UdoR wrote:
She is an inspiration for me too, expecially her covering as a tour photographer of the Rolling Stones.

When I saw the topic, I was concerned, hoping that this is not a post that gives bad news about her... *phew*

Yeah, scared the bejeebers out of me too!  Sure am glad this isn't an "In Memorium" thread.  I've been a big fan of her work for a long time; I think we turned pro at about the same time, and just look at where we stand today. :-)

Fortunately, still standing!

Jack D Trute wrote:
History will tell us,  I doubt she will be remembered in 300 years.

In 300 years she could be considered one of the greatest photographers ever. You and I won't know.

ADGibson wrote:

In 300 years she could be considered one of the greatest photographers ever. You and I won't know.

Speak for yourself,  God did not grant me 'dog years' for nothing.   Plus there has to be a reason why I only come out at night and suck something besides myself not to be confused with generally just sucking.

Jack D Trute wrote:

Speak for yourself,  God did not grant me 'dog years' for nothing.   Plus there has to be a reason why I only come out at night and suck something besides myself not to be confused with generally just sucking.

I have to agree with Jack... A dog in a mohair coat is still a hound.
She totaly sucks and contrived. If you look at some of her photos from as little as 5 years ago, they already look dated. 300 years from now Richard Avedon, Irving Penn..etc, will withstand the test of time. She is nowhere even close to being in that category. Succesful financialy no doubt, but hardly the makings of greatness.

alexwh wrote:
There are bootleg versions out there. What is amazing about this film (b+w) is that Frank singlehandedly invented all the techniques now seen in MTV and in music videos.

A stretch, don't you think?
I do know the film.  I do not however see what that film has to do with the quality of her photographic career.

alexwh wrote:
The film has scenes showing the Stones shooting up in a hotel room and one of the groupies of the film is an unamed Annie Leibovitz!

Yes, I have heard of the movie, but have never seen it myself. Robert Frank was a great photographer, yet probably never relished the financial success and fame that Annie Leibovitz has. Again, just an example of how most people don't recognize the difference between greatness and mediocrity.

Dean Solo wrote:

Yes, I have heard of the movie, but have never seen it myself. Robert Frank was a great photographer, yet probably never relished the financial success and fame that Annie Leibovitz has. Again, just an example of how most people don't recognize the difference between greatness and mediocrity.

oh, I get it now,  if that was his point.

commart wrote:
I may overreach here, but in that Annie Leibovitz has probably produced more interpretive portraiture covering popular and political culture figures than any other magazine photographer (name her competitors) of the last thirty years, her name may well turn out an inescapable label on the pictorial part of American history.

"Interpretive portraiture covering popular and political culture"!?? WTF is that?
Who give's a rats a**. She is still a mediocre photographer weather shooting political figures or Whoopi Goldberg in a bath of milk.

jason messer wrote:
she has some nice work....not all of it screams.  but theres some good ones in there for sure.

ive heard shes pretty nasty to work for.

and didnt she get her success from some kind of connection?  like her father was the publisher of rolling stone....i think i heard something like that.  could be wrong.

like her work or not.....shes doing it.  i know her name.....she doesnt know mine.

In 1970, out of art school and looking for work, she responded to a classified ad for a photographer placed by Jan Wenner who was then just starting his pop music sheet--Rolling Stone.

jason messer wrote:
she has some nice work....not all of it screams.  but theres some good ones in there for sure.

ive heard shes pretty nasty to work for.

and didnt she get her success from some kind of connection?  like her father was the publisher of rolling stone....i think i heard something like that.  could be wrong.

like her work or not.....shes doing it.  i know her name.....she doesnt know mine.

Her father was an Air Force lieutenant. The story goes... In 1970, a friend suggested she take her prints to Rolling Stone. Jann Wenner, the magazine's founder, was impressed by Leibovitz's photos. Then began giving her assignments, paying her $47 a week. She became the mag's principal photog and was with them for ten years.

Jack D Trute wrote:
A stretch, don't you think?
I do know the film.  I do not however see what that film has to do with the quality of her photographic career.

