You want to take pictures of...

[venchka]

...people? You want to take pictures of fashion models?

Is that what floats your boat?

Have a look.

Richard Avedon

[mmuhlenkamp]

Very cool, I'll have to look at the galleries more closely when I get home from work.

[venchka]

Shame on you! Surfing TPF at work.

[CaptainTom]

It's nice to see new photographers discovering the true Icons of photography.
try - Ansel Adams, Man Ray, Edward Weston, the list is pretty long depending on what kind of photography you like.

[mmuhlenkamp]

Originally Posted by venchka

Shame on you! Surfing TPF at work.

I'm pretty sure 90% of TPF posts are done while at work

[sparkyjr]

Thanks Wayne. I would have loved to have been present during some of those portrait sessions. It would be so cool, just to have watched, listened.

[Dobick]

Serious question/observation: I love Avedon's work, but it seems to me that from about 1955 forward, he never really evolved at all (definitely not stylistically.) If you were to do a random slide show of all the images that appear on the site posted, an image from 1955 and an image from 2003 would be indiscernible from each other unless there was some context by of the person appearing in the image (ie. a famous person, etc.)

[yaterag]

The pictures are fantastic, but more than that the people in them are astounding.

[zebulus]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

It's nice to see new photographers discovering the true Icons of photography.
try - Ansel Adams, Man Ray, Edward Weston, the list is pretty long depending on what kind of photography you like.

Henri Cartier Bresson. Hes the reason I got into photography as a child. Ive been holding a camera since I was 6.

[toverman]

Originally Posted by zebulus

Henri Cartier Bresson. Hes the reason I got into photography as a child. Ive been holding a camera since I was 6.

Time to put it down! Doesn't it hurt to hold it that long? (kidding).

My influences were closer to home and not famous at all. My grandmother especially was the photographer in the family, although my dad was handy with his Polaroids. I've had a camera at least nearby since I was 10.

[swanny338]

A few weeks ago I got the opportunity to be taken into the photography department of the getty to one of the back rooms. We asked if they had any Richard Avedon portfolios handy. 5 minutes later we were looking at original prints from the Avedon studio.

Yea, those pictures look nice on the web but it was incredible to be inches away from. Perfectly cared for, perfectly matted and perfectly printed.

http://twitpic.com/6of76



This is the print we were looking at
http://www.richardavedon.com/#s=7&a=...10000&p=6&at=0

Not even close to the same experience.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by Dobick

Serious question/observation: I love Avedon's work, but it seems to me that from about 1955 forward, he never really evolved at all (definitely not stylistically.) If you were to do a random slide show of all the images that appear on the site posted, an image from 1955 and an image from 2003 would be indiscernible from each other unless there was some context by of the person appearing in the image (ie. a famous person, etc.)

That's interesting. I hadn't noticed.

The same has been said of Ansel Adams. That his best work was done up until the 1950s.

Nuclear fallout?

[Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Dobick

Serious question/observation: I love Avedon's work, but it seems to me that from about 1955 forward, he never really evolved at all (definitely not stylistically.) If you were to do a random slide show of all the images that appear on the site posted, an image from 1955 and an image from 2003 would be indiscernible from each other unless there was some context by of the person appearing in the image (ie. a famous person, etc.)

I have to disagree. I think you may be confusing a recognizable style with lack of inovation. I have followed and studied Avedon for years. Last year I saw the exhibition at the Corcoran in Washington DC ("Portraits of Power")that had images that spanned his entire career. It was easy to see the evolution in his photography, even though there was a definite style throughout the whole body of work. This one exhibition would dispel the notion that all his pictures are the same.

One of the last things he was working on (and published after he died) was a color series for a magazine. Yes, color.

One can't look at Dovima and the elephants, then the large (bigger than life size) portraits, then The American West, etc. and say they all are the same, really. Oh, they're Avedon, all right. They have a certain "Avedoness".

Sort of like Beethoven symphonies. Listen to the First and then the Ninth. Both definitely Beethoven, but not the same.

[venchka]

I've posted this before, worth posting again. It's related.

http://lifeslittleadventures.typepad...we_did_it.html

The Cliff's Notes quotes:

a 1,500-watt lamp in a reflector about 18" in diameter

The film being used in the 120 Rolleiflex TLR camera was Plus-X, and the exposure set at 1/60 second at f/8.

Panatomic-X film, with an ASA index of 25, and stopped down to f/16.

Formulated to reduce grain by smoothing the edges of the individual silver halide clusters, Panthermic 777 was a godsend to early adopters of 35mm.

Most prints were made at least ten times over until the "perfect" one emerged.

And you all think profiling a printer and paper is hard.

[Dobick]

Originally Posted by Big Dog

I have to disagree. I think you may be confusing a recognizable style with lack of inovation. I have followed and studied Avedon for years. Last year I saw the exhibition at the Corcoran in Washington DC ("Portraits of Power")that had images that spanned his entire career. It was easy to see the evolution in his photography, even though there was a definite style throughout the whole body of work. This one exhibition would dispel the notion that all his pictures are the same.

One of the last things he was working on (and published after he died) was a color series for a magazine. Yes, color.

One can't look at Dovima and the elephants, then the large (bigger than life size) portraits, then The American West, etc. and say they all are the same, really. Oh, they're Avedon, all right. They have a certain "Avedoness".

Sort of like Beethoven symphonies. Listen to the First and then the Ninth. Both definitely Beethoven, but not the same.

I see where you are coming from -- I guess maybe it is just because his style is so absolutely overwhelming

To me, by the mid to late 50's Avedon seemed to realize that the absolute essence of the image could be pulled from a very bare minimum of elements. and that all other elements that might possibly be included in merely serve to get in the way, or possibly mask the essence of the image. In the same way that water is made up of two elements, and once you know how to find and combine hydrogen and oxygen, if you are making water, no need to bring anything else. In my mind, Avedon has been making the photographic equivalent of water since 1955.

That is what I mean when I say that he didn't really evolve. Not really meant to be a derrogative statement at all.

He made water and he made it pure. And apparently towards the end he decided that he should add some coloring to the water. Probably didn't change the flavor at all