i've been doing a lot of reading lately and working hard to up my game in a lot of areas-one such photographer i've studied quite a bit is Annie Liebovitz (yes, so obvious, but she's quite good )-thought i'd share a few realizations i've had in reading and carefully studying some of her work-this is by no means definitive but subject to my own interpretation, YMMV-it's helped both to encourage me in my own work as well as to open my eyes to possibilities outside of "the rules"
1. she doesn't always have catchlights such as her shot of nelson mendela where the eyes are quite dark (and it doesn't always matter, if other factors are considered)-i still like catchlights, though
2. she centers a number of her compositions (which i personally like to do), and i find it very engaging
3. she discussed in an essay that she doesn't have the gift that Avedon had of conversing with his subjects and putting them at ease, etc (the way he did).-she described herself as an observer (more so) and i identify with that-looking at a shot of Norman Schwarzkopf that she took (which i am totally digging), i had to remember that she didn't have Avedon's personality or social ability and still got that shot and many, many others-that's encouraging to me!
4. she lost detail in her blacks sometimes, and that's okay...within reason (i'm specifically referencing a shot of Mick Jaggar from 1992)-i don't have to obsess about that in every shot as long as it doesn't block up too badly or pose a printing issue
canerino wrote:
daniel, for additional leibovitz inspiration, check out her 'a photographer's life'. it will open your eyes when it comes to documenting family life.
good call-i've got it right now and much of my rantings came from that book
i'm now studying the portraits she put together for "women"-i'm still stuck on the first pic of her mom-it's perfect, perfect IMHO
One other important thing to think about is that she is judged by all sorts of people, not just people on the internet!
The idea that you had to mention centered compositions seems like a reaction to internet wisdom specifically, that if its centered its not as good. The lost detail in the blacks, to me, is a big part of achieiving a film like appearance from a digital camera, but many forum posts will say negative things about that too.
Keep learning from outsiders and keep your convictions, because if you get too caught up in cyberspace you can end up too technical!
rffffffff, i'm with you-it's all about balance-i just find it interesting that many of the masters of our medium don't share the online "conventional wisdom"-but i'm certainly not abandoning it, either-i have a lot of respect for a good many FMers
liam: i wonder how many FM pros have their own assistants-and i have to remember that she doesn't come up with ALL of the hyper involved concepts and setups but i feel that the lighting and composition (at least) are her own
Don't get me wrong Daniel, I think she's one of the best photographers that can still breathe And would encourage every photographer to study her books. I also think she'd take a better shot with a box brownie than the rest of us with the latest Canikonblad because ultimately her pictures are about the subject and not to do with any convention or rule or lighting gadget.
BTW I think one of the reasons centered images get shouted down on here is because they are often the result of a photographer using center-weighted auto-focus and not because of a creative reason. I often center the subject - if it feels right.
liamh wrote:
BTW I think one of the reasons centered images get shouted down on here is because they are often the result of a photographer using center-weighted auto-focus and not because of a creative reason. I often center the subject - if it feels right.
completely agree, liam-there's good centered and there's bad centered
I'm about half way through her "At Work" book myself, and there are lots of good stories in there. I saw a lot of her work last year when it was at the Corcoran...all I can say is when you see it up close, and printed BIG, it's more impressive...beautiful lighting, and the way she engages the subject, even if it's not through conversation.
Good post Daniel. I'll have to lend you my copy of "At Work."
Technical minutia is far easier to judge and discuss than artistic merit. Further, I really believe that opening one's self up on a forum like this with a more "subjective" reaction to a work's purely artistic merit leaves the critic open to derision for "poor taste." I suspect sometimes folks don't have the guts to post that they like an image if they notice that it has technical shortcomings.
Check out the documentary "Annie Liebowitz - Life Through a Lens."
And while she may use a lot of assistants on the Vanity Fair shots, etc., she didn't on all the old Rolling Stone stuff. She's not good because of 7 assistants, she has 7 assistants now because she is good.
radioblurs wrote:
rffffffff, i'm with you-it's all about balance-i just find it interesting that many of the masters of our medium don't share the online "conventional wisdom"-but i'm certainly not abandoning it, eithe.
