Trooper
Well-known
I have always like these photographs. Apparently someone likes Fred more than I do, because I would never would pay $30-50,000. But, I wouldn't have an articulate critique of these photos, nor would I be able to explain why there are better than any magazine photo or advertisement. Why are these iconic photos so great?
Fred with Tires by Herb Ritts at Christies
Fred with Tires by Herb Ritts at Christies
Ranchu
Veteran
People want to have sex with them. And use them as props.
stompyq
Well-known
First time I've actually seen both of those images.
Trooper
Well-known
I'll accept that to a certain point. But there are sexier pictures, that aren't as famous or commanding a such a price tag. What makes these more special than most advertising for cologne or perfume, which are selling sex appeal?
peterm1
Veteran
In each case the photos capture the essence of the subject. MMs image speaks to me of her sexiness, but also of her vulnerability and childishness. That is her in a nutshell based on everything I have read about her life and personality. The man's photo captures his pure animal masculinity. No explanations required - you get what this guy is about in a glance. And of course both are very attractive.
Incidentally in some ways there are flaws with the images. In the top photo it is a bit cluttered and note the pole growing from the top of the bloke's head. No-no's in portrait terms that could be fixed with a wider aperture to produce more background blur. But it can be forgiven as the image is so powerful. In the MM photo the bottom of the black curtain in the background is a bit ruffled, uneven and messy. I think I would have straightened it had I the chance to do so if I were photographer. But that's nit picking. The image is lovely and seems to capture a lovely un-posed moment - even if it was carefully posed.
Incidentally in some ways there are flaws with the images. In the top photo it is a bit cluttered and note the pole growing from the top of the bloke's head. No-no's in portrait terms that could be fixed with a wider aperture to produce more background blur. But it can be forgiven as the image is so powerful. In the MM photo the bottom of the black curtain in the background is a bit ruffled, uneven and messy. I think I would have straightened it had I the chance to do so if I were photographer. But that's nit picking. The image is lovely and seems to capture a lovely un-posed moment - even if it was carefully posed.
Ranchu
Veteran
Really nothing as far as the first one. Herb Ritts (I think I've heard of him?), and it's big and made of silver. I don't think the money has any relationship with whether they're good, very good, not good, or why they're as good or not good as they are. People want things they want.
Huss
Veteran
Ignoring whether they are good or not (as that is a personal thing), they are famous due to the Catch 22 effect. They are famous for the various reasons:
1/ Taken by a famous photographer (who tends to be famous because his/her body of work is 'good')
2/ Taken of a famous subject
3/ Both 1/ and 2/
I personally don't like the first one as it is so contrived. The hair, the physique, the 'dirt' on the face, the expression. None of it provides any realism or makes any sense. It's a pin-up shot taken by a famous photographer which makes it famous. I don't think it's 'good' but that's not to say technically it's not good.
The second one is of Marilyn Monroe. For some that is what makes it good and that is enough as most people would never even have access to her as a model. But for me there is far more life in the shot, you believe that she IS that person in the image.
1/ Taken by a famous photographer (who tends to be famous because his/her body of work is 'good')
2/ Taken of a famous subject
3/ Both 1/ and 2/
I personally don't like the first one as it is so contrived. The hair, the physique, the 'dirt' on the face, the expression. None of it provides any realism or makes any sense. It's a pin-up shot taken by a famous photographer which makes it famous. I don't think it's 'good' but that's not to say technically it's not good.
The second one is of Marilyn Monroe. For some that is what makes it good and that is enough as most people would never even have access to her as a model. But for me there is far more life in the shot, you believe that she IS that person in the image.
Trooper
Well-known
This is what I was thinking. I still like both of these, but there aren't technically great. If the sex appeal makes all the difference, then there is plenty of poorly lit but amazing photography, and video, on the internet.
Trooper
Well-known
An answer I fear is probably as true as Rancho's. So, sexy, famous, and famous photographer?
Trooper
Well-known
Here is another Herb Ritts. It isn't perfect...The fingers are cropped out and some would say too shallow of DoF. If you pasted a cologne bottle in color inside the frame, I wouldn't think this is any better than a magazine advertisement. I think some of those ads have great photography, but they are using sex appeal to sell a product so maybe Ranchu is right.
Huss
Veteran
No, just famous subject and/or famous photographer.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Never seen first one before. Cheesy one.
Second is obvious, by who is on it.
People who have money to buy aren't those with taste by default.
I'm really surprised they are iconic.
Second is obvious, by who is on it.
People who have money to buy aren't those with taste by default.
I'm really surprised they are iconic.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
This might shed some background for you on Herb Ritts -
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/fred-with-tires/
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/fred-with-tires/
Trooper
Well-known
Interesting. The comments section seem to hint that Ranchu and Huss are even more correct.
Trooper
Well-known
What I mean, is that there are "technical" flaws. Such as the pillar in Fred's head or the curtain in Marilyn's photo. These things people will nitpick about and find flaws. But, I would say sharpness and focus are important, but many Bresson fans will argue otherwise. When I say it, I'm mostly tongue-in-cheek, because the totality of the photograph is what makes it good, great, boring, or crap.
I like all three of the photos I inquired about. I don't notice the "flaws", except for the curtain. I think all three are great photos. I like Ansel Adams and Cartier-Bresson's work, but I have seen stuff I like more by many unknown photographers.
What do you mean by "I just figured fashion photographer?"
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
peterm1
Veteran
"Originally Posted by Ranchu 
People want to have sex with them. And use them as props."
You can't use the fella as a "prop" but he is built like a "tripod".....hahahaha.
Or as they say on the comedy scene about a weak joke....... boom boom!
God you can see where this is going.......downhill.
People want to have sex with them. And use them as props."
You can't use the fella as a "prop" but he is built like a "tripod".....hahahaha.
Or as they say on the comedy scene about a weak joke....... boom boom!
God you can see where this is going.......downhill.
RichC
Well-known
I'm with Fred.
If the photos were "tidier" as some suggest - no pole above the bloke's head, neater backdrop behind Monroe - they'd be WORSE, not better.
Pictorial perfection has NOTHING to do with good photography - with the proviso that so-called flaws (whether technical or compositional) do not detract from the impact or message of the image.
The casual imperfection in the Monroe photo is what makes it better than a myriad other studio shots of her.
Discuss...
Scrambler
Well-known
Context. Which is why "better" images are less famous and less valuable.
lawrence
Veteran
This whole 'iconic' thing is bugging me. Ten years ago nothing was 'iconic' and now everything is. Please can someone explain why anything that was previously 'famous' has now become 'iconic'?