| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/02/2007 04:46:16 PM · #51 |
//www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5948.asp
At least 2 more pics are expected to be released
Message edited by author 2007-05-02 16:46:31. |
|
|
|
05/02/2007 04:50:40 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I'm not sure how her choices here did any justice to this scene.
Breaking the rules can be very cool in fact, it's my mission but I'm not sure anyone can explain that image. |
I've seen this photo at her exhibition in San Diego. In fact I found it very interesting. Probably the print size had a lot to do with it. It was enlarged to something like 10x10 ft, and the first thing you see is the beautiful film grain, and only then you're kind of piece it together to make out what is actually shown in the photo. Then again, perhaps almost any blurry BW photo blown up to those proportions would produce a similar effect, but still, it was cool and very impressionistic. She had several of those in the exhibition, and I liked them a lot.
Message edited by author 2007-05-02 18:29:35.
|
|
|
|
05/02/2007 04:54:45 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I think it sucks and is anything but inspiring. Downright depressing, in fact. It shows how stupid society is on the whole.
The list of total crap that sells is never ending...
Baywatch
Britney Spears
Arnold Schwartzenegger (as an actor)
Ricky Martin
Jackass (the TV show)
The Real World
ANYTHING on MTV
Porky's
The New York Post
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
P Diddy
Jennifer Lopez (can't dance either)
George Bush
The Iraq War
Politicians (can't think of a single good one...off hand)
It's pretty easy to be mediocre and successful...actually, it seems to be a requirement. I'm not impressed. |
Yes you are right. They are not the most talented or the smartest. They have worked their butt off to get where they are today. They are success stories. Its like anything in the life. The harder you work the more successful you will become.
John F. Kennedy, talk about overrated! He had some rather substantial failures! You can't leave out Franklin Roosevelt. He is one of the best presidents we ever had. |
|
|
|
05/03/2007 12:10:06 AM · #54 |
While I've often been critical of the voting on DPC,
there is no denying the abundance of great talent we have here.
We have some photographers here that I find just as
talented as Annie Leibovitz. Now I'm only basing this on work
alone and not factoring in Miss Leibovitz considerable celebrity.
I believe Miss Leibovitz major works are in portraits.
Librido at DPC is every bit as good as her in this specialty.
His portait portfolio is remarkable, and true and often compelling.
And this photo of Queen Elizabeth? If Annie wasn't
so famous, we would criticize her for not bringing the
subject closer to the camera. That's a portrait basic.
It's hard to make a mistake in photography when your
subjects are Queen Elizabeth or Mick Jagger or John Lennon.
They instantly have the wow factor in any photograph
they're in because they are so famous.
At least a dozen members at this site alone would do
a great job of taking a portrait of Queen Elizabeth,
once they lose their nervousness of course.
Speaking of wow, I'm wowed at some of the works of
our top photographers here at DPC. I'm not that wowed
by Annie Leibovitz. Sorry Annie. |
|
|
|
05/03/2007 12:25:42 AM · #55 |
| Now is the winter of our discontent. |
|
|
|
05/03/2007 02:56:25 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by jemison:
All these little leaguers - calling the hall-of-famer a chump. |
LOL. Ain't it the troof.
Whether you like it or hate it, Leibowitz definitely has a recognizable style, one that she developed, and that now gets heavily imitated. I think she may actually have become a victim of her own success. Because her style is so often imitated, it doesn't always seem interesting or innovative anymore. Still, on the shoulders of giants and all that...
(Think the Queen shot is quite good, btw. There is a lot going on in there. I'd be curious how long she got with Her Majesty.)
|
|
|
|
05/03/2007 03:07:20 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Fairfield20:
I believe Miss Leibovitz major works are in portraits.
Librido at DPC is every bit as good as her in this specialty.
His portait portfolio is remarkable, and true and often compelling.
|
I do not agree on Librodo part. (He may be very good photographer but ..). Why I do not agree, the reason is this: Librodo's subjects are often emotive. Which he could find in poor neighbourhood. He is technically good. Since emotive subjects are felt greater by veiwer, I feel he is rated much higher than what he is.
I feel Pedro would be much better comparison to Miss L., since Pedro does not get much help from the subjects. He comes up with his creativity and talent. I mean I have not seen him photographing a nearly old blind woman to exploit a ribbon in challenges.
