File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Annie Leibovitz is the George Lucas of photography. She used to do interesting work, but has now lost her edge because she can't handle the freedom of digital manipulation.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006-11-18T00:30:22-16:00Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width300Image Height350
>> Anonymous
She lost her edge when she started just being the Court Photographer of Hollywood, long before digital.
>> Anonymous
Is .. is that a woman?

Looks liek fuckin Garth.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
She lost her edge when she quit washing her hair, long before she started being the Court Photographer of Hollywood.
>> Anonymous
it's a man, baby.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
...now? "Now", she's dead.
>> Anonymous
>>210151
lolwut?
>> Anonymous
She's such a bitch that she essentially caused one of her assistants to commit suicide. She has been known to throw lenses at assistants. After she shot Sammy Davis Jr, he went around and thanked everyone on set, but spat at her feet.

Dried up cunt of a shitty photographer. Fuck Annie Leibowitz.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>210158
Woops, I was thinking of Susan Sontag.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>210129

Extremely apt comparison, OP.
I'm honestly impressed.
>> Anonymous
>>210163
How is it that Susan Sontag is dead and Leibowitz still lives? Shit's not fair.
>> Anonymous
>>210173
Same reason Tupac's dead and Vanilla Ice and is still alive.
>> Anonymous
>>210129
Does she actually shoot on digital? I thought that she still used 24x36 polaroids, as retarded as that is.
>> Anonymous
polaroids are getting hard to find nowadays.
she must be getting lazy.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>210203

She may not be shooting on digital but she is putting her images through a digital workflow at some point.

Pic related, she did work for disney
>> Anonymous
>>210263

She has a touch up artist. EVERYONE big photographer has a touch up artist.
>> Anonymous
>>210295
Ehh, no. There are lots of BIG PHOTOGRAPHERS that still do all their work on their own.
>> Anonymous
>>210263
>>210263
That is.. fucking... HORRIBLE
>> Anonymous
>>210305

Yeah, okay who?

If you don't know what you're talking about just do us all a favour and stfu already.
>> Anonymous
>>210203

No, my understanding is she shoots on a Mamiya RB67 (I also heard somewhere awhile ago she has a Voigtlaender Bessa, too, which doesn't make sense but whatever if it's true.)

The film is then scanned, the picture is edited and printed by digital process.

>>210263
Yep, she uses the big name in digital bullshiting, Pascal Dangin. There was an article on him recently in the New Yorker, unsurprisingly, he comes off as an epic tool.

It's horrible how these people, Leibovitz and Dangin and their ilk, devote their whole careers to artificially glorifying worthless celebrities. Not to mention their baroque, "image" (in the P.R. sense and in our sense) making aesthetics suck.

>>210308
I'd imagine most studio whores* have someone like that.

*This isn't meant to disparage all studio photography at all, I'm just talking about the Leibovitzes and Meisels of the world.
>> Anonymous
>>210321
Oh, and just to be more clear and specific, film on the RB67. I forgot they make a digital back for it.
>> Anonymous
>>210322

They don't make a digital for th RB67 II speicifically but you can use the Mamiya ZD one which is designed for 6x4.5

With that you get a crop factor but also the RB67 is much better for studio as it has a great flash speed sync
>> Anonymous
>>210295

Yeah, that's been happening for pretty much 20 odd years. Computer re-touching has been around for a while.

any big photographer that works or shoots for publications or even themselves with have a re-toucher.

It's the way it is, even the great painters has assistants who helped them out with sketches and brush strokes every now and again.
>> Anonymous
>>210326
>It's the way it is, even the great painters has assistants who helped them out with sketches and brush strokes every now and again.

That's different. The problem with the digital retouching we have today its objective, an artificial "perfection." Painters for centuries either tried for realism or a distinctive, creative nonrealism; photographers like Leibovitz and retouchers like Dangin are trying for something that looks real but isn't to serve the worst aspects of contemporary mass society and media.

I don't think that other people being involved with the process has anything to do with it, pro or con.


>>210325

Got it. Since MF digital is out of my price range and the cameras aren't the best anyway for what I usually do I haven't really looked into it even as a lust object.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>210263

So...
Painfully...
Bad...
>> Anonymous
>>210327
>retouchers like Dangin are trying for something that looks real but isn't
>to serve the worst aspects of contemporary mass society and media.

