'Great' Photographers

[polka_dot]

What makes the 'great' photographers like Lachapelle, Leibovitz, Meisel, Testino, etc. great?

 

[solomonsdevalois]

Their Ideas, and their ability to fall in love with the scene they are shooting, Also any "great" photographer's images will exhibit a skill of lighting, quality of print, and clarity of the idea they want to convey.
One of the most important things for good photographers today, after the whole digital epidemic, is to shoot such a good quality image, that it couldn't be made "better" even if photoshop tried.

For the individual photographers stated above:

Lachapelle : Amazing colour contrasts in his images, he's not afraid to showcase his ideas, no matter how shocking.

Leibovitz: Its all about ideas, and her fantasy lighting, Her best work was when she did "Alice and Wonderland" for Vogue, also when she did "Beauty and the Beast" for April 2004 Vogue.

Meisel and Testino: Glamour, Glamour, Glamour. The Dolce and Gabanna of photographers. They always shoot these rich glamourous women in amazing locations.
Its also pretty obvious that they understand fashion.

 

[Hana_N]

That's a good question, I think it's hard to compare different photographers with eachother because they have different ways of expressing themselves, but I guess you can compare their technical skills. It depends a lot on who's looking at it, so I'm not sure how you can tell the great from the good.

Personally I would not consider Leibovitz a "great" photographer, her images are all nice and eyepleasing but I don't think I would ever be mesmerized by her pictures.

The really great photographers in my opinion are Paolo Roversi, Miles Aldridge, Steven Meisel, Sarah Moon, Glen Luchford, Mert & Marcus and probably others I can't think of now.

 

[JHB]

That's a good question, I think it's hard to compare different photographers with eachother because they have different ways of expressing themselves, but I guess you can compare their technical skills. It depends a lot on who's looking at it, so I'm not sure how you can tell the great from the good.

Personally I would not consider Leibovitz a "great" photographer, her images are all nice and eyepleasing but I don't think I would ever be mesmerized by her pictures.

The really great photographers in my opinion are Paolo Roversi, Miles Aldridge, Steven Meisel, Sarah Moon, Glen Luchford, Mert & Marcus and probably others I can't think of now.

annoying opinion, you can't say Annie Leibovitz is not "great" only 'cause you don't like her pictures, she's a legend, a star, an icon, she has made everything, Rolling Stone, Vogue, Vanity Fair....

I don't like Mert & Marcus' style but I wouldn't be able to say they are not great photographers.

I really hate when people who don't know anything about photography give their opinion.

Cindy and Arnold by Annie Leibovitz.

 

[Aida.Sevan]

annoying opinion, you can't say Annie Leibovitz is not "great" only 'cause you don't like her pictures, she's a legend, a star, an icon, she has made everything, Rolling Stone, Vogue, Vanity Fair....

I don't like Mert & Marcus' style but I wouldn't be able to say they are not great photographers.

I really hate when people who don't know anything about photography give their opinion.

Cindy and Arnold by Annie Leibovitz.

Please, respect others opinon. The world didn't turn around because of somebody thinks that Annie Leibovitz is not a great photographer.

*Gooooose-fraaaabaaa*

 

[texastess]

I think a photographer is somebody with a voice, a style of their own. That can mean many different things.

David LaChapelle is a great photographer, but I personally am not that crazy about his work. Too frantic for my taste. But, there is no denying his creativity and that he has a distinct style.

Herb Ritts I adore. Some get bored by his deceptively simple work, but I adore it. He seemed to be content to let his subject shine as opposed to drawing attention to himself.

The art direction in some of Annie Leibovitz's most recent work is staggering. After seeing her photos of domestic abuse victims and coal miners, I can't help but wonder if she is a photojournalist at heart. To be able to succesfully straddle both fields is quite amazing.

Ellen Von Unwerth never really grew as much as a photographer that I thought she would. Others, I'm certain, disagree.

I worship at the altar of Helmut Newton, Henri-Cartier-Bresson, and Richard Avedon. Unfortunately all three died last year.

