Annie at Work

[Agent M10]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"Annie at Work" has just come out in Amazon. I caught the excerpt in the recent Vanity Fair. I'd be interested to hear thoughts about the book (and the article) - especially about the photograph of the queen.

[garyp]

There was a special on TV last night about the Queen. A portion of it was to be about the portrait session with AL. of course, I missed that part.

[sdai]

It has nothing to do with Leica, she uses a Canon for the Queen shots.

[Agent M10]

Yeah, I guess that while Annie made her mark at Rolling Stone with Leicas and is now, rightly or wrongly, considered one of the top photographers in America, we shouldn't even begin to think of examining her work because she used a Canon for the queen when she could have used an M or an R. Of course, a thread would be perfectly all right if it was put it up in order to show that she was completely insane for using Canon glass and not Leica glass for such an important project. Thanks for the reminder.

[stunsworth]

I've no problem with discussing the work of phtoographewrs who don't use Leica, but maybe the bar would be the better place for it rather than the customer forum.

[garyp]

How about it's ok since Annie photographed the Queen who is a Leica owner/user

[elviskennedy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When designers set up the shot, assistants handle all of the lighting, props, posing and everything else during hours of preparation - to be followed by a photographer who does little else than push the shutter release, I have a hard time calling that photographer any kind of artist, or even considering that person much of a photographer.

 

Some are famous for being famous. And when that fame comes from nothing other than access to celebrity I'm not impressed. But that's just me.

[mooky]

I've no problem with discussing the work of phtoographewrs who don't use Leica, but maybe the bar would be the better place for it rather than the customer forum.

 

Agreed. I did see the special - her work doesn't do much for me. Watching her shoot the Queen, she came across as a little naive' in the ways of the Queen (like her or not) and then I couldn't help but notice her outside with the Canons and no lens hoods......which I always find bizarre, (I must be a snob) she seems to be a Margaret Bourke-White wannabe.

[derek_stanton]

When designers set up the shot, assistants handle all of the lighting, props, posing and everything else during hours of preparation - to be followed by a photographer who does little else than push the shutter release, I have a hard time calling that photographer any kind of artist, or even considering that person much of a photographer.

 

Some are famous for being famous. And when that fame comes from nothing other than access to celebrity I'm not impressed. But that's just me.

 

Interesting perspective. So, when she started out, before all big production shoots, did any of her work then qualify her as a "photographer?"

 

How do you know how much of what she does is conceptually developed by her? Does concept count for anything? Are you purely interested in documentary ('real' photography) and anything that is 'set up' is less valid somehow? Do you similarly discount Avedon and Penn?

 

What about film directors? Do they also have less value in your eyes because they don't grip their own sets? Heck, most of them never even touch a camera. But, they're responsible for the final product.

 

My feeling is that people who shoot one way shouldn't be so judgmental about other types of photography unless they've actually tried them. A journalist may go into the field with one camera and no assistant. He may come back with a worthwhile shot. He may not. An amateur may work the same way. It's an entirely different thing when you have to please an art director, justify a million dollar budget, work within predetermined layout parameters, and orchestrate a personal staff and a client's staff.

 

I've had a taste of that, as both an art director and as a photographer. It's not nearly as easy as you may think. It's actually far easier to walk around doing what you want, alone, with no preconceived notions, as i'm sure you're used to. The average 'Leica shooter' is unfortunately, typically, unaware of the technical demands of 'the other' industry. Have you ever run a clip test on a roll of film and then pushed the rest a third of a stop? Leica guys are used to Sunny 16 and then claiming they can get a 'usable print' by relying on Tri-X's wide exposure latitude.

[gyoung]

"Annie at Work" has just come out in Amazon. I caught the excerpt in the recent Vanity Fair. I'd be interested to hear thoughts about the book (and the article) - especially about the photograph of the queen.

 

There was a TV special about her (in UK) a little while ago, it was very interesting and there were plenty of Leicas on show, as well as other stuff including a hulking great Canon digital with a huge lens being waved about from a helicopter.

 

Gerry

[mooky]

I have respected her work, but I just think it's a bit over-rated and maybe more 'common' because of her subjects being 'in the lime-light of popular culture' and she is hired because of the look she produces that helps to maintain and sell it..

 

Not everyone can shoot her style - it is her own. But as an example, I prefer the work of Ernst Haas, as I posted elsewhere early this week. His work was and still is truly very unique and not in the popular main-stream, but more what I would call an artist with a camera. I believe he did something really special for the color medium and brought it to a new creative level when color still wasn't taken as seriously as B&W.

 

There are others that have made their mark(s) as well - I just don't think she is in that type of company - really, how many are? It's not a knock, and there are so many really gifted photographers - but in reality very few will ever have their work seen.