How a superstar photog works... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/30/2007 09:06:16 AM · #4

Really well written article, but, was anyone else underwhelmed with the images?

But then again, not really sure what I was expecting.. Lets face it, if they went into a colour portrait challenge here on DPC, how well do you think they would score? :-)

Exactly.

GoldBerry

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

01/30/2007 09:06:46 AM · #5

I like all of Annie's work so it was cool to hear how she actually does it...like having a dozen assistants, dragging around big lights, etc..gives me hope for myself :-) hahaha

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/30/2007 09:08:26 AM · #6

Originally posted by marksimms:

The client seemed quite happy with the end results though - so I'd mark that as a success ;) Maybe if we had an 'author's book jacket portrait challenge'

GoldBerry

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

01/30/2007 09:11:39 AM · #7

The lighting is superb and so is her use of available textures. Her photos all use these elements to create depth and interest......I'll defend her to the death!!! hahaha well..err....not really...but ya know..she's my fave.

Simms

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/30/2007 09:13:57 AM · #8

Originally posted by Gordon:

Which serves as a lesson to all those on here who get disheartened by comments and scores they recieve on images (especially in the recent BW Portrait challenge).. Photography isnt all about scoring marks out of ten and winning a ribbon, something a LOT of people on here seem to forget. As long as the subject/client is happy with the results, then surely its a case of "job well done". I refer to the recent BW portrait challenge where the image I entered did worse than I expected. However since then the bride in the shot has contacted me all excited, happy and amazed that the image is of her. And that has got to be far more fulfilling than any ribbon??
.
.
.

Ah hell, who I am trying to kid? :-)

01/30/2007 09:15:07 AM · #9

Originally posted by marksimms:

Yeah, but this ain't the real world, as you are well aware :-) Ever seen an Annie Leibovitz print? They are exceptionally revealing, she's absolutely fantastic at capturing nuances of people and making it look like it was done effortlessly. Her "style", in a manner of speaking, is to make it look like nothing special was done, especially lighting-wise. But if you study the work closely, it is always flawlessly lit in a perfectly unobtrusive way. These small-size web glimpses of her photos cannot begin to do them justice. Shooters that use more aggressive, more dramatic, lighting come across better on the web for sure.

I have nothing but admiration for Annie's work, she's one of my heroes (heroines?).

R.

Message edited by author 2007-01-30 09:15:52.

Simms

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/30/2007 09:18:29 AM · #10

Robert,

I admit I am completely in the dark with regards to her work, but now its been bought up, I will look for some stuff on the web about her.

Agree, I shouldnt really judge them on the small images displayed there.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by marksimms:
Really well written article, but, was anyone else underwhelmed with the images?

But then again, not really sure what I was expecting.. Lets face it, if they went into a colour portrait challenge here on DPC, how well do you think they would score? :-)

Exactly.

Yeah, but this ain't the real world, as you are well aware :-) Ever seen an Annie Leibovitz print? They are exceptionally revealing, she's absolutely fantastic at capturing nuances of people and making it look like it was done effortlessly. Her "style", in a manner of speaking, is to make it look like nothing special was done, especially lighting-wise. But if you study the work closely, it is always flawlessly lit in a perfectly unobtrusive way. These small-size web glimpses of her photos cannot begin to do them justice. Shooters that use more aggressive, more dramatic, lighting come across better on the web for sure.

I have nothing but admiration for Annie's work, she's one of my heroes (heroines?).

R.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

01/30/2007 09:28:25 AM · #11

i haven't yet been able to finish the 1.5 hour "american masters" show about her on PBS, but if you get the chance to see it you should:

//www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/leibovitz_a.html

the half hour or so that i've watched so far has been pretty fantastic.

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Nikon

01/30/2007 09:31:01 AM · #12

Originally posted by marksimms:

Her career goes all the way back to the early 70's, when she became a star shooting for Rolling Stone in its heyday. She really hit the big time in 1975, when the Rolling Stones hired her to document their concert tour that year. The work she did for them is perhaps the best rock photography ever. And she has been consistently excellent for more than 30 years. Here's a good capsule biography:

//www.bookrags.com/biography/annie-leibovitz/

Robt.