Today some of the newer photographers that have caught my eye are Sacha Waldman (who I adore), Hans Gissinger, and Martin Schoeller.

 

[softgrey]

annoying opinion, you can't say Annie Leibovitz is not "great" only 'cause you don't like her pictures, she's a legend, a star, an icon, she has made everything, Rolling Stone, Vogue, Vanity Fair....

I don't like Mert & Marcus' style but I wouldn't be able to say they are not great photographers.

I really hate when people who don't know anything about photography give their opinion.

Cindy and Arnold by Annie Leibovitz.

a-an opinion cannot be annoying...(although people can be... )
b-one need not be an expert on a topic in order to have an opinion about it...
c-you need not agree with anyone else's opinion...
d-just because you don't agree doesn't make it right or wrong...

maturity and tolerance are expected here at tFS...
there is room for everyone...

personally...
i'd rather hear the opinion of a nice person who isn't an expert...
than that of an expert who is an a**...


ps- imho...
the pictures you posted are some of annie's very worst work...
not a very convincing argument...

 

[hugobossdaria]

the photographers that has great creativity makes great photographers

 

[JHB]

I think a photographer is somebody with a voice, a style of their own. That can mean many different things.

David LaChapelle is a great photographer, but I personally am not that crazy about his work. Too frantic for my taste. But, there is no denying his creativity and that he has a distinct style.

Herb Ritts I adore. Some get bored by his deceptively simple work, but I adore it. He seemed to be content to let his subject shine as opposed to drawing attention to himself.

The art direction in some of Annie Leibovitz's most recent work is staggering. After seeing her photos of domestic abuse victims and coal miners, I can't help but wonder if she is a photojournalist at heart. To be able to succesfully straddle both fields is quite amazing.

Ellen Von Unwerth never really grew as much as a photographer that I thought she would. Others, I'm certain, disagree.

I worship at the altar of Helmut Newton, Henri-Cartier-Bresson, and Richard Avedon. Unfortunately all three died last year.

Today some of the newer photographers that have caught my eye are Sacha Waldman (who I adore), Hans Gissinger, and Martin Schoeller.

wow!, excelent opinion, very respectful , thank you texastess

 

[JHB]

a-an opinion cannot be annoying...(although people can be... )
b-one need not be an expert on a topic in order to have an opinion about it...
c-you need not agree with anyone else's opinion...
d-just because you don't agree doesn't make it right or wrong...

maturity and tolerance are expected here at tFS...
there is room for everyone...

personally...
i'd rather hear the opinion of a nice person who isn't an expert...
than that of an expert who is an a**...


ps- imho...
the pictures you posted are some of annie's very worst work...
not a very convincing argument...

a - you're totally right, an opinion can't be annoying, sorry, english is not my mother language.

b - "the pictures you posted are some of annie's very worst work..."

hello!, worst work? , can I know why?, are there valid arguments behind your statement?, I mean, certainly I'm not an Annie Levobitz fan but... I'm just curious about your opinion.

 

[.francesca]

it sounds really contradictory to say, but as a photographer, sometimes it's really hard for me to put my finger on exactly why i like a certain photograph or specific photographer. sometimes it's a case-by-case situation, for instance i might like 1 or 2 of a certain photographer's images but i wouldn't call myself a fan of the entire body of work. i am a compulsively organised person...so things like lines, angles, colors, are really important to me compositionally. i'm drawn to asymmetry in an image and an obvious regard for how things are positioned. so basically, i find photographers great whose photographs encompass these things...so off the top of my head i can't think of any one photographer whose work exhibits this, but i know that ritts, cartier-bresson, brassai, todd hido (san francisco fine art photographer who shoots empty houses), and scores of other photographers have captured my eye for whatever reason.

i'm so glad that you have informed opinions on things like this..like you know why you like photographers and can talk about it in an educated way..something that always really bothered me about critiques in university was that a fellow student would say "i like it" or "i don't like it" but couldn't really explain why..really empty comments. i love reading threads like these because i know that you have thought out what you are trying to say, and unlike my post here, it makes total sense

i'll come up with a list of some of my favorite photographers to share tomorrow!

