Tree In Head A.Leibovitz

[Rrrgcy]

Is it a more or less a mandate to avoid verticals sticking up from heads (Baldessari’s aside)?There’s this portrait image of a set of our lovelies by Leibovitz which leaves the backdrop starkly through C.Turlington’s head hewn near equilaterally. Why is this deliberate composition fine (would students be excoriated for it)? Why not shift it? Is there an aesthetic meaning?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Is it a more or less a mandate to avoid verticals sticking up from heads (Baldessari’s aside)?There’s this portrait image of a set of our lovelies by Leibovitz which leaves the backdrop starkly through C.Turlington’s head hewn near equilaterally. Why is this deliberate composition fine (would students be excoriated for it)? Why not shift it aside?

One of the early photographs of mine with a Kodak Browie Harkeye camera when I was 12, had a WALK and DON'T WALK sign hanging out each of his ears. I did not notice the signs, but my brother did, breaking out in laughter. That was my first awareness of "a mandate to avoid verticals sticking up from heads".

 

[grain elevator]

There are no rules, a photography police does not exist. You like it or are ok with it or you are not. I personally don't care for anything I've seen from Leibowitz and have no opinion on whether the line detracts from or adds to this picture. What do you think?

 

[Pieter12]

She placed it there to vex you personally.

 

[Vaughn]

Covering that line with my finger does change the way I approach the image...with the line it seems to separate the two people a little bit more.

 

[Pieter12]

The line could have been easily minimized in the darkroom or with either traditional or digital retouching. She chose to leave it, so it must not bother her or bring something she likes to the composition.

 

[cliveh]

Without being there, it is difficult to say the composition could be improved, but I agree with the OP that it is not ideal. But then composition is not her strong point.

 

[Pieter12]

How about this Irving Penn portrait of Rufino Tamayo? There's an easel growing out of his head. No rules.

 

[cliveh]

How about this Irving Penn portrait of Rufino Tamayo? There's an easel growing out of his head. No rules.

View attachment 377023

But it looks awful. Not a good composition.

 

[Pieter12]

But it looks awful. Not a good composition.

To each his own. It breaks several rules besides the easel and head, the hand is cut off at the wrist by his apron pocket, the bright white out-of-focus rag on the floor. Still, I would have been proud to have made that shot. The intensity of Tamayo's gaze, the mystery of the canvas turned away from the viewer, the overall richness of the image. I doubt you have better.

 

[cliveh]

If you want an example of excellent composition, just look at this:-

 

[Milpool]

“Excellent composition” is fairly easy. Just apply the rules. That doesn’t mean it will be an interesting photograph, just as a composition with broken rules isn’t necessarily a crap photograph.

 

[cliveh]

“Excellent composition” is fairly easy. Just apply the rules. That doesn’t mean it will be an interesting photograph, just as a composition with broken rules isn’t necessarily a crap photograph.

I don't think you quite understand. It is not a matter of just applying rules, as there are no rules for good composition. The assessment of a crap photograph and composition is not determined by rules, but by the beholder.

 

[BrianShaw]

Someone should tell Irving Penn that his compositions suck and teach him the proper way! Leibowitz probably wouldn't listen so let her do whatever she pleases. Her fame and popularity will fade eventually.

 

[Pieter12]

Someone should tell Irving Penn that his compositions suck and teach him the proper way! Leibowitz probably wouldn't listen so let her do whatever she pleases. Her fame and popularity will fade eventually.

Kind of doubt that.

 

[Rrrgcy]

With a photo such as Penn of Tamayo, would Penn intend to clean it by enlargement/crop? I very much take liberty to do that from the larger whole of many of my negs. Or is the floor and entire backdrop (warts and all) a part of his vision and intent for the final piece?

 

[MFstooges]

Is it a more or less a mandate to avoid verticals sticking up from heads (Baldessari’s aside)?There’s this portrait image of a set of our lovelies by Leibovitz which leaves the backdrop starkly through C.Turlington’s head hewn near equilaterally. Why is this deliberate composition fine (would students be excoriated for it)? Why not shift it? Is there an aesthetic meaning?

It's not a tree and although it is a little bit distracting in this cropped picture I actually think the dark vertical shade makes interesting triangular composition.

