Harsh light on leg

I noticed this photo that Annie Leibovitz took has harsh light on the woman's leg.

To me, this is a bit odd that one has such mixed lighting of shadow and bright sunlight on the body, especially the skin. With my current understanding and knowledge, I would have used a sun diffuser to block out the harsh light, moved the couple into complete shade or post-processed that harsh light away, but not leave it like it is.

What do all of you think, is this okay or what would you do?

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/09/mad-men200909



Jacques
--
Shape your reality:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aYyFmllA29M

Your shot would have been very boring, cookie cutter, bland, and sophomoric. Too much reading in forums promotes homogenious unexciting blobs of photographs each one safely exposed but seriously lacking in interest.
--
-Steve

I can imagine you are working for AL, standing next to her at the light box. That shot comes up and you suggest that the light should be removed from the leg.....

She'd say, "You're fired".

haha, but for real:

what "Its me" said is true.

There's no reason to take anything away from AL, she sees deeper, puts more work into, and then earns more than you do.

When you see an image from a photographer with a pedigree like AL, a more proper attitude is to allow that it is a great image, absorb it, and move on.

It's human nature to say, "I could have done better than that", but you never really know that until you've either built a body of work or you're working side by side with other photographers.

But I can relate to your presumptions, being a bit of a technical guy myself. The light is appropriate for these reasons: depth, presence, and balance.

In other words, it's another thing that makes the sum greater than the parts.

Good luck!

Yeah, and you'd have cloned out the sunbeds as well, right?

Go to a library and get some books about art history, preferably about classic painting (before modernism!) and study them. Then come back and talk about AL again.
regards,
A+

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alessandro_isnotaurelio/
equipment: disposable cameras and available light, two or three girlfriends
always throw away the boxes

If the photographer were unknown, would the praise be the same?

I suspect the pedigree of this photo immunizes it from criticisms about its content that would otherwise be abundant.

The pretension in this thread is palpable : Its an AL thing, you wouldn't understand.

x

Always a delight to hear criticism of one of the world's great photographers from someone with your qualifications and insights.

Keep up the good work.

Are you cleared to reproduce that image?

BAK

Thanks X.

I do not understand why the other commentators here think that I find fault of Annie or her work in general.

What I'm interested in though, is to understand why this image is published when my understanding says something different.

Hopefully someone can comment on the photo itself, otherwise I will ask somewhere else for some input.

Regards
Jacques

xburrows said:

If the photographer were unknown, would the praise be the same?

I suspect the pedigree of this photo immunizes it from criticisms about its content that would otherwise be abundant.

The pretension in this thread is palpable : Its an AL thing, you wouldn't understand.

x

Click to expand...

--
Shape your reality:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aYyFmllA29M

In viewing the rest of the photos in the article, it seems that 'Betty' is always in the light and 'Don' in shadow / dark. Maybe the highlight on her legs is there to keep the theme uniform and keep her separate from him.

x

BAK said:

Always a delight to hear criticism of one of the world's great photographers from someone with your qualifications and insights.

Click to expand...

Since when do you need qualifications to offer criticism?
Curiosity and questioning oneself is the road to great insight!

I'm my self is a perfectionist too..., well I used to be till a point when I started to realize that there is way more to care about then these little things here and there.

--
Renat
http://www.renat.ca

Leibovitz has never been considered as a master of photography and lighting specifically. Yes, she has achieved a certain success in her career, but mostly due to a focus on the celebrity type of photography path she has been following.

I agree with you, Jacques.

I find the harsh light on the leg more than distracting and it does not work at all for me.

Another part of this picture that does not work for me is the lighting on the faces. The lighting on his face is from a different direction than the lighting on hers; it looks unnatural and distracting.
I really like AL's pictures but this one does not work for me.

--
Best Regards,
Renato

'The world is going to pieces and people like Adams and Weston are photographing rocks.' Henri Cartier Bresson, in the 1930's

I often shoot in these sorts of conditions (probably we all do) and personally like a bit of breakthough from the direct light sometimes when shooting under a tree it is useful to see a dappled look just to create the impression of leaves and shade.