Originally posted by Fairfield20:
It's hard to make a mistake in photography when your
subjects are Queen Elizabeth or Mick Jagger or John Lennon.
They instantly have the wow factor in any photograph
they're in because they are so famous.
|
mistakes are always very easy to make, its that when you are photographing someone important you have pressure to comeup with something extra-ordinary. |
|
|
|
05/03/2007 03:15:11 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by Fairfield20:
I believe Miss Leibovitz major works are in portraits.
Librido at DPC is every bit as good as her in this specialty.
His portait portfolio is remarkable, and true and often compelling.
|
I do not agree on Librodo part. (He may be very good photographer but ..). Why I do not agree, the reason is this: Librodo's subjects are often emotive. Which he could find in poor neighbourhood. He is technically good. Since emotive subjects are felt greater by veiwer, I feel he is rated much higher than what he is.
|
i'd just like point out that saying Librodo only does good portraits because he could find them in poor neighbourhood is, well, hollow. isn't that like saying nobody could do great landscape/scenery shots because they dont live in Iceland (from some dpc fact, heh)? |
|
|
|
05/03/2007 03:23:44 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by Fairfield20:
I believe Miss Leibovitz major works are in portraits.
Librido at DPC is every bit as good as her in this specialty.
His portait portfolio is remarkable, and true and often compelling.
|
I do not agree on Librodo part. (He may be very good photographer but ..). Why I do not agree, the reason is this: Librodo's subjects are often emotive. Which he could find in poor neighbourhood. He is technically good. Since emotive subjects are felt greater by veiwer, I feel he is rated much higher than what he is.
|
i'd just like point out that saying Librodo only does good portraits because he could find them in poor neighbourhood is, well, hollow. isn't that like saying nobody could do great landscape/scenery shots because they dont live in Iceland (from some dpc fact, heh)? |
No, he is good photographer no doubt. But he could find emotive subjects. This is what I wanted to say. This is my opinion, you can disagree with it.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2007 06:04:57 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by Fairfield20:
I believe Miss Leibovitz major works are in portraits.
Librido at DPC is every bit as good as her in this specialty.
His portait portfolio is remarkable, and true and often compelling.
|
I do not agree on Librodo part. (He may be very good photographer but ..). Why I do not agree, the reason is this: Librodo's subjects are often emotive. Which he could find in poor neighbourhood. He is technically good. Since emotive subjects are felt greater by veiwer, I feel he is rated much higher than what he is.
|
i'd just like point out that saying Librodo only does good portraits because he could find them in poor neighbourhood is, well, hollow. isn't that like saying nobody could do great landscape/scenery shots because they dont live in Iceland (from some dpc fact, heh)? |
No, he is good photographer no doubt. But he could find emotive subjects. This is what I wanted to say. This is my opinion, you can disagree with it. |
you are right! sorry i mis-read your earlier post. |
|
|
|
05/03/2007 06:20:54 AM · #61 |
personally i'd like to see the queen in hair rollers and dressing gown,
i'd have  jutilda photograph her. ;)
it would be fun to add a few more to this list
Baywatch
Britney Spears
Arnold Schwartzenegger (as an actor)
Ricky Martin
Jackass (the TV show)
The Real World
ANYTHING on MTV
Porky's
The New York Post
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
P Diddy
Jennifer Lopez (can't dance either)
George Bush
Jerry Springer
Reality TV
|
|
|
|
05/03/2007 06:34:51 AM · #62 |
I liked the shot...much nicer feel than the traditional royal family shots of the past.
The lighting is interesting too. On first look I assumed it was natural light with the subject placed slightly forward of open glass doors tp get that effect. Now I'm open to the possibility there's an artificial light on the verandah.
Anyway....am I the only one who thinks this image needs some Joel L grunge or maybe some Lucis treatment ?
Would it be offensive to try and post it ?
bazz. |
|
|
|
05/03/2007 09:20:23 AM · #63 |
The portrait...
Probably the best Royal portrait I have ever seen, showing the Queen in her personal surroundings. To me the photograph has the feal of Rembrandt about it - lighting is accentuating the face of the sitter, which is the first place my eye moves to. But, then I want to see what she is looking at, but I can't, 'cos she's looking out the window.
Or is she?
No, she's not looking. Staring. Contemplating? Perhaps. Not something cheerful though, something gloomy, dark, unpleasant. The state of her nation perhaps? I'd like to think so, considering it's state (imho, of course).
