Kurt Fehlhauer wrote:
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.

If you don't know (it is not important if anybody else knows) who Margaret Burke-White is, I would say it is a tragedy, particularly since you are an American. I am not an American and I am proud of this woman who proved she could get on top of the Chrysler Building with a 4x5 and take better pictures than most men. She went to a young Soviet Union and took some of the best industrial photographs ever taken. Burke-White dissapeared from sight in the 50s because she was struck by the worst disease that can strike a photographer (not blindness) but Parkinson's.

The less you know about your country's rich photographic legacy the more suspect I think your present unfounded statements are. And I want to stress, I mean you no wrong. 

I am not trying to insult you in any way. I just cannot understand how people here in MM can have opinions that are based on a very (as in very) short history.
Alexwh

Kurt Fehlhauer wrote:

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?

You guys are quick for short cutsy statements. And that's it. Haven't you yet figured out I am not "defending" Annie Leibovitz? I am pointing out the evidence and logical holes that you who don't like her are using in this thread and most threads in MM. I am not pissed off or losing it. Try a bit of kindness and moderation and perhaps even this photographer you loathe could inspire you to improve.

But again, no content. Write one paragraph telling us why you don't like a particular Leibovitz photo. Evidence, evidence, please.
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.

I am going to have to agree with Jack on this one!

MikeyBoy wrote:
interesting thoughts Ms. Jackie.. 

not to specicially 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.....

Standing and applauding Jack's post. Annie is the epitome of overrated hack. Those early Stones tour and backstage  shots for R.S.... Tri-X at 1600 and 3200, available light, snap, snap, snap, snap, snap, snap, snap... oh look, I got one that doesn't totally suck!

And I couldn't agree more with mikeyboy that the celebrity often makes the shot rather than the photographer. Case in point: Lynn Goldsmith, another know nothing, no talent hack snapped a shot of Bruce Springsteen driving a car from the passenger seat. Nothing more than a bullshit snapshot. The only thing that made it the least bit interesting was the subject, The Boss. I remember part of an interview with PDN where Lynn claimed she was once on her way to a shoot with Roger Daltry for R.S. and she was nervous because she had never shot off camera flash before. Are you shittin' me?!? Some chick who never shot off camera flash is on assignment to shoot the lead singer of The Who?!? Tell me this chick, who was fairly hot at the time, wasn't blowin' the right person at R.S..

And back to Annie... she went from 3200 ISO and available light crap to 100 ISO and 100,000 watts of overlit crap.

Emotive Photography wrote:

I am going to have to agree with Jack on this one!

Emotive you could be more emotively forthcoming that interjecting with, an "I agree, too. " Evidence, evidence.

MikeyBoy wrote:

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.....

EXACTLY!!  her work is "famous" only because of her access to famous people...take the same pics of a dog catcher and a girl working at burger death and whotf would give it a second glance????nobody....

alexwh wrote:

Kurt Fehlhauer wrote:

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?

You guys are quick for short cutsy statements. And that's it. Haven't you yet figured out I am not "defending" Annie Leibovitz? I am pointing out the evidence and logical holes that you who don't like her are using in this thread and most threads in MM. I am not pissed off or losing it. Try a bit of kindness and moderation and perhaps even this photographer you loathe could inspire you to improve.

But again, no content. Write one paragraph telling us why you don't like a particular Leibovitz photo. Evidence, evidence, please.
Alexwh

In general I don't think her photos would be all the remarkable without having celebrities in them.  Artistically, I don't find them all that interesting and they wouldn’t be interesting at all if it was not for the celebrities in her photos.  For example, the photo of Steve Martin in the tux being the inspired artist is definitely a nice portrait, but it seems contrived and unoriginal.  Considering the time it was taken, abstract art was all the rage and it just makes me think “pop art”, not something that will endure the test of time.  Technically her photographs are well exposed, lit and posed.  So she is a competent photographer, but so are you and 80% of the photographers on this site. 

Where would she be if she didn’t have access to celebrities?  Maybe she would be on Model Mayhem, like the rest of us.

Jack D Trute wrote:
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.

I just had to respond to two things here.  First, Annie Leibowitz didn't start out "shooting for the stars."  You must admit that to get to the point where she could have access to people like John Lennon and Divine, she must have done something pretty impressive.  Even if you think her later portraits are "mediocre" (a word which has no real meaning outside of comparison), you might want to spend some time looking at her earlier work to figure out what it was that impressed people enough to give her the big gigs. 

