Let's see if we can have an actual discussion about a photograph, /p/:
Today, Buckingham Palace released an official portrait of Queen Elizabeth II by Annie Leibovitz. Pic related. This photo is the last in an official series of portraits commissioned from Leibovitz.
What do you think of it? Do you love it? Do you hate it?
Most importantly, why do you love it? Why do you hate it? What technical elements do you enjoy? What technical elements do you hate? What are your thoughts on the content? What about the composition? What do you think of the lighting? What about the editing?
Now, maybe you hate Annie Leibovitz. Maybe you love her. That's not what this thread is about. If you want to discuss this photo compared to other work of her's, that's certainly acceptable, but this is not a thread for generalized love/bashing.
>>2860396
Overall I'm pretty bored by it, and I'm not a fan of the overall green tones (though I know green is pretty traditional over in the Great Britain)
It seems pretty sterile and unoffensive (much like the monarchy these days). I'm not sure about the framing, as he seems more central than she does.
Her expression is also a little odd, with her mouth being open like that, it almost looks like she's talking.
Annie Leibovitz is a fucking hack.
She tried to make it look like a painting because that's what she thinks of British people. Just old, archaic puffs who are of a deluded, and thankfully dying breed.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3300 Image Height 4132 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2008:11:24 13:12:27 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2376 Image Height 3000
>>2860396
>that tie
It's an okay picture. Very traditional lighting and background.
It's like asking me to critique a Walmart photo center's work.
I guess it seems to be pretty well lit with what seems like only one light and a reflector or two. The editor did something with the eyes to make them less poppy, I think, but that's fine considering how traditional and boring the rest of it is. Maybe that's just the low quality export. The framing makes my eyes want to stay around the guy's face rather than looking elsewhere.
>>2860402
I guess that's the point. It's adequate to its context, therefore good.
It'd be good to have some context of other works by her, to check if she was chose because of her style or because she's adaptative.
>>2860402
I can't find anything I disagree with in this comment.
The green tones don't particularly bother me so much as having an over all tone bothers me. It just seems too stylized, bordering on cheesy.
>It seems pretty sterile and unoffensive (much like the monarchy these days).
Honestly, that makes me wonder if that actually makes this a successful photo. I mean, if the form adequately conveys the content, that's certainly not a bad thing.
>I'm not sure about the framing, as he seems more central than she does.
Agree 100%. Their positioning in the frame is horrible imbalanced.
>Her expression is also a little odd, with her mouth being open like that
Agree 100%.
>>2860405
>that tie
The fuck? I didn't noticed that at first. To me, that's probably one of the most interesting aspects of this photo. Consort of the Queen wearing a print tie with almost cartoonish illustrations of Eastern religious symbols . . . and a random scale of justice.
Overall, I think the editing is a way heavy-handed, but it's consistent with Leibovitz's output for the past 15-20 years.
I don't really like the image. Her face is strange and the background somehow doesn't fit. They look as if they were photoshopped onto the background.
>>2860413
I don't know about this particular shot, but I seem to remember that some of her earlier portraits of the queen were actually photoshopped from green screen backgrounds. I certainly hope she wouldn't go through the trouble to add in a generic 1980's textured green background, but it wouldn't really surprise me if she did.
>>2860413
>>2860417
Case in point: I remember seeing a documentary about this shoot where they showed them adding in the entire scene outside of the window. Supposedly it's just random buildings and sky and shit in real life.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1224 Image Height 847
>>2860413
>>2860417
>>2860422
This one also was photoshopped to fuck and back. I seem to remember that this was just shot with her standing in front a green screen in studio.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1257 Image Height 1056
>>2860428
I honestly think that digital photography has been her downfall. Everything is so hyper-stylized that it looks goofy.
The OP portrait is about the least offensive thing I've seen from her in a while. I like the color palette in general. Still too much bizarro digital sharpening and over the top tonemapping, though.
