Annie at Work

Annie Leibovitz and her approach to portraiture came up in my Thursday night class last week, so I wanted to link to some good "behind-the-scenes" video from Vanity Fair. I think her use of lighting in these is well worth the view, especially the episode with Nicole Kidman and Baz Luhrman.

The 2009 Hollywood Portfolio Shoots

Trends in Photography: Annie Leibovitz

Trend: Leibovitz Schadenfreude.

The Worst Photograph Ever Made

But for inspired badness, this recent "photograph"* by Annie Leibovitz for the Lavazza calendar has it all: a pandering (unto capitulation) to empty style; excessive color which is nevertheless unattractive; an attractive model who is also unattractive ...

Lawsuits Claim Leibovitz Owes $778K For Photo Services

The suits offer a rare glimpse into the big budgets behind Leibovitz’s celebrity portraits, which are surely among the most expensive shoots in the industry. A wardrobe stylist who worked on a Disney campaign with Leibovitz claims the photographer owes her $386,467 – including $109,960 for one shot alone.

Annie Leibovitz Looking Like a Deadbeat

Though she's paid handsomely ($2 mill/year) for her consistently newsy (King Kong LeBron! Naked Miley! Tina Fey!) VF work, there's been a stream of reports about the portraitist facing some financial straits. In addition to her cute little pair of lawsuits, she reportedly took out a $5 million mortgage on her Greenwich Village home earlier this fall. If the financial downturn affects even our most populist and wealthy of mainstream artistes, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Leibovitz on Lenses

I've been reading Annie Leibovitz at Work.

I'll discuss the book once I finish it, but I wanted to highlight Leibovitz' use of lenses in her early days with Rolling Stone, as detailed on page 16:

"During the early years at the magazine, when I thought of myself more as a photojournalist than a portraitist, I usually carried three cameras on assignments. I didn't want to lose time changing lenses. I would take a 35mm lens, a 55, and a 105.

"A 35mm lens provides a perspective close to what the human eye sees, and it was my lens of choice. The 55 was considered a 'normal' lens, very classic, simple and noninterfering. The 105 was on a body with a meter and I could use it for light readings. Zoom lenses were not really an option then. They weren't made well. When you saw a photographer with a zoom lens on his camera you didn't take him seriously."

I find it interesting how much that situation has changed today. If you look in the camera bag of any typical photographer in the "working, but not famous" category today, you'll be very likely to find two great zoom lenses packed, with possibly no primes at all.