Gee, I don't know what to think of this. In some sense I find her work disappointing. But also fascinating. I really can't work out what I think. Maybe I think it looks too fake for my taste.
Here is what I was looking at. But I was also thinking about the Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes shooting in Vanity Fair. It was five days work on site. The queen was 11 weeks of preparation and 11 assistants. And one (lousy) dSLR camra that is not even a Leica. I had expected a Hasselblad.
Anyhow, these are the four pictures released or approved by HRH Queen Elizabeth II:
Ooh, I don't know. It's facinating. Yet it's fake skies on no 1 and 2, and god knows what else is fake. She came from being chief photographer on Rolling Stones. In my book that's around and up, working with natural lightning and available light, available persons, available time and a lot of unavailable - much like White House photographers.
Now it's a truckload of assistants and hours of PS.
Hmm.
It's work like that that make people question if Apollo 11 actually ever landed on the moon. (But mind you this comment is coming from a guy who havent left film photography yet. I'm getting there but I'd rather not).
You know Hans Christian Andersen, the famous Danish poet who wrote The Emperor's New Clothes witht a small boy says "But he has nothing on!"
My take is "But she has no film in the camera!"
Okay, maybe not so. I'm leaving film these days. I might come back to that subject when I can talk about it comfortably without getting wet eyes.
Here's the video from the shooting which reveals a bit about setting, quipment and all. I find her personality somwehat a mixture of Woody Allen and Julia Roberts. She's an very intersting person.
Don't forget that Annie's original idea, the Queen on a horse inside the state apartments got rejected because obviously it was too awesome for the Queen's PR department. Now seriously think about how awesome that photo would have been. Annie is awesome just for intending to do that. I think Kira is right when she said, "I believe that many decisions concerning those photos were made due to limitations".
I don't respect fake backgrounds that pretend to be real...and I'm glad we don't have monarchs in the Americas..what a pain, all that ass kissing. Seems like a relic from a time gone by...
Posted by Darren Aba... on December 23, 2007 1:52 PM
I have to admit that I've never been a fan of her work. I don't think she does bad work, but I've always thought that she's a bit over-rated. I think a lot of her fame is to be credited to being at the right place at the right time. But, that can be said of most famous people, I guess. Either way... Fake skies? Can't respect that. She didn't make a photograph; she made a photo-illustration.
I see where Annie is coming from, to try achieve the look of an old master portrait. But the final product looks plastic to me, and just does not work.
Many times a client will employ me to manipulate a portrait to look like a painting in which I use Corel Painter 9, I'm not a fan of it, but many people want a oil painting over the fireplace, a photo manipulation is the closest (cheapest) thing to it.
But as an effect it will look dated and kitch in the near future. While the classical portraits of Karsh will be compelling forever.
This might sounds extremely naive but i'll try to suggest to look at things a bit differently. You were very disappointed with all the photoshopping done in those photos saying that "god knows what else is fake". Maybe,just maybe this was one of Annie Leibovitz's aims.Maybe the fake dramatic sky holds a deeper meaning than just being a heavility photoshopped sky. As much as her figure apparently presented as unshakable, the heavy editing make us doubt the truth and by that i apply to the whole series . The queen looks very lonely and vulnerable with that upcoming storm in the background (at least in my eyes) and on the other portraits when wearing all those royalty cloths-the whole thing just looks ridicilousl and fake (concept related) . It was clearly seen in the video that there were more limitations than options in this project. I bet you've noticed the queen's reaction when suggested to take off the crown or be photographed on a horse. I believe that many decisions concerning those photos were made due to limitations. I have no knowledge one so ever about how many assistans should be on a location of such project but my wild guess is that Leibovitz brought her squad for the queen to feel important :)
thanks for posting this as i hadn't seen it. coincidentally, she became our oldest ruling monarch today, and she's one of the few people i'd jump in front of a bullet for! i like the pose of the first shot. there was a t.v documentary a few years back that followed the queen around her royal residences. it was amazing to see her totally relaxed and laughing and joking, riding her horse and playing with her dogs. this is a side of her we very rarely see in britain, we only see her opening hospitals or such like, where she must get sick of the smell of fresh paint. it would be wonderful to see relaxed portraits of her, watching her favorite t.v shows with her feet up, but it's not the done thing, and it's a shame ;)
Posted by Arthur Mol... on December 20, 2007 3:54 PM
what people said about them looking like paintings is exactly what i thought ... they also seem to be set up like old portrait paintings done of important people with the colors and the flow of the drapery and clothing ... but i like the one where HRH is outside ... it's got something that the other 3 don't have ... interesting photos for sure and the video was very cool to watch ... i generally really like annie's work ... these do look overly photoshopped though. thanks for putting this up thorsten!! :)
I think her work is meant to be a sort of set up like paintings and tell a story. The whole point of her work is to create stories, to which I think she is successful and I love that about her. Though I have to say, I much prefer working without extravagant setups and lighting etc.., but there is something to be admired and appreciated about her work.