The concept of "playing the game" as a negative comment really troubles me.  Doesn't every modern artist have to play the game?  For someone who aspires to take celebrity portraits, "playing the game" would be just as crucial as clicking the shutter.  The fact the Annie Leibowitz "plays the game" and yet maintains her own style and creates memorable images makes me respect her greatly.

Sarah Ellis wrote:

I just had to respond to two things here.  First, Annie Leibowitz didn't start out "shooting for the stars."  You must admit that to get to the point where she could have access to people like John Lennon and Divine, she must have done something pretty impressive.  Even if you think her later portraits are "mediocre" (a word which has no real meaning outside of comparison), you might want to spend some time looking at her earlier work to figure out what it was that impressed people enough to give her the big gigs. 

The concept of "playing the game" as a negative comment really troubles me.  Doesn't every modern artist have to play the game?  For someone who aspires to take celebrity portraits, "playing the game" would be just as crucial as clicking the shutter.  The fact the Annie Leibowitz "plays the game" and yet maintains her own style and creates memorable images makes me respect her greatly.

I think you could call "playing the game" networking.  Its more who you know than what you know.  Its no different than any other profession.  Of course some people just are lucky too.  My old boss used to tell me "he'd rather be lucky than good" and he definately was not good.

MikeyBoy wrote:

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.....

I can see the exact lighting on a magazine cover as I shoot with people, same lighting shadows, colors etc. and because know one knows the people I shoot it doesn't count when showing it I feel.  But I keep looking and the exact lighting is there so what is that about an art director can't see good work without a famous face in the photo.  I agree with most of you, can't believe the work you do and the models and if anyone gave you a chance you won't just be making money people would be talking about you on this site, and I hate cliche's but there is no such thing as bad plublicity.

MikeyBoy wrote:

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.....

alexwh wrote:

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

Alex,

It's a pleasure to read your commentary because it is always full of lots of historical information, and sharp observations, including great insight into the quality of the commentary by others. 

It is never, insulting, or irrational, or mean spirited, and above all it is intelligent.
I think there are a lot of us who really appreciate you.

Thanks very much,

Dan

alexwh wrote:
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.

Jealousy?? maybe if I aspired to mediocrity.

alexwh wrote:
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.

Yeah, it's easier to point the finger at others and be misinformed. Obviously you did not do your homework before posting this. See my comment below.

alexwh wrote:
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.

Keep reading...you need to follow your own advice.
Here are the links to my comments in admiration and defence of both Richard Avedon and Irving Penn.

My comments in defence of Richard Avedon. Scroll down to the 35th post on this page

There are several comments I made on this page in admiration of Irving Penn

"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"

On this point I may agree.. Some people are better at kissing ass or bullshitting then they are at taking great photos. Better luck next time my friend..

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.

Whoa!  In quite a few artful disciplines, the artist should disappear and the work become transparent.  Not everyone wants a signature style or lacks the flexibility to tune style to project.  Leibovitz, specifically, and even without royalty, has become the court artist of the day.  That's her job--i.e., making iconic photos of people who have gotten their celebrity elsewhere, and done right, she should not be in any of her pictures.

Dean Solo wrote:
Jealousy?? maybe if I aspired to mediocrity.

no need to aspire, you've reached it.

i wonder how many would not want to trade places with annie for a month.  access to some of the most creative people in the world for access to a free 'net site comprised of any hack that wishes to put up photos.

to say you wouldn't want that trade is the worst kind of lie, being untruthful to yourself.

oh, for all the ritts fans, read his obit.  what you will find is his notoriety began and legacy bloomed with imaging of celebrity.

--face reality

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.

Rossi Photography wrote:

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.

like i said....i didnt know.  just what i had heard.  thanks for clearing it up. 

also, i think it was lame for me to even mention her personal life, anything other than her work.  (how repulican of me)

going by her work...im a fan for sure.  i dont think every shot ive seen is white hot.  but wow......what a career. 

theres a bad ass photo of mike ness in that american music book.  glad to see he made the cut. 

im shooting mike next week!!!

im a fan for sure.

UdoR wrote:
I find it always astounding that no matter who the famous person is... there are always those who need to find ways to tear them off their pedestal and accrediting those peoples successes to parents, sleeping themself to the top, lucky coincidences and demeaning some technical aspect.

