I've taken tons of shots way better then those... The thing is, when it comes to shooting a celebrity who has very limited time, they usually go for the tried tested and true photographers. Who BTW, don't get as much as you think shooting for magazines like that. So what does the photographer do, the very minimal simplest thing.
Fast, Effective, Fool-proof photos are the result.
Thats what I'd would do given the opportunity.
It's either that, or you take really bad out of focus and crap lighting shots, but your such a big name that people think its art.
The idea is, not how good you are, but who you know who's willing to give you the opportunity.
A large majority of the weekend shooters on here could do 80% of the work that gets published in magazines.
c.d.embrey wrote:
Leibovitz and Meisel are both extremley good. This is high end work, looks simple doesn't it? But things may not be as simple as they look.
I'm not too sure about Annie's shots - soem examples of what we used to call "confused" lighting. In the cover shot for example - Romeo and Juliet are lit from the left - yet you can plainly see the sun in the top right. In #5 of 8 there's a shaft of light coming from the middle back from right yet the fella with the sword is lit from the back left (musta been a gridded light pretty high up). Overall teh pics look great - I just tend to look at shadows analytically...
adamdewilde wrote:
I've taken tons of shots way better then those...
You've heard the joke right?
Q: How many photogarphers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 100
1 to change the bulb so the other 99 can say "I could have done that, maybe better"....
There is a video on the Rolling Stone shoot that talks about their goals, choice of lighting, choice of image for the cover, etc.
Not sure how I feel about most of this, either the pictures or the discussion.
Basically you have highly skilled people who have worked to develop those skills over a number of years. Thery are professionals in many ways - project planning, working with the client, making sure they are always able to deliver, etc.
Similar to your doctor. They may know all kinds of complicated things, but if you go in with a cold, they just treat the cold. Sending you for an oncology consult just isn't something that is required in that situation.
adamdewilde wrote:
The thing is, when it comes to shooting a celebrity who has very limited time, they usually go for the tried tested and true photographers. Who BTW, don't get as much as you think shooting for magazines like that. So what does the photographer do, the very minimal simplest thing.
I'm not sure if you know who Patrick Demarchelier is - I somewhat doubt he's taking a lot of gigs that are below his asking price, especially ones that aren't prestige pieces. I'd say that he's probably among the 20 most successful commercial photographers currently working.
I agree, though, about going with the tried-and-true when it comes to celebrity shoots. A cover like that probably had more than the requisite 30 minutes that you might get for a feature editorial portrait, I'd guess they had maybe 2 hours with her, but they might have also shot 4 concepts that the magazine's creative staff didn't like for one reason or another. Glamour isn't daring or edgy or terribly sophisticated, and these shots may have been a better match for the article's direction. I'd guess that the images we're looking at are more representative of what the client wanted, in this case, than what the photographer might have wanted to deliver.