Posted by Richard Po... on December 20, 2007 11:50 AM
I think that paintings would have been a better choice also. If you’re going to manipulate photos to make them look like paintings what exactly is the point?
Posted by Ovidiu Mor... on December 20, 2007 7:48 AM
I'm just curious what all those assistants did. That is just how I do not immagine shooting a queen. I understand this womans genius in understanding what she can recover or not with PS and so on but for Gods sake you're shooting a Queen. And if they want you for shooting her, you should be the one deciding what it's done. Think about when the Queens did hours and hours of standing in front of some painter. Half hour????? If you take a look at LaChapelles photos you see them corwded but not cofused... I see her going around, doing random shots here and there, I would'nt have shot the queen inside a room full of "things" and then probably stitch her on some other background. A white or blue background set works better... and you can choose your idea of composition before, thinking about what's in and what's not... dunno! This is all considering she did not shoot using the available light.... Seems some sort of Draganization how they call them here in italy! This said, she's Annie Leibovitz. And tastes should not be discussed :)
Posted by Thorsten O... on December 20, 2007 7:13 AM
@Riccardo: Part of the way it was done might be that Annie Leibovitz' pictures has become accustomed to fit a double-page spread in Vanity Fair and the likes. I'll get back to the film thing which is sad but also has some interesting sides. But I still have 8 film Leica and a Imacon film scanner - and plan to keep them and use them. But more on that later.
May I comment freely? Since I don't know that photographer well. Those pictures are crap to me. An insult to photography. While I appreciate the Painting-style composition, the result is too fake, too manipulated, too anything. Photography can be great when doing "important official portraits" but not this way. Karsh rules there. You are right. For a queen, Leica or Hasselblad. Or Rollei. Or Linhof. But not just for the chrome or brass, for the concept behind it.
Posted by Thorsten O... on December 20, 2007 5:16 AM
Thanks for the comments so far. I actually don't think there are any rules as to what can be done. I should post about the old (war) photographers later when I find those photos again; but they inserted or removed people in the darkroom to make their works stronger or clearer. I think todays Reuters rules, AP rules, etc about not editing pictures is a bit of a boy scout dramatization. There was this case about removing a foot that was seen behind a fence (an audience's foot at a football match where the center of interest was on the field. Big fuzz about it. I mean, what does a foot has to do with truth in a sports event. It was annoying, so the photographer removed it for clarity just like I remove dirt on a background wall if I feel it's disturbing the attention. The reason why news agencies are soooo drama queen about this is because they fuck up the truth left right and center in more clever and more 100% organized ways them self whenever their government ask them to for reasons of 'national security' and stuff like that). Also old painters removed people or changed their minds midway. We have a couple of paintings locally in the art museum where there are ghosts in the pictures (because of age you see those now) . The disappointment in these (later) works of Annie Leibovitz is the wow and the chill, then that you wonder if this really happened or if it's stitched together of 12 photos and some of the stuff is a PS drawing. The message and impact of the photo would be so strong that you would chill and cry if you didn't immediately start question the photo. You could say she's so original it ruins the communication in her work. It's impressing yes, it's for sure art, but there's something you don't know. That's the feeling. Reminds me of a book I saw the other day in the bookstore of "Photos that never happened" where you see real photos of real events and real people, but you know those things never happened because those of a celebrity must be staged, and another one of the queen is quite unlikely because she would never bee in that place where you see her. But as you don't get the real story (on how they manipulated those photos and you can't figure it out yourself, not even why they did them) it becomes something you don't really trust to spend time on looking at. All that said, I don't have a problem with 11 assistants and the money part of it. I actually enjoy in the video to see how organized five people or so fix the queens dress on the floor while Annie Leibovitz talks with the queen. It's extremely well organized and I think they planned exactly how they wanted it to look, and she happens to have enough assistants to run things smoothly and professional in a hurry.
Posted by CMphotogra... on December 20, 2007 4:21 AM
thanks for the video. it's always nice to see how professional photographers work. i guess she uses a dslr for speed. half an hour to shoot isn't really much. too bad that the photos seem to be highly manipulated. i guess she also would've taken some good photos without the help of PS. imho all those manipulations degrade the photographer in a way. if the photos are bad, someone else will fix it.
