Critics not amused by queen photo

Interesting article about Annie Leibovitz's new work. Her photo of the Queen has stirred up some critics.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html

I'm guessing there are a bunch of photographers jealous of the fact that Anne Leibovitz got to photograph the queen and they didn't.
Reminds me of that thread about photo critiques showing all the bad critiques of famous photos.
Looks like a good photo to me but then only my ancestors were from England.

I find it interesting that some critics are knocking her work because it's not the type of photo that Annie has become known for. I guess artits aren't suppose to devieate from the style they have become known for...

The criticisms are ridiculous. Leibovitz is in a no-win situation here. IMO, the shot is timeless...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go find a "vat of asses' milk". I have an idea for a photo... :D

I love that photo. Critics be damned.

Okay, what is there to criticise? I'm a Brit and think its one of the best portraits of the Queen I've seen in a long time.

Oh well who said critics have to have good taste or talent - they probably do the job because they can't do it themselves.

Roger

Those who can, do. Those who can't, become critics.

I tend toward agreeing with the critics. What would you expect, eh? :D Although naked shots are rather too "informal" to say the least, she has gone way too far in the other direction, which inappropriately confirms in many peoples' minds the stodginess and aloofness of the royal family as depicted in the movie.

It is way too traditional, way too posed, way too artificial, way too out of the Victorian era which some think the royal family has never left. On the other hand, perhaps that photo is correctly depicting the Queen in that vein,...although certainly not flattering, if that is the case.

Ronnoco

I suspect it is way too traditional, way too posed, and way to artificial for a reason. I mean, come on, this is the Queen of England. Isn't her entire public life traditional, posed and artificial?

Beautiful, my kind of portrait and window light too.

Leabovitz is know for getting her subjects to reveal their inner selfs. To my eyes that is exactly what this photo does. A lonely regal figure at peace with her fate in life. Well done Annie!

Critics are like slugs. They serve a purpose, but no one is quite sure what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by almo

Critics are like slugs. They serve a purpose, but no one is quite sure what.

---

DOWN WITH THE CRITIQUE FORUM!!! BURN IT TO HELL!!!

:D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adina

I suspect it is way too traditional, way too posed, and way to artificial for a reason. I mean, come on, this is the Queen of England. Isn't her entire public life traditional, posed and artificial?

---

Makes sense to me. That's what I was thinking. I'm glad she decided to go that route and not do anything out of the ordinary. If you had a chance to photograph the queen, would you risk the opportunity by suggesting something she would easily disagree with? I doubt that.

I love Alison's comment!! :thumbsup: Wouldn't it be cool if she used the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens? Hehehehehhe....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manacsa

If you had a chance to photograph the queen, would you risk the opportunity by suggesting something she would easily disagree with?...

---

The Queen in a vat of asses' milk, I say!!!

With all due respect... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manacsa

I love Alison's comment!! :thumbsup: Wouldn't it be cool if she used the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens? Hehehehehhe....

---

Depending upon the amount of time she was allowed with H.R.M. she probably shot with multiple cameras as she is known to do.

I'm curious as to whether she's gone fully digital or not. There have been some indications that she may have made a complete transition in the past couple of years.

I see a very well conceived photograph, at least at the scale of the version I've seen so far. I bet there are a couple of more floating around that will apear eventually.

Her shot is genuis IMO. Who the heck wants to see the queen naked??? Or Whoopi for that matter? ewww!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drg

I'm curious as to whether she's gone fully digital or not. There have been some indications that she may have made a complete transition in the past couple of years.

---

The recent American Masters documentary showed her shooting with a Leica, medium format, and a DSLR. Those shots were for the Marie Antoinette movie with Kirsten Dunst, which came out sometime in '06, I think.

Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

The Queen in a vat of asses' milk, I say!!!

With all due respect... :D

---

As long as it's a royal ass. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manacsa

DOWN WITH THE CRITIQUE FORUM!!! BURN IT TO HELL!!!

:D :D :D

---

Sounds like a good idea! :) :)

Ronnoco

You can crtique my photos anytime, Ronnoco.
I don't always agree with you but appreciate your input.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adina

I suspect it is way too traditional, way too posed, and way to artificial for a reason. I mean, come on, this is the Queen of England. Isn't her entire public life traditional, posed and artificial?