>>2860441
Her approach has changed her photography. Equipment used will never be to blame for someone's "downfall" much the same way that digital doesn't force you to "spray and pray", you force the equipment to "spray and pray" and it doesn't stop you.
She gets paid for her work, and so she produces the results that get her paid. The end.
>>2860444
>Her approach has changed her photography.
>Equipment used will never be to blame for someone's "downfall"
Yeah, but in her case the equipment has changed her approach. Her earlier work, especially her Rolling Stone stuff, was all about being there at the right time, capturing emotions, and shit like that. Even her earlier studio work was much more about getting some aspect of the personality of the subject. Now, it's all preconceived conceptual digital art projects where the subject is just thrown in afterwords.
>>2860448
>Her earlier work, especially her Rolling Stone stuff, was all about being there at the right time, capturing emotions, and shit like that. Even her earlier studio work was much more about getting some aspect of the personality of the subject.
All of this is possible with digital gear, no? What about her equipment is forcing her to take her new approach?
>>2860451
I'm saying she got distracted by her gear and the possibilities it gave her. She's focused more on the process of green screening and creating digital backgrounds and fucking with colors and shit like that that she's forgot about content.
I actually agree with some of the other anons in this thread that, in a weird way, this is a successful photo because it's boring and sterile. I don't think that's the point she had in mind, though, because this boring and sterile style is consistent with everything else she's been producing for the past decade. I think it's just a happy accident in this place, especially when compared to >>2860422 and>>2860425.
>>2860469
>She's focused more on the process of green screening and creating digital backgrounds and fucking with colors and shit like that that she's forgot about cont
So what you're saying is that it's her approach that's changed, and not the gear's fault at all?
>>2860471
No matter how many times you try to box me in to that, that is still not what I'm saying.
>I'm saying she got distracted by her gear and the possibilities it gave her.
I get that you disagree. Great. I accept that. But I'm not going to say exactly what you want me to say. I think the gear (and accompanying digital techniques) distracted her.
>>2860471
Think of it like new wave music. Suddenly all these people had all these toys to play with rather than good old fashioned guitars and shit and changed their style to accommodate the fancy new stuff they wanted to experiment with and were unfortunately shit at. That's what's happened here, she's changed her style to accommodate the new options she has
Great discussion so far. I really didn't have a strong opinion one way or another, but I feel like people have brought up some interesting points. (For example: Is it actually a successful portrait because it's boring? What's with the tie?)
As a point of comparison, here is a contrasting portrait of the Queen and Prince Philip done by Dusseldorf photographer Thomas Struth. Very different approach. Very different techniques. Very different medium (large format film). Very different composition.
Do you think the sense of scale adds or detracts from the shot? What about the differences in lighting? Do you think the setting works with the shot as a whole?
What do you think: Better? Worse? Just different?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2011:09:14 17:23:26 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2048 Image Height 1623
I think I improved it.
>>2860482
>But I'm not going to say exactly what you want me to say
I'm not trying to get you to say anything. I'm trying to get you to understand a basic concept. Digital gear does not make you make different decisions.
I have owned a digital camera for 12 years now, and have never done a composite.
Holding a gun doesn't make you shoot someone.
Owning a fast car doesn't make you speed.
Owning a computer doesn't make you "hack" people.
What's more likely is that, as a photographer who shoots a lot of famous people, who come with a lot of scheduling/timing/travel constraints, she's ALWAYS wanted to be able to shoot a person in location A and then use processing to make them look like they're in Location B, which is where she would have liked to have taken them to in the first place, but couldn't because they were busy, or unwilling to travel, or unsafe in that location.
Cameras aren't the One Ring, or some enchanted sword with an insidious encroaching personality that slowly changes your opinions and taste over time. They're tools, and nothing more.
>>2860396
>(((Annie Leibovitz)))
>>2860646
>Digital gear does not make you make different decisions.
You're absolutely right. Digital gear doesn't put a gun to your head and force you to do something you'd otherwise not do.
You're being a worthless pedantic cunt.