Posted by Robert Pri... on December 19, 2007 10:07 PM
Ok I really enjoy her early work, and I'm sure she is still fantastic, but well I have no words to say how I feel about the photos or the video of the shoot. I would have to say I feel sorrow in a way.
oh god photoshop!!! they could as well make a painting of her with brushes and stuff. i think it sucks. and 11 assistants? I wonder who pays for that...................
dont you have bigger pictures? im squinting here :P...those photographs look like paitings....kinda weird...the textures...the lighting...but they look pretty, one click behind the camera, one day behind ps...thats the shitty side............"the start of the session has been delayed 15 minutes" that made me laugh
no matter my feelings about annie ... i still got chills watching her shoot. the whole crown/tiara mishap ... wasn't as big as i had heard that it was. the canon eos 1ds is not a crappy camera. the hassie is a pain in the ass to work with and it's slow. the glass is not zeiss any longer so ... i'd much rather shoot with the canon. the photoshop ... i think it's pretty damn photoshopped, in fact. i think annie gave up film long ago. i have a great story about her ... and ... the dreaded reshoot! hope you're well, brother.
Thanks for posting that video. I have that issue of Vanity Fair, and was like yourself very interested in the shots. 11 assistants! And obviously quite a bit of manipulation, especially that second one, and it even looks like the last one too, since the background was a backdrop in the video??
Thank you so much for the very kind words, Thorsten. Getting that from a working photojournalist is always a real compliment. :) I started shooting in 2005, and the oldest photo in my uber portfolio is just from 2006. Definitely hoping to be even better in years to come! Thanks once again, and cheers from Indonesia!
Well, you're simply the most talented guy I've seen in a long time ... or longer. You're basically at a level where the only thing you should aim at developing is the message. What do you want to tell with your pictures. And I hope you don't go the "World Press" way with hopelessness but go for a the message of life, spirit and hope.
Hi, I have been watching your photography work for a bit and I really like them because it is rare from a professional photographer to shot real people with real emotions especially from famous people.
Hey Thorsten. I bought myself a used Leica R4. Now I'm in the R gang too. Part of this is because of your influence. The camera isn't in perfect condition, but it was affortable. I'll run a test roll thourgh it and probably use it for a reportage on Sunday.
Feels nice. Summicron 50/2 looks good and I hope it comes up to expectation. Should be pretty similar to M.
So well, now I am even more a red-dot elitist. But I don't care, I use other cameras too, Leicas are just good. Form a first glance I think that R is largerly underrated.
Chris will be green of envy ;-) and that's his own damn fault ;-)
The R4 is actually a nice camera and a nice size and sound. And it's easy to get one as many were produced and it is said to have a "faulty electronics." (Which mean that some R4 go dead, but I've never had any problems with mine).
You can probably find an inexpensive winder or motor to go with it. Gives an even better hold on it and balance.
The 50mm f/2.0 is reputed to be one of the best 50mm lenses in the world. And still is. I find 50mm a bit dull as I prefer 80mm mostly - but I must admit I'm blown by the quality of the Summicron 50mm f/2 when I use it.
Yes, sure. Electronics. A photographer I know, which has anything from Leicaflex to R8..., told me: look my brand new R4 went dead pretty soon. If you buy an R4 now, it most probably has survived. A visual check shows that mine works, a couple of films will tell.
As much as I love M... this R is nice. Leicaflexes are very expensive and in any case, having an electronic SLR with good exposure is pretty nice. Working with flash is easier too.
The R4 is the smallest of the series, this is also why I have chosen it. The only thing I miss is the 1/2000", which would allow me to open my lens more. The camera fits well in the hand.
80mm is nice for reportage, concert photos. I like the 50, but sometimes you can't get near enough or you need the tele-effect.
I pretty much like the 90/2 with its fancy retractable lens-hood. Probably if I find myself using the camera, I'll look for one.
I'll blog about the camera probably!
So when you come to Italy or I go to Denemark, we will have even more material for a chat, hah!
PS: I so much wished Leica would introduce a new digital back: it would keep the R system alive (no, I don't want a full digital R camera). Imagine a full-frame module! Slap it in for some newspaper work and put your slide or b&w film in when you can have more time for your images.
thanks for the comment. My M8 is MOSTLY a camera for personal work, so no backup unfortunately. I use Canon's for work...the minute either Leica or Mamiya release a digital rangefinder with 16-22mp, I'll ditch my Canon setup....
Impressive work, nice gallery. I'm new to uber and your blog is great, hopefully I'll add some photos representing my country soon. I like your style as a documentary photographer, very informative and beautiful.
Actually I haven't used the FED camra for a long time. Shooting digital now. It's too expensive for me to work fully with film and there's no proessional places to develope or print. So, I chose digital. Thanks. But the place is indeed interesting for photographing, for living it might be a bit harsh.
Thank you so much for sharing! I agree about falling in love with your tools and staying in love with photography. I use new and old school tools. I have nice DSLR's and a point and shoot I carry all the time and old rangefinders, twin lenses - they all have good things I love about them. Sometimes you have to make choices according to situations - when I go on trips - especially overseas, I have to be really efficient and thoughtful. I will check back for you new works. Thanks,
