Where can I get a list of names of those who have been the most successful in their photography business?

Bob Odenkirk is a master...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKgHal-Csqo&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=4FD8AB1659AC413B

Again? Seriously?

What does blue smell like?

Micky Bill wrote:
What does blue smell like?

Similar to black, just a little sweeter.

I think this link is what your really looking for. A successful fashion photographer making the cash and getting the girls with little knowledge of photography.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBG8RhmW_N8

Probably Monte Zucker is up there. Jeff Smith probably too, just not as prolific as Zucker.

Probably not Liebovitz.

RobertLynn wrote:
Probably Monte Zucker is up there. Jeff Smith probably too, just not as prolific as Zucker.

Probably not Liebovitz.

Why not Liebovitz

24 million in the hole?

"Probably Monte Zucker is up there."

Actually, he's way up there, as he passed away two years ago.

Monte taught a class I attended back in 1979 and I have always had nothing but the highest respect for him. He did a lot for the industry as a teacher, but as to the OP's question, the definition of success need to be defined a bit more before any reasonable answer can be given.

RobertLynn wrote:
24 million in the hole?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/arts/12leibovitz.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=leibovitz&st=nyt

So that makes her an "unsuccessful" photographer? Like When Willie Nelson was broke and owed 7 million to the IRS he was then an "unsuccessful" singer songwriter. It's not all about the money...she may be unsuccessful at handling money (or choosing people to handle money) but not in making photographs.

jhartman wrote:
"Probably Monte Zucker is up there."

Actually, he's way up there, as he passed away two years ago.

Monte taught a class I attended back in 1979 and I have always had nothing but the highest respect for him. He did a lot for the industry as a teacher, but as to the OP's question, the definition of success need to be defined a bit more before any reasonable answer can be given.



Monte is by far my favorite photographer, and I'm sad that he passed. I try not to get too hung up though on what other people did, since inevitably someone else will do it, I look at what I do.

Micky Bill wrote:
RobertLynn wrote:
24 million in the hole?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/arts/12leibovitz.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=leibovitz&st=nyt

So that makes her an "unsuccessful" photographer? Like When Willie Nelson was broke and owed 7 million to the IRS he was then an "unsuccessful" singer songwriter. It's not all about the money...she may be unsuccessful at handling money (or choosing people to handle money) but not in making photographs.



I didn't say she was a bad photographer. Most assume that money=success. Whilst there is nothing wrong with that, there's many definitions of it. I'm assuming (I know, my fault) the thread starter is thinking "money". So I posted with that in mind.

If you determine success as how many people know you and the prolific impact you have on it, then yeah, that's her. However, I'm going to say that being 24 million in the hole, and just barely getting out of the fact that all of her future copyrights were going to be owned by the equity company she dealt with is not a success story.

In that case Mr Olan Mills is most likely the most successful photographer. It's a dumb question with no answer.

RobertLynn wrote:
Micky Bill wrote:
RobertLynn wrote:
24 million in the hole?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/arts/12leibovitz.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=leibovitz&st=nyt

So that makes her an "unsuccessful" photographer? Like When Willie Nelson was broke and owed 7 million to the IRS he was then an "unsuccessful" singer songwriter. It's not all about the money...she may be unsuccessful at handling money (or choosing people to handle money) but not in making photographs.



I didn't say she was a bad photographer. Most assume that money=success. Whilst there is nothing wrong with that, there's many definitions of it. I'm assuming (I know, my fault) the thread starter is thinking "money". So I posted with that in mind.

If you determine success as how many people know you and the prolific impact you have on it, then yeah, that's her. However, I'm going to say that being 24 million in the hole, and just barely getting out of the fact that all of her future copyrights were going to be owned by the equity company she dealt with is not a success story.



I don`t beleive in determining success in photography monetarily. Seems kind of shallow to me....but it seems your saying you would consider her successful if she would have managed her money better. It also seems to me to even get 24 mill in the hole you must have made a lot of money along the way. Then this must mean even by your standards ( need to have made a lot of money to determine success ) she is very successful. Just poor at managing her money.......P

I didn't say my definition of success is cash. I said I assumed the OP meant that.

There's no doubt she's made a ton of cash, and you couldn't measure just "debt" as your standard either. Because if you count my home and car, I'm like 50 grand in the hole. Does that mean I'm more successful than Annie? Not at all. She probably makes by far, more in a year than I make in 10.

My personal opinion is that Monte Zucker is one of the most successful photographers. While I know he's passed on.

See, this discussion can go so far and in so many directions. Landscape, stock, stills, money earned, people reached. I mean Ansel Adams is one of the most well known photographers out there, but I think if you measured the money he made during his life, even with "inflation", it'd be much lower than someone like Annie.

Maybe my standard is messed up, because no, I don't think money is the only measure of success, but I think being near bankruptcy isn't good either.

RobertLynn wrote:
I didn't say she was a bad photographer. Most assume that money=success.

I'm pretty sure that Monte Zucker never had a contract with Vanity Fair that's reportedly estimated at $3mil/year+ and wasn't able to bill $1mil+ for a job or had a multi-year waiting list for portrait shoots.

She may have grossly mismanaged her money and expenses but she's still billing in more than pretty much anyone else. If you want to base it purely on money, then the judgment of a successful photographer should be how much you're able to bill for your work...whether or not you're able to hang onto your money is a judgment of a successful businessperson.

So whats the niche that she operates in that allows such good billing?
Whats the business model?
Is it film and fashion?

You've never heard of her?

I have heard of her - but I havent followed her work as she is not local to the UK

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.

I think you must not have read what I typed shatter. I am not saying that money is a measure of success, but I think that's what the OP meant.

I'm not debating that she's good or bad (but the recent Obama portrait leaves a little to be desired, especially since it came from her).