---

Her public life yes, but she seems to have been much more "real" and informal, going out on her own, driving a landrover, etc. and in her relations with the "caretakers" of her properties etc.

The challenge for the photographer should have been to jive the formal Queen with the less formal personality in a photo which catches both aspects.

Ronnoco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frog

You can crtique my photos anytime, Ronnoco.
I don't always agree with you but appreciate your input.

---

Thanks for the kind comments. My perspective on critique is based on almost a half century of experience.

Ronnoco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Timer

Leabovitz is know for getting her subjects to reveal their inner selfs. To my eyes that is exactly what this photo does. A lonely regal figure at peace with her fate in life. Well done Annie!

---

Being Canadian, we are a little closer tied in to what is happening with the royal family in our media etc. She has never, been at peace with her fate in life, and she has tried to sublimate her more "open" personality to her regal responsibilities, due to the influence of others.

Ronnoco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swmdrayfan

Those who can, do. Those who can't, become critics.

---

Rather a dumb reworked cliché, which only applies a small percentage of the time.

Ronnoco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

Being Canadian, we are a little closer tied in to what is happening with the royal family in our media etc. She has never, been at peace with her fate in life, and she has tried to sublimate her more "open" personality to her regal responsibilities, due to the influence of others.

Ronnoco

---

Interesting perspective there Ron.

I think you are correct in your observation of HRM's life in general although I don't agree that Annie missed that with this image. As I see it (Now don't freak out ~ but I'm using my imagination again :D) I infer much of what you are saying about her in this picture and I see this as a poignant and introspective portrait.

I see an older woman enshrouded in formality, from her dress to her antique surroundings, perpetually suffocated by it. She is looking out the window, wistfully ~ not laughing or even formally smiling, perhaps with a pang of longing for the life she might have had. Perhaps she is wishing she could just go outside for a walk to the shops without having every wave and nuance reported and scrutinized, without having every family shame and tragedy explored in infinite detail for all the world to see and debate. I see, a person caught in the trap of regality. I think Annie nailed it.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a vat of ass's milk waiting for me in the bath. . . .:eek: :lol:

The only opinion that matters is the Queen's and she must have given the go ahead to print. I think it's beautiful and refined. Cindy, I think your interpretation was perfect!

And there is a difference between critiquing and criticizing. Critics tend toward the latter. To hell with 'em!

Hey D - Love the new avatar! I agree with you, if the Queen hadn't liked what she saw in it, then it wouldn't have been approved.

I also wanted to add that I think the catch eye for the article is strangely definitive:

Story Highlights
• Photographer Annie Leibovitz's portrait of Britain's Queen divides critics
• Monarch is pictured wearing full evening dress
• Leibovitz famous for naked snaps of celebrities

This is really a story about two women who are routinely pared down into societal snapshots of themselves [by the media]. One defined and pilloried [by the media] for being over traditional, stodgy and a bastion of the old guard. The other defined and pilloried [by the media] for being too sensational, undefinable and non-conformist. [The media], of course being the faceless, unaccountable, socio-snicker machine of thousands of people globally who over analyze everything and broadcast their opinions to the. . . oh jeez :blush2:. . . I think I might be one of them!:yikes:
I'm going back to scrub some more ~ guess I missed a spot . . .would someone please go milk Sal again?

CL,

Well put and exactly what I saw in the picture. I don't believe that anyone should endure what the Queen has had to in her lifetime.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CLKunst

Interesting perspective there Ron.

I think you are correct in your observation of HRM's life in general although I don't agree that Annie missed that with this image. As I see it (Now don't freak out ~ but I'm using my imagination again :D) I infer much of what you are saying about her in this picture and I see this as a poignant and introspective portrait.

I see an older woman enshrouded in formality, from her dress to her antique surroundings, perpetually suffocated by it. She is looking out the window, wistfully ~ not laughing or even formally smiling, perhaps with a pang of longing for the life she might have had. Perhaps she is wishing she could just go outside for a walk to the shops without having every wave and nuance reported and scrutinized, without having every family shame and tragedy explored in infinite detail for all the world to see and debate. I see, a person caught in the trap of regality. I think Annie nailed it.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a vat of ass's milk waiting for me in the bath. . . .:eek: :lol:

---

I think you are overdoing the personal imagination and interpretation and it should not be necessary. A good portrait should communicate something to most of the viewers without it. As an example, Karsh's portrait of Churchill communicated his power and presence to every viewer of the photo. Personal interpretations were not necessary.

