She works worldwide - I'd say that she's local to everywhere. Like most high-end commercial photographers, she isn't booked because of where she is but who she is. For instance, she was recently commissioned to shoot your Queen.
In short, she's probably the highest-billing commercial photographer of the last decade and, based on her work for brands like Vanity Fair, Louis Vuitton and American Express, she's probably the most-visible photographer currently working.
Thanks Simon.
I have followed some recent threads.
But my question was aimed at finding out what caused her transformation - from a good photographer to the best
Obviously Annie Leibovitz did achieve some financial success at one point because her photos were put up as collateral (without her knowledge) for obtaining loans to maintain her exhorbitant lifestyle. She just spent beyond her means, and historically, she was never very good with managing her money. But on the other hand, her work appears in many galleries and museums internationally and she is well known by laypersons, which means she was successful within her professional circle as well as in the mainstream.
Patrick Demarchelier and David Lachapelle are pretty high up there in terms of billing, even though, for a while at least, Annie Leibovitz was the highest paid photographer in the world.
If people could put their fingers on that so succinctly they'd probably be just as successful.
No one says she's the "best photographer", as I doubt there is such a thing. Successful photographers aren't generally paid for technical excellence, they're paid for their vision or their ability to get shots that other photographers can't or don't. The technicians make very good 1st Assistants, the photographers are ringleaders and provocateurs, hucksters and salesmen, directors and therapists. The brilliance of their work, at least in the commercial realm, doesn't happen behind the camera as much as in all the moments that lead to them picking up the camera. For a long time Annie was known for her ability to get unexpected images of people with highly-exposed personas, and thus are difficult to get unexpected images of...celebrities and dignitaries, public figures. Her post-Rolling Stone work for American Express and Vanity Fair brought a new era of refinement (and retouching) to her work, such that I'd say she's now known for sweepingly cinematic portraiture, often on a grand scale. Google up her Vanity Fair film noir editorial for their Hollywood Issue of a year or two ago for a perfect example of what she's now known for. Very few other photographers are able to operate on that scale with personages of that level.
No, I recognize that...I was commenting more on the idea that current financial troubles are a better indicator of a photographer's success than what they bill and how often they work, assuming you're using money as a yardstick for success in the first place.
Annie had a bad combination of no business sense, out of control spending and some questionable real estate decisions. She's still wildly successful. Compare that to folks like Marcus Klinko and Indrani, whose dramatic falloff in work paired with bad business decisions have put them in a serious hole.
jjsterling wrote: Where can I get a list of names of those who have been the most successful in their photography business?
there are many different genres of professional and commercial photography. Which ones are you interested in/
In editorial and advertising celebrity portraiture, Annie Leibovitz is at the top of the heap but I can think of a maybe a dozen others .
For fashion photographers (who are still alive) there is Bruce Weber and maybe a dozen others worldwide.
For location photography for advertising, there are about about twenty who are roughly equally successful but just not as well known as fasion and celebrity photographers - -same with architectural, fine art, panoramic, industrial, and landscape photographers, etc.
I suspect that even for "model mayhem" type photographers, again there is probably about ten to twelve who make really good money as well as really good photos
shatterkiss wrote:
No, I recognize that...I was commenting more on the idea that current financial troubles are a better indicator of a photographer's success than what they bill and how often they work, assuming you're using money as a yardstick for success in the first place.
Annie had a bad combination of no business sense, out of control spending and some questionable real estate decisions. She's still wildly successful. Compare that to folks like Marcus Klinko and Indrani, whose dramatic falloff in work paired with bad business decisions have put them in a serious hole.
She also had a couple of people that she hired who did not have her best financial interests in mind.... just a bad situation overall.
One measure of success is when a photographer defines a new style which others seek to emulate, something which can best be seen in retrospect.
Monte (who I assisted in the early '70s) is in that category because he redefined the wedding genre in the 1970s and had lots of professional students who paid to learn how to emulate his style, both photographically and his approach towards aspects of running a business such as marketing.
Ansel Adams was an even earlier influence on me and another "BT Barnum" of the photographic world who shot, taught, and wasn't shy about self-promotion of either. Adams took the basic axiom of B&W - expose for the shadows / develop the neg to fit the highlights on the paper - and sold it like snake-oil in a five volume book series. For many years he was the 800 pound gorilla of photography. When Kodak decided to change its gray card to 12% in line with the newer ASNI standard Adams encamped in Rochester and lobbied until they relented and left the card at 18%, lest it damage the Adams Zone V based franchise.
Another photographer, also no longer with us, who had a distinctive style which was widely imitated was Herb Ritts. He shot an image with a new look that that resonated and with it launched a new genre in fashion photography that many have emulated.
Diane Arbus is another photographer whose work broke new ground and fostered a new genre of gritty photojournalism different from the style produced by Gordon Parks and others in photo tabloids like LIFE magazine which I grew up reading in the 1950s an '60s.
Annie Leibovitz isn't dead yet but certainly fits that definition of success. Her style is distinctive and emulated, and her flair for self-promotion and establishing herself as a "brand" is not unlike Monte's approach with the added favor of the same over-the-top production values of Ritts in his prime.
What other contemporary photographers will reach the same level of recognition and emulation? Check back and ask the same question in 5 or 10 years
cgardner wrote:
Her style is distinctive and emulated, and her flair for self-promotion and establishing herself as a "brand" not unlike Monte's approach with the added favor of the same over-the-top production values of Ritts in his prime.
Herb Ritts is a great example. I'd also add Mark Seliger to that list, if you're talking about commercial and editorial/celebrity work, though he's really changed his signature style dramatically in the last few years.
Eugene Smith. He certainly wasn't financially successful and from almost all accounts was a PITA, but he pretty much defined the photo essay and he took many iconic photos.
We also can't leave out the Westons, Robert Frank, Bruce Davidson, Norman Seef and numerous others.
Chuck has already mentioned one of my all time favs, Diane Arbus. Many folks don't know she and her husband Allan Arbus achieved some success in fashion photography before she pursued her fine art career. BTW Allan Arbus is better known for his character Dr. Sidney Freedman on the TV series M*A*S*H.
This guy is wandering about the net posting the same dumb question on various forums, never returning to respond. I wouldn't worry about posting in response any more.