The weather outside matches her mood inside, perhaps, dark and gloomy.
Though, there is something comfortable about the scene - it's warm inside even though it's cold outside. She appears healthy. And at ease in her contemplation. In her own home.
The detail is wonderful, enough light to see what's around her, not enough to let all the glittery things in a palace distract from the portrait (and who made the rule mentioned earlier that a portrait has to be close up?). The glow around her is almost her glow, lighting up the rest of the room, not the outside light lighting her. This picture is the Queen.
Balance. Warm inside, right third, cold outside, left third. Classic, light coming from the left. Another classic, picture divided horizontally, perfectly in half, at her shoulder height. More balance; bright sky, top left intersection, matched by bottom right intersection, the light on her knees.
Perspective, everthing apppears to point towards her, the subject, of a Royal portrait. Rembrandt would be proud.
It's been a long, long time since I wrote an art "review." 'cos, art it is. No doubt about it.
I think it's near perfect. I have no idea, technically how she did it (I can guess), but having seen images of Annie working, you can bet there's more than just a fill flash her and a diffuser there. It probably to her an entire day or more to set up. Look at this photograph. Look. Before you criticise Annie. It is absolutley, technically and artistically brilliant, and I challenge any one of you here that call's her work mediocre to do better.
Anyway, you asked us to discuss the photo, that's my take on it.
As an aside (and off-topic), if anyone was (as has been mentioned here) to be accused of being mediocre and only famous for having the right contact, who you know etc, no disrespect intended, but I could very easily argue that point with Ansel Adams in mind too.
Right, now I'm going to see if I can find a bigger version of it, so I can look at it some more.
I'll leave you guys to argue about whether you like the photographer or not.
Sad.
|
|
|
|
05/03/2007 09:24:17 AM · #64 |
no not sad. Merely discussing personal views. Thats what forums tend to be about. try it!
oh and somehow I dont think she would have been allowed time to set up the whole day as you put it.
Message edited by author 2007-05-03 09:25:11. |
|
|
|
05/03/2007 09:24:55 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by goodman:
personally i'd like to see the queen in hair rollers and dressing gown,
i'd have jutilda photograph her. ;)
it would be fun to add a few more to this list
Baywatch
Britney Spears
Arnold Schwartzenegger (as an actor)
Ricky Martin
Jackass (the TV show)
The Real World
ANYTHING on MTV
Porky's
The New York Post
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
P Diddy
Jennifer Lopez (can't dance either)
George Bush
Jerry Springer
Reality TV |
Boy Bands (Justin Timberbutt)
Steven Segal
Shakira
Jackie Chan
Billy Joel ("Uptown Girl" or EVERYTHING he did after 1973)
Prince Charles...
Oy Vey!!!
WobblyLegs-I do think that there are many people here at DPC that could do much better, fwiw. The OP posted an image and asked for a discussion...so, here it is. It's perfectly healthy and fair to air ones opinions.
I continually formulate opinions that I later find were silly, wrong, way off base or flat out insane. These discussions help me see things that I may have missed. Personally, I would do much better stating my points of view more clearly, face-to-face...but I'll take the conversation wherever I can get it.
Message edited by author 2007-05-03 10:02:00. |
|
|
|
05/03/2007 09:34:57 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by WobblyLegs:
Look at this photograph. Look. |
Too true. Nice critique of the image, and good reason for anyone to look deeper. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. |
|
|
|
05/03/2007 09:57:25 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
no not sad. Merely discussing personal views. Thats what forums tend to be about. |
Fair enough.
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
Try it! |
I have, which is why I only post rarely. ;-)
Originally posted by AlexSaberi:
oh and somehow I dont think she would have been allowed time to set up the whole day as you put it. |
I believe she was commissioned to do the portrait, and so would indeed have had the time to set up properly - have you ever seen how much equipment she uses on a shoot? Also, she waivered her usual fee. Just out of interest. |
|
|
|
05/03/2007 10:14:22 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
Queen : "please don't focus on my rinkly face"
Annie : "ok I'll shoot from 100 feet away"
----------------
Whose the portraitist who passed away a couple of years ago. I think he was canadian ... Yuseef (sp?) or something? I remember him having great portraits. |
Yousuf Karsh
R.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 04:23:56 PM EDT.