In my "short" but also very successful life that I have lived, I have met a lot of people who have achieved true greatness... and I can tell you that one thing I found that they have in common is to appreciate someone elses success and pay respect to others.

You may not like Ms. Leibovitz substandard technical applications, but she also had after a while a huge crew working for her where her gear was carried in two 18 wheelers or so... totally overkill what concerns me...

I love the content of a photograph more than the perfect technical aspect, with the perfect lighting etc... a grainy, gritty photograph of someone who has made history and achieved greatness is so much more worth to me than a perfectly lit and photoshopped portrait of just another pretty model.

Being able to be and connect with certain people is a great interpersonal skill of a great photographer whose images speak to people... not to technical analysts.

Hmmm... interesting summary there UdoR!

Dean Solo wrote:

alexwh wrote:
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.

Jealousy?? maybe if I aspired to mediocrity.

alexwh wrote:
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.

Yeah, it's easier to point the finger at others and be misinformed. Obviously you did not do your homework before posting this. See my comment below.


Keep reading...you need to follow your own advice.
Here are the links to my comments in admiration and defence of both Richard Avedon and Irving Penn.

My comments in defence of Richard Avedon. Scroll down to the 35th post on this page

There are several comments I made on this page in admiration of Irving Penn

"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"

On this point I may agree.. Some people are better at kissing ass or bullshitting then they are at taking great photos. Better luck next time my friend..

You guys take everything too personally. I said some had not defended Avedon and Penn. You guys are out to prove your point, rain or shine. I was only out to solicit moderation in the attacks on Leibovitz. That is all. Unlike some (read some), here I no longer peek into the ports of the most bitter and vocal as those ports more often than not do not reflect an aspiration to excellence.
Alexwh

alexwh wrote:
The less you know about your country's rich photographic legacy the more suspect I think your present unfounded statements are. And I want to stress, I mean you no wrong.

There are far more important American's that I have studied than Margaret Burke-White and this does not reduce my appreciation of A.L. or other photographers by any means.  To think otherwise comes across as snobbish.  Also, my statements are not unfounded, they are my personal opinion based on prior training I recieved in College.  Apparently, Margaret Burke-White was not deemed worthy of discussion back then.

In addition, I don't have the time to write a diatribe on why I think someones work is great or not.  I express my opinion and move on. 

alexwh wrote:
I am not trying to insult you in any way. I just cannot understand how people here in MM can have opinions that are based on a very (as in very) short history.
Alexwh

Let me help you understand.  Many people on MM just don't have the time to spend learning about past photographers or photographic history or they just don't care.  I can understand this, most MM members have a life to live.  This does not degrade their opinion in any way.  Either they are going to like a photographer's work or not.  It is as simple as that.

Jack D Trute wrote:
Ah,  nasty mediocrity rares it's ugly head.

Yes it has, did you have to post here?

Dean Solo wrote:
She is still a mediocre photographer weather shooting political figures or Whoopi Goldberg in a bath of milk.

All the hate and jeleousy!  You people make me laugh!  People like you show your true colors by who you hate.  You and Jack claim Annie is mediocre, yet I don't see anything in your ports that even come close to Annie's work.  I fail to see your technical and creative superiority to Annie in your ports to even give you any ounce of merit to your statements against her.

Every successful person will always have people that are jeleous of them and/or don't believe they deserve their success.

If you can con the world that you are a Great Photographer, more power to you.  In my opinion, Andy Warhol just repackaged the cambel soup can...BFD!

Sarah Ellis wrote:
I just had to respond to two things here.  First, Annie Leibowitz didn't start out "shooting for the stars."  You must admit that to get to the point where she could have access to people like John Lennon and Divine, she must have done something pretty impressive.

Actually the story [as i understand it] is that her boyfriend worked for Rolling Stone magazine and walked her into Jan Wenner's office one day with a shoebox of snapshots.  It could be argued that her 70s and 80s work makes her the David Lachapelle of her time, but I actually think her work in the last several years is much more mature and emotionally involved.  I own her "Olympic Portraits" book and find it excellent and just a little inspiring.

alexwh wrote:
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

Like many of us who admire her work, I was worried that this was going to be "bad news" but I'm glad that she is still with us!  Yours is the message that comes closest to saying what I admire most about Annie Leibovitz.   There is one key skill that Annie has that you did not mention, and that is the ability to improvise.  When a photographer is backstage or in someones home or apartment, there is little time to think about perfect techniques.  Many times the most critical thing for a journalistic photographer to do is "get the shot!"   I'd say that she proven herself to do that time and time again with a creativity that is to be admired.