The point is that too many here are too linear.

A thread on Leibovitz where someone mentions the Stones tour can (or could) shift you to thinking about a photographer (Robert Frank) you probably have not thought about for a long time, if at all. In this film (Cocksucker Blues) Leibovitz is unknown and the only photographer of that era that photographed people "doing something" was Philippe Halsman who published his book of celebrities like Nixon and Monroe jumping. When Leibovitz got famous a contemporary of hers (pehaps you may know of him) called Gregory Heisler went public and direct in an American Photo article about the fact that until Leibovitz came around you could calmly take a person's portrait being themselves. Now photographers had to photograph people doing something to capture their essence. It was a bitter diatribe by an excellent photographer.

But it would seem that here in MM one has to go to the point immediately and when that fails a few four-letter words here or there can improve the mix. And when that fails one can say something cute and end it with that LOL that has lost (for me anyway) any meaning.

It also seems that either people are deadly serious or overly light. There is no common medium.

With so much mediocre photography to be seen these days and so much of it in on line porfolio sites like this one, to hear you guys lambaste Annie Leibovitz for being mediocre and successful simply does  smack of outright and bitter jealousy.

I read enough threads where many here (and not only the man on the bar stool) did nothing to defend the qualities of Penn or Avedon. Now these names are brought up as a positive contrast to a negative Leibovitz.

When Leibovitz took her famous pictures in the 70s and 80s, including her American Express ads, she was using a technique that few used at the time. She hauled (okay her assistants did) a large softbox into a desert/sundown situation and then she would underexpose her background by one stop or two. This technique is now everywhere, but at the time it was kind of new. Few could afford large lights that could be powered by generators in the dessert. But now many if not all of you can do a contemporary Leibovitz. But you are forgetting her pioneering work.

That she was able to secure a contract with Vanity Fair speaks a lot about her ability to communicate her skills verbally to the people who hired her. A photographer is not only good if he or she is good. He or she has to also have verbal people skills. Many here lack them, and too easily resort to insult and profanity. You can be good but if nobody hires you, nobody will know how good you are.

In a country (your US) which is capitalistic society, success of those who come from the bottom, who then make it to the top should be celebrated and not denigrated with the epithet of mediocre.

I have in my mind Leibovitz's photo of John Belushi hitchhiking on the side of the road and I see a photograph in which the technical aspect plays second fiddle to a well executed and original idea. It is a very good photograph that to me is the essential John Belushi.

Too many here are critical without having done their homework. Do you homework (ever so easy with search engines, you don't have to go to the library anymore) and you might just become less bitter and perhaps then a better photographer.

That Annie Leibovitz has served as an inspiration to the original poster of this thread is enough to place her over many other photographers.
Alexwh

Jack D Trute wrote:
Ah,  nasty mediocrity rares it's ugly head.
But this is a lesson on how to suckseed in business,  Be a nasty bitch,  be mediocre with skill, and shoot for the stars, or it that shoot with the stars with nothing to say but cheezy shots with okay lighting.
She plays the game better than the others.
Did she ever have anything to say besides her first years of shooting?

obviously much more successful than I am,
But I am still allowed to think she is just mediocre
if not just straight out suck.

History will tell us,  I doubt she will be remembered in 300 years.

interesting thoughts Ms. Jackie.. 

not to specificaly bash annie... but my general observation with 'celebrity photogs'.. is generally this...

if the subject was NOT a celebrity.. would the photo stand on its own most of the time ?.... quite often....."not really'...

sometimes the ONLY thing that makes a celebrity photo of any interest is that there is a recognizable face in the photo of a recognizable celebrity out of their usual element.....

Rossi Photography wrote:
Yep. Here we go... Differing viewpoints. Tell us all, who don't agree, how much we suck, will never amount to be any sort of a photographer and that we should be ashamed of ourselves. Yadda', yadda, yadda'...

I'm off to bed. G'night...

Hmmm,  when did this become about you?