Nobody's said that the mere presence of the digital gear somehow magically transforms her mind and alters her thoughts and overcomes her will. You're arguing against a strawman.
>>2860684
>Yeah, but in her case the equipment has changed her approach.
>>2860687
...and your point? Is it really that fucking hard to read and understand english? How hard is it to read an entire comment?
>I'm saying she got distracted by her gear and the possibilities it gave her. She's focused more on the process of green screening and creating digital backgrounds and fucking with colors and shit like that that she's forgot about content.
>I think the gear (and accompanying digital techniques) distracted her.
>Now, it's all preconceived conceptual digital art projects where the subject is just thrown in afterwords.
None of that even remotely supports this bullshit One Ring analogy. You want to argue against something that isn't there.
You're one of those worthless fucktards who likes New Wave music, aren't you?
>>2860689
There's the "new wave" thing again... tell me the truth. Have you ever been tested for mental illness?
>>2860650
/thread
>>2860501
I'd agree. This looks very 1940s wartime with those lovely skintones.
Leibovitz' shot is a bit odd, I certainly don't hate it, but I can't imagine looking at that as the queen or the prince and going "by golly gosh you really nailed this one Annie!"
at least it's not as cold and removed as >>2860498
>>2860396
For fucks sake! Look at that great big hole in the middle of the picture, the two heads are either side of it. Two heads, one frame and a first year college kid mistake. Phil's got that "I'm hating every moment of this" look on his face. And what is that in his pocket? Smartass one-liner cheat-sheet? Racing score card? Mistress phone number.
To be honest I couldn't give a fuck about the Queen or Annie Leibovitz but I do find it sad to think about the money she must have made when there are hundreds of talented photographers in the UK that could have done a much better job.
>>2860961
>hundreds of talented photographers
>in the UK
Pick one. The UK has never been a bastion of quality photography.
>>2860967
>Pick one. The UK has never been a bastion of quality photography.
There are probably thousands that could have done a better job than Leibovitz. She didn't set the bar very high did she?
Elizabeth's makeup doesn't match :/
>>2860396
It's a weirdly private picture. The choice of clothing, her in a blouse and cardigan, his fucking tie. And all of that matching pink and the greens, her lipstick matches his tie. It's so weird it's a little creepy.
>>2860501
It's tricky, it depends on whether you think the Queen should reflect the current tone of austerity and misery in Britain, which might be what the original photographer was doing with the dull tones and washed out palette, or if you think she should be a shining beacon of optimism.
>>2860498
This however makes her look like a Bond villain
>>2861098
>This however makes her look like a Bond villain
I don't know. I kinda like it. It looks more like an actual photograph of a real person. (Though, her expression kills the shot.) The Leibovitz photo just looks too stylized.
>>2860396
>that tie
>>2860396
Looks cold and overcooked. I think she was going for a old, painting feel, but this just looks like too much digital shenanigans. It's just overdone, especially with the green hues. Old paintings, especially old oil paintings, degrade into shades of yellow, which I think is why this looks unnatural.
>>2860422
This just looks silly. That background looks like HDR vomit. I know that Annie is hated around these parts, but she obviously gets respect in the real world and gets massive gigs like this. But, honestly, if her name wasn't attached, this would be derided.
>>2860425
There's a comment in this thread that one of the other pictures makes her look like a bond villain, but honestly this is the most villainous pic of them all. She looks like some goofy comic book character. And the digital cut-and-paste just looks sloppy.
>>2860498
These colors actually look like real life. I'm not sure if I like it better that way or not, but at least this doesn't look like silly HDR shit. Her expression and body language blows. I think the idea of putting in small in the frame is a decent idea. The scale and perspective makes her look isolated, which I think is a valid image for the Queen.
>>2860501
>I think I improved it.
No, you didn't. You added too much contrast, and you fucked up the skin colors too much in the wrong direction. Now it just looks silly pink.
>>2860404
>tried to make it look like
all she does is show up and press the button. at this point everything else is done by her army of assistants