Greetmir

Nikon D60

01/30/2007 09:43:32 AM · #13

I particularly like her work that takes a poke at illusion and the concept of beauty. Of course there is the Demi Moore shot of her grossly pregnant (for Vanity Fair was it?) and the nekky shot of John and Yoko curled up ... but ... I like this type of work that she did making celebrities look and be recognized as human ... (I think she did a super job on Cindy Crawford too)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/30/2007 09:58:02 AM · #14

Annie is my hero. I swear, her career has been among the most impressive of any photographer alive today. In a bit over 30 years, she has photographed practically anyone who is anyone from celebrity to politician and in between.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/30/2007 10:09:52 AM · #15

"But Leibovitz, looking over the Polaroids (she uses a camera that shoots out an instant photo as it exposes a negative), isn't satisfied."

Wait! What kind of camera is this?

Olympus 75-300mm f/4.8-6.7 II M.Zuiko ED

01/30/2007 10:12:49 AM · #16

Originally posted by Nullix:

"But Leibovitz, looking over the Polaroids (she uses a camera that shoots out an instant photo as it exposes a negative), isn't satisfied."

Wait! What kind of camera is this?

Hasselblad or Mamyia with polaroid back.

Rgarcia

Olympus OM-D E-M1

01/30/2007 10:30:48 AM · #17

Originally posted by Nullix:

"But Leibovitz, looking over the Polaroids (she uses a camera that shoots out an instant photo as it exposes a negative), isn't satisfied."

Wait! What kind of camera is this?

The camera that the photographer's dreamt about before digital!! Just to make a point of how lucky we now are with digital tools that will let us actually see the result of our shoot. I can't imagine how the masters managed without this!! (Well... that's why they're masters in the first place, isn't it?)

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

01/30/2007 10:44:01 AM · #18

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by Nullix:
"But Leibovitz, looking over the Polaroids (she uses a camera that shoots out an instant photo as it exposes a negative), isn't satisfied."

Wait! What kind of camera is this?

Hasselblad or Mamyia with polaroid back.

Or a 4x5 view camera, I don't honestly know. We used Polaroid 55 P/N film on the 4x5 VERY extensively when I was working architecture. If you carry around a sealed tank of solution, you can "fix" the negatives on-site. The 55 P/N negatives are extraordinary, great tonal range and virtually no grain at all. But you can't push 'em and pull 'em for zone system work, so the lighting has to be within acceptable parameters.

R.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/30/2007 11:07:12 AM · #19

Looks like a mix of cameras from the photos on his site. Some square format (hassy?), some 4x5. Latest rumor is she's shooting with a 22Mp Canon 1DsIII

Message edited by author 2007-01-30 11:39:15.

digitalknight

01/30/2007 11:36:37 AM · #20

Originally posted by marksimms:

This is the least accurate way to judge a photos worth in my opinion.

digitalknight

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

01/30/2007 11:40:59 AM · #21

I loved this article, and I thought the shots were great. I'm a big fan of her work.

I would love to see what she would produce on her own. You know, kind of level the playing field. I think we all sit here and think "Well if I had a staff of 18 helping me I'd take pretty darn good photos too".

I'd also like to know about the processing - what exactly is happening on that end.

But like a magician, I'm sure that the mystique of how she exactly does what she does will never be revealed - and we simply stare in slack jawed wonder at what she accomplishes - and how unbelievably much she gets paid.

01/30/2007 11:43:38 AM · #22

The American Masters program shows a lot of her personal photos and pictures of her children - no staff, just her shooting and as you would expect, they're lovely.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/30/2007 11:45:29 AM · #23

Originally posted by idnic:

The American Masters program shows a lot of her personal photos and pictures of her children - no staff, just her shooting and as you would expect, they're lovely.

Any other sources for that American Masters show ? Do they bring them out on DVD or anything like that ?

I'd watch it on PBS, but I'd have to get a TV first.

01/30/2007 11:46:00 AM · #24

Originally posted by digitalknight:

She started at $46 a week :-) And she worked on her own for a LONG time; she didn't always have the big bucks, the big staff, the big studio. So if you want to see what she'd do on a level playing field, check out the earlier work that made her reputation.

Anyway, having a big staff is often more hassle than help IMO; I know, because I was there. Not 18 assistants, of course, but at one time we were 2 photographers, 4 assistants, a darkroom person, a gofer, and a secretary. And I turned my back on all that, went back to working out of my house, and made more money for less time spent. But that's irrelevant to this discussion :-)

R.