 

[JHB]

.. something that always really bothered me about critiques in university was that a fellow student would say "i like it" or "i don't like it" but couldn't really explain why..really empty comments.

that's exactly what I have been trying to say, NO empty comments.

i'll come up with a list of some of my favorite photographers to share tomorrow!

it will be welcome.

 

[wyatt.]

i've often wondered why meisel was so sought after when the majority of his work i see regularly is editorials in vogue behind a plain grey backdrop. i mean i suppose lighting, angles, etc etc, but often they look very bland to me.

some of his other work is very impressive, so why the constant model in front of a gray cloth?

 

[Spike413]

I feel the same way about Meisel. Those ads he did for Dolce and Gabbana this season prove he's a great talent with creating an image that captures something, and his technical skills can be seen in his f/w 01 ads for YSL, the lighting in them is exquisite.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what's being said here. I think a great photographer is someone who can take a flat piece of paper with a picture on it and give it a soul. All of the photographers mentioned, though totally different in their work and their ideas, share a talent for creating a vision, for creating images that are more then just a pretty face or interesting set but rather an extension of themselves.

 

[JHB]

i've often wondered why meisel was so sought after when the majority of his work i see regularly is editorials in vogue behind a plain grey backdrop. i mean i suppose lighting, angles, etc etc, but often they look very bland to me.

some of his other work is very impressive, so why the constant model in front of a gray cloth?

wyatt, have you heard something about "trademark style"?, that's what Meisel does, Herb Ritts did the same but with subjects in front of white backdrop, and Avedon did the same with his Versace ads.

Meisel has made a lot of advertising campaigns which have nothing to do with a gray backdrop.

 

[softgrey]

b - "the pictures you posted are some of annie's very worst work..."

hello!, worst work? , can I know why?, are there valid arguments behind your statement?, I mean, certainly I'm not an Annie Levobitz fan but... I'm just curious about your opinion.

it's just my opinion...
mostly i don't like the subjects...
and i've seen them both look much much better...


edit:
i also think that annie works better in colour...
her black and white seems kind of 'flat' to me...
her colour stuff has so much more depth...

 

[texastess]

wow!, excelent opinion, very respectful , thank you texastess

Thank you. I am a photography buff, and could talk about good photographers for days. It's an amazing gift that the great photographers have. To be able to mix art with the science of photography is quite extraordinary.

 

[softgrey]

I feel the same way about Meisel. Those ads he did for Dolce and Gabbana this season prove he's a great talent with creating an image that captures something, and his technical skills can be seen in his f/w 01 ads for YSL, the lighting in them is exquisite.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what's being said here. I think a great photographer is someone who can take a flat piece of paper with a picture on it and give it a soul. All of the photographers mentioned, though totally different in their work and their ideas, share a talent for creating a vision, for creating images that are more then just a pretty face or interesting set but rather an extension of themselves.

dang...
that was good spike...!

...yeah...
what he said....

 

[wyatt.]

photography is a major offered at almost all of the art schools right along with painting and illustration etc.

i think for someone to be a great photographer, they must capture an image in a way that only photography could create. it is just another artistic language and medium. if it could be said better through a painting, then the photograph might as well not even exsist.

a great photographer is an artist.

 

[texastess]

it's just my opinion...
mostly i don't like the subjects...
and i've seen them both look much much better...

I don't think the intent was to make Arnold and Cindy look their best. The intent was to set up almost absurd pseudo-documentary portraits.

Cindy Crawford as Eve, with the snake mirroring the curves of Crawford. The trees behind her serving as a possible reference to the Tree of Life.

Arnold as the ultimate conquerer, shirtless and in complete control of his white horse. He has a cigar and a horse, many props and perhaps serving as subtle (or not to subtle) phallic symbols.

I think these portaits are brilliant.