Jack D Trute wrote:
Hmmm,  when did this become about you?

Hmmm... It never was.

Kurt Fehlhauer wrote:
She ain't no Herb Ritts or Helmut Newton.  At least they will be remembered for their photographs and not who they photographed.

that is a positive way of putting it.
Kudos.

Kurt Fehlhauer wrote:
She ain't no Herb Ritts or Helmut Newton.  At least they will be remembered for their photographs and not who they photographed.

Kurt in the above statement you could be right or wrong.

You put forth no evidence to back your statement. It is simply a two sentence uttering that has no meaning and does not add or detract from this thread. Research the woman, study some of her pictures and use one, or two as evidence for your statement. If you don't it is simply a waste of hot air.
Alexwh

Kurt Fehlhauer wrote:
She ain't no Herb Ritts or Helmut Newton.  At least they will be remembered for their photographs and not who they photographed.

One of the most famous female photographers of the 20th century was Margaret Burke-White. She shot the first cover for the first issue of Life. She was the first photographer (of any sex) to fly in a bomber in a bombing run over Germany. One of her most famous photographs is of about to be liberated Jewish prisoners in Germany.

Yet she is remembered ( I stress this here) for one photograph she took of Mahatma Gandhi spinning.
Alexwh

alexwh wrote:

Kurt in the above statement you could be right or wrong.

You put forth no evidence to back your statement. It is simply a two sentence uttering that has no meaning and does not add or detract from this thread. Research the woman, study some of her pictures and use one, or two as evidence for your statement. If you don't it is simply a waste of hot air.
Alexwh

Since you wanted a more detailed answer, here it is. 

I have been following her career from the 1980's, so I think I can speak with some authority.  When I look at any of Annie's photos I think pop culture and I think "thats a nice portrait".  When I look at Herb Ritts or Helmut Newton's work I'm inspired.  Something I can't say about Annie's work.  She just is not at the level of either Herb or Helmut.

alexwh wrote:

One of the most famous female photographers of the 20th century was Margaret Burke-White. She shot the first cover for the first issue of Life. She was the first photographer (of any sex) to fly in a bomber in a bombing run over Germany. One of her most famous photographs is of about to be liberated Jewish prisoners in Germany.

Yet she is remembered ( I stress this here) for one photograph she took of Mahatma Gandhi spinning.
Alexwh

I'd be willing to bet that most people know the photograph of Mahatma Gandhi but not the photographer.  So Annie ends up in that category and that will be her place in history.

Kurt Fehlhauer wrote:

Since you wanted a more detailed answer, here it is. 

I have been following her career from the 1980's, so I think I can speak with some authority.  When I look at any of Annie's photos I think pop culture and I think "thats a nice portrait".  When I look at Herb Ritts or Helmut Newton's work I'm inspired.  Something I can't say about Annie's work.  She just is not at the level of either Herb or Helmut.

Again there is no content here or an explanation as why the photos do not move you. More sentences, but still not content.

To be clear from what I have written up to know about Leibovitz you might not notice that nowhere did I say I liked her work or  not. I mentioned liking one photograph and that's it.

I just cannot abide caustic statements that are not followed by any explanations.

While I may not pick up Vanity Fair at all (I never did after the stopped using Irvin Penn on the covers) they (at Vanity Fair) must surely know something about Leibovitz's photography to have given her so much space.

I love Helmut Newton because he always made me look twice. He always put a dissonant note somwhere in his photograph. He challenge my idea of sexuality. I loved his big nudes.

Herb Ritts, the LA Herb Ritts was an LA photographer who photographed the LA glitteratti and did a lot to make gay people look almost okay to conservative Americans. He did this by using broad lighting that never hinted at darker corners or anything that may have been lurking like AIDS.

What I wrote above could be and probably is total BS but at least I am using some sort of qualifier for my opinion.
Alexwh

alexwh wrote:

Kurt Fehlhauer wrote:
What I wrote above could be and probably is total BS but at least I am using some sort of qualifier for my opinion.
Alexwh

And you complain about hot air?