shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I like it, and I'm usually not a fan of A. Leibovitz's work.
It's a gutsy decision to use wide-angle for portrait, the effect is unusual and there is a lot to take in that picture. I agree that the queen's attire is a bit too monochrome.
The open door and the brooding sky reflected on it is the other highlight in the picture beside the queen. I think the genius is how A. Leibovitz tied them together with the queen's gaze.
It's a gutsy decision to use wide-angle for portrait, the effect is unusual and there is a lot to take in that picture. I agree that the queen's attire is a bit too monochrome.
The open door and the brooding sky reflected on it is the other highlight in the picture beside the queen. I think the genius is how A. Leibovitz tied them together with the queen's gaze.
dazedgonebye
Mentor
It's really very rare that I have an adverse reaction to photography, other than my own. I'm surprised that I'm so far off of the crowd on this one.
I just can't find much to say good about it.
I just can't find much to say good about it.
eia41
Established
Just for the record, chaps and chapesses.
The Queen is THE QUEEN - The "Her Royal Highness" address is for...mere princelings. She is "Her Majesty" -HM- and you address her, initially, as "Your Majesty" and afterwards as "M'aam" (as in Jam).
Just in case anyone oif you comes face to face with her as your turn round your street corner!
By the way, yes, the Queen prefers female photographers when the coice is hers, and not dictated by Whitehall mandarins, and Leibovitz must have decided to emulate the old masters as more befitting her subject. As for camera, film or digital - I don't like computers in photography and (almost) hate digital- but does it really matter??
eia41
The Queen is THE QUEEN - The "Her Royal Highness" address is for...mere princelings. She is "Her Majesty" -HM- and you address her, initially, as "Your Majesty" and afterwards as "M'aam" (as in Jam).
Just in case anyone oif you comes face to face with her as your turn round your street corner!
By the way, yes, the Queen prefers female photographers when the coice is hers, and not dictated by Whitehall mandarins, and Leibovitz must have decided to emulate the old masters as more befitting her subject. As for camera, film or digital - I don't like computers in photography and (almost) hate digital- but does it really matter??
eia41
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Mentor
eia41 said:
Oops, I've been HRH'ing her. Now I know better.
Thanks
Sparrow
Mentor
eia41 said:
So oi Lizy giv’us a lift with this tripod is probably a bit too familiar?
:angel:
Paul T.
Mentor
dazedgonebye said:
Well, these things are subjective aren't they? And of course evoking the feel of a Reynolds or Gainsborough doesn't necessarily put a photographer on their level (altho, looking at Reynolds' hilariously obsequious photo of George IV, one could argue it's not that difficult).
However, the general quality of recent Royal portraiture is so low, that this might even represent a new peak! Recently, m'am had her portrait done by Rolf Harris, a children's entertainer who once had a hit in the UK, entitled Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport (He also somehow managed to score another success with a cover of Stariway To HEaven which featured, if memory serves, a woggle-board.) And his portrait was probably BETTER than the celebrated Annigoni monstrosity, which looked more suited to adorning the lid of a chocolate box or Barbara Cartland paperback...
Although I'm a fan of Reynolds, and of Gainsborough (altho not their royal portraits), it's often said that the last British king who commissioned a decent painting was Charles the First. And we all know how he ended up...
35mmdelux
#Represent
eia41 said:
interesting. thanks for the correction.
Lastly, one does not address her Anything, unless she address (talks ) to you first. One does not shake her hand unless she wants to shake your hand, first.
And as the Prince's girlfriend mom found out - if you need to go potty do not ask The Queen where is the "toilet." One must ask, where is the "lavatory." Better yet, just hold it.
Sparrow
Mentor
I have to make mention of Holbein at some point
35mmdelux
#Represent
Paul T. said:
gdam, LOL< LOL< LOL. This is the BEST address I've ever heard. People in the other cubes must think I've gone nuts I'm laughing so hard.
Tuolumne
Mentor
I wonder if there was any supplemental lighting used, e.g. reflectors or fill lighting? I've found it quite difficult to get a good balance of natural side lighting and detail on the dark side of the figure without fill light. What do you think? The balance of the exposure between inside and outside is almost preternatural.