This has nothing to do with digital editing, FYI. The airbrush was invented a few years after photography was, and no one's looked back since. I agree with you on the evils of artificial perfection, but it's something that was just about as common in the golden days of photography as it is today.
>> Anonymous
These days the touch up artists are the true artists. The photographers are just providing the raw material for the real artists to work with. Like raw lumber to a carpenter.
>> Anonymous
>>210365
like canvas to a fanny pack maker
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>210466
No one is saying Leibovitz hasn't done good work. What people are saying is she jumped the shark at some point, sold out to the celebrity industry and also got gimmicky.

This picture probably is from around that shark jumping point. Maybe not it precisely, but close.

>>210350
Yeah, I don't know why I mentioned digital.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
around the time I started in photography a fine photographer taught me a great lesson. He said there were 99 "technicians" for every guy with a creative eye and the skills to capture and present art.

I think one in 300 is closer..........
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:10:23 11:03:38Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2815Image Height3383
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.1.0Serial Number-187376425Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:29 11:06:53White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/2.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/2.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width3168Image Height2112RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeProgramFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeMediumFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed288Camera Actuations4Color Matrix130
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:10:15 13:07:27Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width4006Image Height2700
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:10:28 15:44:53Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1871Image Height2100
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelP 30Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width14520Image Height10903Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionUnknownImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:07:30 13:05:05Exposure Time5783/1041046 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/13.0Exposure Bias0 EVFocal Length80.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1324Image Height1784
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1Ds Mark IICamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image Width15360Image Height10240Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionUnknownImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2007:07:30 13:05:12Exposure Time1/180 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/13.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length46.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1315Image Height1810RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0PhotographerAnnie LeibovitzImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:02:28 22:26:57Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2377Image Height3000
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2006:10:30 21:19:14Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2200Image Height1509
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0PhotographerJames WhiteImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2003:04:29 15:56:24Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2410Image Height3000
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Could you please sage your Leibovitz spam? You're just proving our point that she's lost her touch big time.
>> =
is it just me or would all of these photos be fucking shit if the models weren't celebrities?
>> Anonymous
>>210510
Would be?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>210509
as opposed to wut? You shooting your fat gf?

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareACD Systems Digital ImagingImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2007:10:12 20:16:55Image Width1394Image Height2000
>> Anonymous
>>210526
i don't have a gf ;__;
>> Anonymous
>>210526
As opposed to any photography that's actually art, that actually addresses the human condition, instead of bland shit made just to glorify and idolatrize a bunch of celebrities.
>> Anonymous
>>210510
ever wonder why celebrities aren't beating down /p/'s door to enlist your fine talents? lol!
>> Anonymous
>>210529
~Photography major, first week of school after listening to his Professor of Fine Arts
>> Anonymous
>>210533
No.
>> Anonymous
>>210529

you were not elected to define the genre. While I care nothing for celebs I care a great deal about how a fine artist renders her work.
No artist I know who made money off their art is/was happy and I suspect Annie feels much the same. Then again if you need the money being the Rolling Stone photographer of the stars ain't a bad gig.
>> Anonymous
>>210526

At least the noobs who fag up this place don't rape photos with photoshop as badly as annie does
>> Anonymous
>>210542
please explain why Ansel or other photographers heavy use of darkroom tools is good but photoshop is bad?

I hated digitized photography and loved the darkroom. In time I realized Gimp & Photoshop are a fuller palette than burn & dodge or using soft or hard paper.
>> Anonymous
>>210560

There is a big difference between well done manipulation and destroying a photo with it.

See here for an example
>>210263
>> Anonymous
>>210539
What? I'm not defining any genre, I'm stating my critical opinion- a widely held one- that to be art (and not decoration, or advertising, or whatever) something has to address real issues. It's the difference between Cartier-Bresson and a paparazzi doing upskirts of Britney Spears.

Her work does nothing except the fuel the stupid contemporary media machine with pictures designed to exalt and aggrandize and draw attention to celebrities, for the benefit of them and the magazines that commission the works.

Tell me- how is Liebovitz's work art, and how is it good?

>I care a great deal about how a fine artist renders her work.

Could you rephrase this, I don't understand it exactly.

>No artist I know who made money off their art is/was happy and I suspect Annie feels much the same

And could you elaborate on and clarify this, too?

>>210560
There's nothing wrong with any amount of manipulation, it's the character and conceptual implications of the manipulation we're taking issue with.

You know those "Dove Real Beauty" ads? Even they were retouched, by Dangin, unshockingly, who bragged about pulling off the "real challenge" of making them "show the mileage" but still look beyond what the average viewer of the ads would look like.