[photomoof]

Let's bring this thread back to discussing the quality of the photographs.