Chris Sorensen wrote:
Check out the documentary "Annie Liebowitz - Life Through a Lens."
And while she may use a lot of assistants on the Vanity Fair shots, etc., she didn't on all the old Rolling Stone stuff. She's not good because of 7 assistants, she has 7 assistants now because she is good.
thanks, chris-saw it recently and then saw a portion of it again with a friend (evan)-very inspiring stuff
i also completely agree with your assessment of her core talents (assistants vs. how good she is)
Here is one example of a contrary opinion called "The Worst Photo Ever." There is a follow up article from one of her retouchers that implies that she does little of her own work anymore.
If you put catchlights in the eyes the person will project one mood, if you don't another. Just two sides of the same coin. Same with light in the eyes or not, smiling or not, lighting ratio, shadow detail, position in frame, posture...
We react to those body language signals sub-consciously every waking moment. But using them effectively in portraiture via posing and lighting choices requires CONSCIOUS understanding of how you yourself and others react so it can be used at will (not by happy accident) to convey the desired mood or message. In other words first define your goal for the shot. Do you intend to flatter or not? Make the person look hostile, docile or friendly? Active and dynamic or static and reserved? Then once you have the goal, find the posing / lighting strategy which will create that perception in the mind of the viewer. By the time you get to that point it should be obvious whether there should be light and catchlights in the eyes or not.
Some perceptions are built on cultural stereotypes. Squared off postures, because they are more confrontational, are stereotypically masculine. But there's nothing wrong with posing a woman that way if the intention is to make her look tough rather than fitting the traditional feminine sterotype.
Being unconventional, what some call "breaking the rules" requires understanding what make things conventional and then usually doing the opposite. Everybody likes a pretty girl, but add tattoos and half dozen assorted piercings and reactions will vary depending on on the viewer's personal feelings about body modification. So you need to realize some stereotypical perceptions are universal, others are more individual, which might cause the same photo to have an opposite effect on different audiences. That happens frequently here.
Photographers who do well in the field of portraiture understand how to interpret and create body language. For some it comes naturally because they are naturally outgoing, feeling types who are considerate and in-touch with how others feel in any social situation. Gearheads who are by nature introverted observers and more thinkers than feelers will struggle more with this aspect. Like anything it can be learned and improved with practice, but it will probably take longer to feel comfortable doing it. It was an acquired skill for me, but I was fortunate to have as a role model and employer one the most extroverted feeling types when I first learned portraiture in formal and candid settings with natural light and flash.
If dealing with people and posing doesn't come naturally to you, I suspect you may learn more about this aspect of portraiture by reading and studying outside the narrow confines of photography in the area of psychology and human behavior. Just Google "Body Language" or "How to Sell Used Cars" and you'll gain some interesting insights about human behavior and interpreting body language which you can use to analyze and understand on a conscious thoughtful level why a photo which appeals to you worked to create the emotions you feel. That conscious understanding will then help guide you when posing and lighting a person to project a specific mood or message.
elliotkramer wrote:
Here is one example of a contrary opinion called "The Worst Photo Ever." There is a follow up article from one of her retouchers that implies that she does little of her own work anymore.
jprezant wrote:
Meeting Annie is on my wish list. My girlfriends father is related by marriage fingers crossed lol
When I was at Art Center in the early '70's Annie was in town doing a shoot. One of our instructors was Jim McCrary, who at that time was head of the photography department of A&M records and a good friend of Annie. He got her to come spend an afternoon with us. This was when her career was really starting to take off. She was very nice and down to earth and a lot of fun!
One of my close friends at Art Center became her L.A. assistant when she was in town, back in the days when she only had one assistant. She was always extremely nice to him and he loved working for her.
BTW, I did assistant work for another glam photog of the time, Norman Seef (www.normanseeff.com). One of his techniques to get his subjects relaxed was to get them totally wasted, if they weren't there already (look up the famous KISS shoot or look up the photo with the Monkees mooning the camera!)
)-thought i'd share a few realizations i've had in reading and carefully studying some of her work-this is by no means definitive but subject to my own interpretation, YMMV-it's helped both to encourage me in my own work as well as to open my eyes to possibilities outside of "the rules"