I was there at the Who Concert at the Cow Palace in SF, CA when she shot that famous picture of Pete Townsend.  YOu know .. the one with his hand bloody, shot backstage right after the show.  She relished his cut by adding catsup to it, but that is one hell of a cool portrait of Pete!

UdoR wrote:
I find it always astounding that no matter who the famous person is... there are always those who need to find ways to tear them off their pedestal and accrediting those peoples successes to parents, sleeping themself to the top, lucky coincidences and demeaning some technical aspect.

In my "short" but also very successful life that I have lived, I have met a lot of people who have achieved true greatness... and I can tell you that one thing I found that they have in common is to appreciate someone elses success and pay respect to others.

You may not like Ms. Leibovitz substandard technical applications, but she also had after a while a huge crew working for her where her gear was carried in two 18 wheelers or so... totally overkill what concerns me...

I love the content of a photograph more than the perfect technical aspect, with the perfect lighting etc... a grainy, gritty photograph of someone who has made history and achieved greatness is so much more worth to me than a perfectly lit and photoshopped portrait of just another pretty model.

Being able to be and connect with certain people is a great interpersonal skill of a great photographer whose images speak to people... not to technical analysts.

I agree!  She has been an insipration for me too!  I admire Annie for her abilities to get places others only dream of.  I admire her ability to think on her feet, getting pictures that are original while not so perfect technically.  Who are the photographers you can compare her with? When it comes to concert photography, Jim Marshall is another name that comes to mind.  His work was not technically superior, but he was able to capture the emotion of the moment. That is what we all strive for in journalistic photography! 

Are they going to be remembered for their images 300 years ago?  Maybe, maybe not.  But no doubt the people they have shot will be!

alexwh wrote:
Kurt,

I would not have the heart to even try to refute what you wrote here:

"Let me help you understand.  Many people on MM just don't have the time to spend learning about past photographers or photographic history or they just don't care.  I can understand this, most MM members have a life to live.  This does not degrade their opinion in any way.  Either they are going to like a photographer's work or not.  It is as simple as that."

To say that there are more important Americans than Margaret Bourke-White, once you know who those other Americans are would be a fair statement to make. It would be a statement that I would most certainly respect. But my guess (and correct me) is that you are part of the legions that you write about above.

You have an undegraded opinion based on no knowledge.

Some used to say that knowledge is power. Obviously this is no longer true.
Alexh

Prove to me that she is more important than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or even George W. Bush.  I'll be waiting. 

Margaret Bourke-White will just hold a very obscure position compared to those mentioned above.

Kurt

Kurt Fehlhauer wrote:

Prove to me that she is more important than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or even George W. Bush.  I'll be waiting. 

Margaret Bourke-White will just hold a very obscure position compared to those mentioned above.

Kurt

ROFLMAO!  When did this become about who is more important in history?  I thought this started out as an admiration for a photographers book?  Talk about thread hijacking!

FaceReality wrote:

no need to aspire, you've reached it.

i wonder how many would not want to trade places with annie for a month.  access to some of the most creative people in the world for access to a free 'net site comprised of any hack that wishes to put up photos.

to say you wouldn't want that trade is the worst kind of lie, being untruthful to yourself.

oh, for all the ritts fans, read his obit.  what you will find is his notoriety began and legacy bloomed with imaging of celebrity.

--face reality

Thanks..I might be offended if I did not consider the source. Someone with 4 pics in their port and an avatar of a models crotch shot in a leotard does not exactly strike me as having much of an artistic soul. Either way, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

alexwh wrote:

You guys take everything too personally. I said some had not defended Avedon and Penn. You guys are out to prove your point, rain or shine. I was only out to solicit moderation in the attacks on Leibovitz. That is all. Unlike some (read some), here I no longer peek into the ports of the most bitter and vocal as those ports more often than not do not reflect an aspiration to excellence.
Alexwh

Thanks, I guess that was an apology in a roundabout way. Please note I am not out to destroy anyone's credibility or reputation. I just feel very strongly about certain things and I am not afraid to voice my opinion. Again, this whole forum thing is about intelligent people conversing, educating and voicing their like's and dislike's. I merely expressed mine and was raked thru the coals.

I appreciate the fact that at least you have something intelligent to say, tho we may differ on styles and tastes.