"I'm not a technical photographer.."

[kuuan]

..After talking not being technical, it flashes a moment of she taking photo with a big camera with a couple of assistants staging the subject under a tree or something. I thought what they were doing was pretty technical and did not go on with the ads.

my exact thoughts! I really wished I knew all the technicalities involved there. They really must help to take good photos, but certainly are not required to take great ones. Knowing technicalities sure must increase chances to do so 😉 They should not be in the way to catch the best moment, but being very tech savvy should help to just do that, right?

 

[f16sunshine]

Anytime I need an inspirational ‘pick me up’, I refer back to this short video of Jay Maisel. I think it pretty much echoes what Annie says, but might be more applicable to those of us who are ‘wanderers’:
https://vimeo.com/116692462

Thanks for that link!

 

[Vince Lupo]

Just found this online - another set of verbal butt-kicks by Jay Maisel:

http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/blog/13555/23-quotes-by-photographer-jay-maisel/

 

[rbiemer]

“Two factors thus emerge as requisites of success in the field of creative photography. First, the subject must be photogenic. Second, its re-creation in a photograph must be based upon technical knowledge, guided and supported by artistic inspiration.” – Andreas Feininger

Or

“Art is what you can get away with.” ― Andy Warhol

Or

“Above all, life for a photographer cannot be a matter of indifference” ― Robert Frank


Rob

 

[willie_901]

Nope

Nope

I thought AL went bankrupt and had to sell the bulk of her work to a Canadian gallery. Too many assistants?

You are partially correct. She did not sell her work. She used the usage rights to all her intellectual property as collateral for a $15.5 million loan from Art Capital Group. Should she default, then she will have sold those rights to the lender.

AL's financial problems were caused by a series of lawsuits and real-estate problems.

My comments related to how much her clients are willing to pay. The clients pay for the assistants. AL's average photoshop budget reflects her economic value to clients. The budget funds her technical savvy assistants and interns.

So AL's financial problems were not caused by "Too many assistants."

 

[ptpdprinter]

You are partially correct. She did not sell her work. She used the usage rights to all her intellectual property as collateral for a $15.5 million loan from Art Capital Group. Should she default, then she will have sold those rights to the lender.

To avoid default on the loan, she sold her work (some 2000 prints) to the Mintz family in 2013 for $4.75M, half payable up front, and half payable when the family got a tax break for donating the prints to the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia. The family claimed the work was worth $20M. The Canadian government has denied the tax deduction several times and it is still being contested, so AL hasn't gotten all her money. You can read the latest here. It's your basic tax scam debacle.

 

[Huss]

Ahh, how the thread turns from photographic insights to tax scam debacles!

😉

 

[Vince Lupo]

Ahh, how the thread turns from photographic insights to tax scam debacles!

😉

Conversely I suppose we could talk about the building in Manhattan that Jay Maisel sold for $55 million 🙂

 

[JHutchins]

The thing about technical knowledge v. art for me is that...

The world looks different at f1.4 than it does at f16. The world looks different in 1/10th sec slices than it does in 1/500th sec slices. The world looks different through a 21 mm lens than it does through a 75 mm lens. The world looks different focused at 1 ft than it does focused at infinity. The world looks different through a red filter than it does through a green one. Every time you change the shadow placement you change what's seen and not seen. Every time you change the depth of the shadows or the sharpness of the shadow border you change the mood.

Choices are available to a person with a camera and the choices made change the image. All technical knowledge is is an awareness of the existence of those choices and an awareness of what those choices will do. And that means technical knowledge will help you see possibilities that someone without technical knowledge won't see. It isn't at war with artistic creativity, it's the body of knowledge that opens you to what can be done.

 

[Huss]

The thing about technical knowledge v. art for me is that...

The world looks different at f1.4 than it does at f16. .....

If you study Annie Liebovitz's portraits, they all have a deep depth of field, with a high enough shutter speed to freeze any possible movement.

