TPF Critique's Annie Leibovitz

[d2creative]

Don't get me wrong, I LOOOOVE Annie L's work. Well, most of it. But this is one example that just doesn't "do it" for me. I'd like to hear your opinions on it though.

If this pic was posted in the People forum here on TPF by one of our members, and the woman was not Bette Midler, these are some of the comments I would expect to see...

"Lighting is flat, but great exposure"
"The wood floor on the left is a little distracting"
"Why did you cut off her toes?"
"Her feet look dirty, you should photoshop that"

Any more?



Just a little tongue in cheek commentary about both the over criticism we sometimes see on ALL forums and is it that some photographs are famous because the photographer is famous or because the photograph is truly great. The comments above do not necessarily reflect how this noob feels about the photograph.

[photobykim]

Dennis, I have to agree with the wood flooring and possibly the white showing through in different areas as well.

her feet do look dirty too. yuck!

[Gordon]

curious, is that the final version, or something on the way to the finished, used image ?

[d2creative]

Originally Posted by Gordon

curious, is that the final version, or something on the way to the finished, used image ?

Gordon, good question. And I do not know the answer. But it looks just like the shot from the PBS special if I remember correctly.

[lscottpht]

No, that was not the final version, and this was more toward the beginning days of her work. The final version was much better and cropped. Her work is amazing, but she also is working with one of the best, well, the best digital manipulators in the world.

[Laura Minks]

That's so funny. I was thinking something similar while watching the documentary. I wonder what kind of response some of her photographs would get if she posted them as a newbie on a photography forum. While her work is amazing and breathtaking, it often is outside of the box. I tend to appreciate those rule breakers. There were a few instances where I noticed limbs being cut off, or "distracting" objects in the photos. Although, had it been altered, the entire image would have been less dramatic.

[Gordon]

It looks like potentially the final version can be seen in these search results

I haven't followed the links, so don't know what the sites are like (clicker beware)

[d2creative]

Originally Posted by Laura Minks

I wonder what kind of response some of her photographs would get if she posted them as a newbie on a photography forum.

Exactly my thinking.

[Gordon]

A fine piece of satire in this vein. Though blogger seems to be a bit up and down today, so it might take a few reload attempts.

Great Photographers on the Internet

[brad]

Originally Posted by d2creative

"Lighting is flat, but great exposure"
"The wood floor on the left is a little distracting"
"Why did you cut off her toes?"
"Her feet look dirty, you should photoshop that"

You forgot "Roses are trite and overused.. try something original."




Oh wait, that's a FM response.

[Cope]

Shouldn't we run this by Ken Rockwell before making judgement calls?

[d2creative]

LOL, brad I was actually thinking of putting that one but didn't only because of how old the pic is. Maybe it wasn't overdone then?

[Stephen H]

We have a tendency to say "This is a great photograph by a great photographer and therefore can't be improved upon." And that's not necessarily the case at all. I suspect a lot of the more well-known photographers could look at their own work and still see improvements to be made in it.

Another factor is that generally people are looking for the best picture possible considering the subject. So a critique that says "Remove that lady and put someone famous there instead" isn't considered a useful critique at all. But that doesn't mean it's not accurate. Think of all the pet shots you could critique by saying "Your cat is boring. Go shoot something interesting." But that isn't acceptable, and instead, we have to say things like "The right paw is fuzzy and it doesn't follow the rule of thirds." So we tend to accept that our subjects are set and how we portray them can be "fixed" to make the shot a good shot. But great photography involves finding the right subject as well, and having famous people lay in a bed of roses is a good start to that.

[84NETgal]

here's my non-photographer, 'such a girl' response: i can't help it but i immediately focus on that hideous hairstyle. old school or not, it's just not a good look for her!

i don't really see how this pertains to Annie's photography, just....wanted to share.

[akimartymar]

" I wonder what kind of response some of her photographs would get if she posted them as a newbie on a photography forum. "


I was asking a similar question the other day in my design class. We were looking at some of Jackson Polluck's work. Now his older stuff was fresh and abstract and I totally got it. However, his newer stuff where he just throws paint on the canvas is something I just don't understand. I told my teacher that I felt that his newer work was only appreciated because of his name and earlier work. If the first thing he ever did was his latest work, I don't think people would view it as great.