Ronnoco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

I think you are overdoing the personal imagination and interpretation and it should not be necessary.

---

Oh Fiddle-Dee-Dee Ron,

Must it always rain in Mudville?
Must we never see the sun?
Must we all be dull eyed children,
Who forget how to have fun?

What about the phrase "It leaves nothing to the imagination."? I guess that once again you and I must agree to disagree ~ since I've got an imagination and I intend to use it whether I need to or not. :thumbsup: It's what keeps me young.


Best,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

Rather a dumb reworked cliché, which only applies a small percentage of the time.

Ronnoco

---

Do you make it your goal to troll these forums? Seriously, I've been here for a few weeks and you haven't provided one bit of POSITIVE input regarding anything that I've seen...

The photography is outstanding. The atmosphere is so thick you can FEEL it with your eyes... The lighting alone elicits sentimental emotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

Rather a dumb reworked cliché, which only applies a small percentage of the time.

Ronnoco

---

You're welcome :thumbsup:

Without reading everyones comments, I personally find the picture slightly depressing. I feel the Queen is looking out the window into a troubled world she no longer understands. A world that has long went past the meaning of the Royal Family and everything they stood for. Lost and lonely stuck in the past. At least that's what I see.
Greg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

As an example, Karsh's portrait of Churchill communicated his power and presence to every viewer of the photo. Personal interpretations were not necessary.

---

That's perfectly true and he did it without the scenery, wardrobe or makeup artists (not that the White Room needs extra props). But Karsh DID have to walk up and snatch the cigar out of Churchill's mouth to get that look out of him. That took Huevos and imagination! A less determined photographer would have let him keep the cigar.

Oh! I know! Maybe the critics would be more pleased if AL had photographed the Queen WITH Churchill's cigar. . .but I'm just playing devil's advocate now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hickeroar

Do you make it your goal to troll these forums? Seriously, I've been here for a few weeks and you haven't provided one bit of POSITIVE input regarding anything that I've seen...

The photography is outstanding. The atmosphere is so thick you can FEEL it with your eyes... The lighting alone elicits sentimental emotion.

---

Well, you have not contributed anything with this post. :rolleyes: What about the photography is outstanding? "The atmosphere is thick" :rolleyes: That tells everyone absolutely nothing. What atmosphere? "The lighting alone elicits sentimental emotion"? Oh, how? and what emotion?

Your emotion does not make up for photographic knowledge and experience. :)

Ronnoco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CLKunst

Oh Fiddle-Dee-Dee Ron,

Must it always rain in Mudville?
Must we never see the sun?
Must we all be dull eyed children,
Who forget how to have fun?

What about the phrase "It leaves nothing to the imagination."? I guess that once again you and I must agree to disagree ~ since I've got an imagination and I intend to use it whether I need to or not. :thumbsup: It's what keeps me young.


Best,

---

The stretched imagination of an individual viewer does not and never will make a great photo. :)

Ron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CLKunst

Oh! I know! Maybe the critics would be more pleased if AL had photographed the Queen WITH Churchill's cigar. . .but I'm just playing devil's advocate now.

---

Well, it would not have made a great photo, but it certainly would have made an unforgettable one. :D :D :D

Ron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

Without reading everyones comments, I personally find the picture slightly depressing. I feel the Queen is looking out the window into a troubled world she no longer understands. A world that has long went past the meaning of the Royal Family and everything they stood for. Lost and lonely stuck in the past. At least that's what I see.
Greg

---

I doubt that a "slightly depressing" photo was ever the intention of either the photographer or the queen, nor should it have been.

The role of any top portrait photographer is to catch the "spirit" of the subject in the photo and do it in a manner that is flattering to the person as well. I have already pointed out the weaknesses in the photo in this basic area and the critics seem to agree with me.

Ron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

I doubt that a "slightly depressing" photo was ever the intention of either the photographer or the queen, nor should it have been.

The role of any top portrait photographer is to catch the "spirit" of the subject in the photo and do it in a manner that is flattering to the person as well. I have already pointed out the weaknesses in the photo in this basic area and the critics seem to agree with me.

Ron

---

Personal I like the photo. I can't tell you why.

We have seen so much, so we say up the skirt photography and so much photo journalism gone awry, that a outstanding photo isn't good anymore.