There isn't any experimenting/deviation from that, and for her work I think that's as should be. The majority of viewers aren't interested in only one eye in focus portraits the way 'we' are to show off our fancy new lenses.

What changes for Liebovitz's work are the subjects, the poses and the physical settings. That is the hard part and why she has been successful.
And in that sense she is very right about technical knowledge in the initial statement that started this thread. She's not wasting her time worrying about bokeh or motion blur. She is making images.

 

[nickla]

I actually got the master class. It's nothing too ground breaking. Basically just a very long and well thought out interview with AL.

That said, I thought it was quite enjoyable. I like Annie's work and I like her as a person (I had the opportunity to meet her several times in NYC and she was very nice and interesting). I liked getting an in-depth and intimate view of her philosophy and approach to portraiture. If you can afford the $90 it's definitely worth checking out, but not a must see.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[icebear]

The thing about technical knowledge v. art for me is that...

The world looks different at f1.4 than it does at f16. The world looks different in 1/10th sec slices than it does in 1/500th sec slices. The world looks different through a 21 mm lens than it does through a 75 mm lens. The world looks different focused at 1 ft than it does focused at infinity. The world looks different through a red filter than it does through a green one. Every time you change the shadow placement you change what's seen and not seen. Every time you change the depth of the shadows or the sharpness of the shadow border you change the mood.

Choices are available to a person with a camera and the choices made change the image. All technical knowledge is is an awareness of the existence of those choices and an awareness of what those choices will do. And that means technical knowledge will help you see possibilities that someone without technical knowledge won't see. It isn't at war with artistic creativity, it's the body of knowledge that opens you to what can be done.

Very well said +1

 

[gnuyork]

Anytime I need an inspirational ‘pick me up’, I refer back to this short video of Jay Maisel. I think it pretty much echoes what Annie says, but might be more applicable to those of us who are ‘wanderers’:
https://vimeo.com/116692462

I haven't watched this video yet (bookmarked), but Jay Maisel is on of my absolute favorites. I actually met him once.

 

[jsrockit]

It isn't at war with artistic creativity, it's the body of knowledge that opens you to what can be done.

Right, but at some point you just do the technical without worrying about it... and if this is what you obsess about in photography (instead of content and composition), then this might not be good for your end results. That is my take away from the quoted OP.

 

[ptpdprinter]

As usual, the argument has devolved to pitting the extremes (the unknowledgeable artist vs. the uninspired technician) against each other, a logical fallacy known as black and white thinking or the excluded middle. I'd proffer that it would be good for the artist to have some technical knowledge and the technician to have some creativity. And, unless I am vastly mistaken, they are not mutually exclusive virtues. Surely, across the broad range of skills and attributes, good, even exceptional, photographs can be made.

 

[ForestCap]

The thing about technical knowledge v. art for me is that...

The world looks different at f1.4 than it does at f16. The world looks different in 1/10th sec slices than it does in 1/500th sec slices. The world looks different through a 21 mm lens than it does through a 75 mm lens. The world looks different focused at 1 ft than it does focused at infinity. The world looks different through a red filter than it does through a green one. Every time you change the shadow placement you change what's seen and not seen. Every time you change the depth of the shadows or the sharpness of the shadow border you change the mood.

Choices are available to a person with a camera and the choices made change the image. All technical knowledge is is an awareness of the existence of those choices and an awareness of what those choices will do. And that means technical knowledge will help you see possibilities that someone without technical knowledge won't see. It isn't at war with artistic creativity, it's the body of knowledge that opens you to what can be done.

They say +1, I say +65535.

 

[TennesseJones]

That's a great video Vince.
And like most good comments about how to make things it's short, practical and transfers to all forms of story telling..

Anytime I need an inspirational ‘pick me up’, I refer back to this short video of Jay Maisel. I think it pretty much echoes what Annie says, but might be more applicable to those of us who are ‘wanderers’:
https://vimeo.com/116692462