/T
/T
John Camp
Well-known
LazyHammock said:
I doubt there was very much natural about the light -- I suspect that just out of sight, there is a substantial bank of lighting carefully calibrated to balance the much-brighter outdoors with the much dimmer indoors, so that AL could hold the texture of all that fine material as well as the out-of-door detai . In other words, the queen is sitting on a stage that's as brightly lit as an operating room.
JC
35mmdelux
#Represent
John Camp said:
If one reads Annie's interviews she states that she uses banks of lighting. She began with Normans, eventually graduating to the much bigger bank stuff. If one analyzes the outtakes, one will notice that some bank setups require onsite generators as well.
I'm outta here on way to meet Alex Webb in La Jolla, Ca. wish me luck - Best - Paul
sooner
Well-known
Thanks for the correction on Her Majesty vs. HRH or whatever, but as an ugly American I must confess I couldn't care less how she expects to be called. I find the very concept of royalty offensive or mildly amusing at best, and as an institution the monarchy has historically been a recipe for inbred rulers and bad government. Not that I'm likely to run into any of them, since I don't hang out where absurdly rich people hang out. But hey, I respect her as a person!
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
sooner said:
How unlike.... No. No. It would be just too easy. I shall say nothing
Cheers, Ian
FrankS
Registered User
Yes, it would be wise to keep politics in the background.
Steve Bellayr
Mentor
Anyone could have sat in that chair, and well dressed, would have looked just as regal. Perfectly lit, well composed, press the button but what does it tell me about the Queen? Maybe, it tells me that is the way she sees herself. Karsh's famous photo of Churchill was by far not the family's favorite but it is the one that he is known to the world. R. Barthes wrote that there are three images: 1. the one the sitter imagines, 2. one the photographer attempts to capture & 3. the one the viewer sees.
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
FrankS said:
Indeed Frank, but politics is the point. The Queen has no real political power. and this picture, with its conscious archaism is a reminder of that. I very much doubt that this is how the Queen sees herself - rather that the photograph places her in a particular historical tradition It's interesting to compare this romantic, elegiac image of an elderly figurehead with the real thing.
Below is the last official portrait of the Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha. Superficially it seems very frank, very human, very democratic. Hoxha is plainly a sick old man. One cannot imagine a ruling western politician daring to authorise such a picture. But Hoxha could. There was no restraint on his power, no need for soft focus or nostalgia. It was enough to show the old b*stard was still alive and more dangerous than ever - he had just finished slaughtering the Shehu clan, to the tune of around 10,000 dead. That darting, distracted gaze was threatening indeed. There is an odd parallel with the very late portraits of Henry VIII, the last English monarch to enjoy a similar degree of absolute power. Leibovitz' picture is a harmless dream. This is the hard reality.
Cheers, Ian
Attachments
Xmas
Mentor
Jocko
Lets just kill this thread and post a B888 shaking B99999 hand pic?
Noel
Lets just kill this thread and post a B888 shaking B99999 hand pic?
Noel
Jocko
Off With The Pixies
Xmas said:
Noel, I don't understand your objection. I was simply making the point that images of power are often very deceptive.
As for Hoxha - and speaking as someone with a serious interest in Albania, lasting some 25 years - believe me, I have yet to meet anyone who has such a generous regard for him as I do. The man was vicious tyrant. He was also the subject of some of the most interesting pictures to come out of postwar communist Europe.
Cheers, Ian
Xmas
Mentor
Ian
Sorry
It was not you I had a problem with or even Hoxha... Liz has not killed any one, Stalin managed millions... Tu has some denial/dispute, but inbred rulers and bad government... is pretty close to a home run?
And this is a photo forum not a ...
Noel
Sorry
It was not you I had a problem with or even Hoxha... Liz has not killed any one, Stalin managed millions... Tu has some denial/dispute, but inbred rulers and bad government... is pretty close to a home run?
And this is a photo forum not a ...
Noel