It's that how the photo ended up in final presentation?
Here is the full frame picture

How 15 Legendary Supermodels Do Fall's Best Denim

Christy Turlington. Cindy Crawford. Joan Smalls. These women, among many others in their field, are known masters of the model gaze, connoisseurs of striking a pose. While it comes together effortlessly on the page, it’s easy to forget that the shot is the product of a much longer...

www.vogue.com

 

[Pieter12]

With a photo such as Penn of Tamayo, would Penn intend to clean it by enlargement/crop? I very much take liberty to do that from the larger whole of many of my negs. Or is the floor and entire backdrop (warts and all) a part of his vision and intent for the final piece?

Penn made all his own prints, that's how he printed it so that is what he intended.

 

[Eric Rose]

No one has the authority to say a composition is "wrong". Period. It may not work for them but hey that's why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream.There are those that are rule followers. Rules mean everything to them, it keeps them in the correct lane and provides them with a "tribe" with which to belong. Those that are NOT rule followers are the inventors, explorers, creators etc. Once one of the rule followers gets their head around a new concept created by one of the non-rule followers, they along with respected tribe members make it a "rule". The cosmos is brought back into alignment for them.

As far as the image in question is concerned I like it. The vertical demarcation and the subsequent light falloff to the right in the background was done on purpose. The artist may have sensed a power dynamic between the two subjects or maybe there was tension between them. Who knows, only Anne knows why she did it but what she did do is create a story with her composition. That's what creative photography should strive for.

Eric

 

[Pieter12]

No one has the authority to say a composition is "wrong". Period. It may not work for them but hey that's why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream.There are those that are rule followers. Rules mean everything to them, it keeps them in the correct lane and provides them with a "tribe" with which to belong. Those that are NOT rule followers are the inventors, explorers, creators etc. Once one of the rule followers gets their head around a new concept created by one of the non-rule followers, they along with respected tribe members make it a "rule". The cosmos is brought back into alignment for them.

As far as the image in question is concerned I like it. The vertical demarcation and the subsequent light falloff to the right in the background was done on purpose. The artist may have sensed a power dynamic between the two subjects or maybe there was tension between them. Who knows, only Anne knows why she did it but what she did do is create a story with her composition. That's what creative photography should strive for.

Eric

If you look at the other photos from the shoot as posted in #17, Ms Leibovitz seems to be intentionally breaking rules, leaving light stands and frayed background edges in the frame, even the "marks" on the floor for the subjects. My take is that it is possibly in conjunction with the theme of the story, about models and jeans, making it less formal and more rebellious. Remember, this is a fashion editorial assignment, not necessarily fine art.

 

[Rrrgcy]

Thank you MFstooges and Pieter12. I very much prefer the full frame version you linked (and below w comparison). The vertical backdrop on her head seems to add depth or something with its separation there. It’s wonderfully complex>

 

[Pieter12]

If you want an example of excellent composition, just look at this:-

I dunno. If you read the image from left to right, your eye follows the curve of the woman’s body to her face, then the man’s then catches the dark curtain which takes you right out of the frame.

 

[MFstooges]

I am sure Leibovitz did not do one take on that picture yet she (and probably her editor) decided to pull that one (with a lot of consideration).
I see art as a very dynamic thing, it may entice one but bored the other people. I even find myself interested in someone's artwork at one period and dislike it later. I am a fan of most of Leibovitz' work but few of her pieces don't really entertain me i.e. her work for the Blues Brothers. And I used to really like Salgado but now I see his work like overly done digital HDRs.

 

[MattKing]

It looks quite intentional to me - that vertical line is almost a continuation of the model's very "model-like" facial structure.
The result would look lousy if she photographed my very "un-model-like" visage that way.
But for that model, in an ad for jeans that I would never be able to wear, it is a different situation indeed.
Just think of how bland the result might be without all the strong vertical elements in that photo!

 

[Maris]

The line in the backdrop is a pointing finger insisting "Look at these people!".

Besides which Annie Leibovitz is so thoroughly beatified into the photographic pantheon, both by accomplishment and acclaim, that
I should be asking why is the line in the backdrop is right rather than suspecting it could be wrong.

Unless I'm a contrarian insisting some skepticism is a necessary anodyne to passive consensus.