What seems to be crucial though is where this highlight is i.e. on the face or over an eye is too distracting but on a leg I think is fine. The other factor is just how bright the highlight is i.e. is it pure white or does it sill have some detail. In the AL photo the highlihgt is well controlled.

by the way I have allways regarded her lighting as amazing and have spent much time trying to recreate some of her styles. I agree though that this shot is probably not the finest example

I'll give it a shot:

First, a technical observation. A classic man-style lighting is to make the face look angular and structured, in this case it's 'broad' lighting. His nose is away from the light with the bulk of his face in the light. His face does look pretty chiseled with this lighting. Very manly, yes Alternatively, a classic woman-style lighting is butterfly lighting, which this seems to be, with her own body acting as a lower chin reflection, very fashiony. The little butterfly is under her nose, right where it should be. So, for the faces, there's two distinct, classic lighting styles going on at the same time, and within about two feet of one another. I'm pretty sure I couldn't do that right, like it's done here.

Now as far as the leg light, my answer is a bit more artistically 'narrative', and is only one man's opinion. If you realize that this photo is a tiny story, even though it's a fictitious one made up just for the photo, you can look at things for other reasons than technical ones. If you do, then you realize that the photo is about the couple's foreplay. Her face, breasts, arms, and a bit on the legs are of a white hot lighting exposure. She's been laid out for him to see. And now notice the place where she's lit the least. Bingo. She's not looking at him, not giving him consent. Maybe that's supposed to be the focal point of the whole image, a very subtle area of sexual non-consent. And if you miss the point, AL's put a giant palm tree in the middle of the image that's visually pointing right to that spot on her as well. I also think, with AL's control of light, that it seems purposeful that the light from her leg also goes into the grass and points us directly to the chairs, telling us the couple have come up from the beach to a more secluded area to carry on. Also, by lighting the leg, it continues the exposure of the upper half of her body, and thus making the dark waist area more visually noticeable. With all the choices available to a photographer of her caliber, with all the time, effort and expense, I don't believe any part of this final image is casual, lucky, coincidental, etc. I think it was POURED over by many sets of eyes.

So, I think the light spot on the leg is an element of design, meant to lead us visually to the chairs, which adds to the narrative of the photo.

elboertie2 said:

I noticed this photo that Annie Leibovitz took has harsh light on the woman's leg.

What do all of you think, is this okay or what would you do?

Click to expand...

The first thing I noticed was the appaling colour.

I would imagine that ths image is taken from a CMYK repro image and incorrectly converted. I doubt in print it will look the same and that the cyan is added to increase depth to the shadows. Additionally, the approximation of the colour of the dress is that to the colour of the grass, adding a cyan/blue cast especially in the shadows has separated that colour from the grass adding emphasis there (to the dress) so adding reason to the result.

Interesting the flat bluish coloured grass in front of Betty further reinforcing this reason.

I don't find the highlight on the leg particularly distracting. It is small enough to be irrelevant and in an area that doesn't detract from the image and might even add a lead-in line to the main subject of the image?

elboertie2 said:

To me, this is a bit odd that one has such mixed lighting of shadow and bright sunlight on the body, especially the skin. With my current understanding and knowledge, I would have used a sun diffuser to block out the harsh light, moved the couple into complete shade or post-processed that harsh light away, but not leave it like it is.

Click to expand...

That is the method employed, not in complete shade, but, watching the video would show this. I think the image displayed is far from that captured in camera. Sky (with almost a blue ND grad effect added), background, grass, dress, separation from background and colour adjustment to suit reproduction have all added their impact and I think it might be unfair to judge from this sort of reproduction. I expect that the magazine might look entiely different.

I like the lighting on Betty's face and torso, but I imagine that a problem encountered with this might have been the potential loss of detail in the refective satin surface. Maybe in an attempt to retain this there have been compromises elsewhere. The tartan trousers for instance.

--
Ian.

Samples of work: http://www.AccoladePhotography.co.uk
Weddings: http://www.AccoladeWeddings.com
Events: http://www.OfficialPhotographer.com

Theres only one sun. Why do I need more than one light to get a natural result?

BAK said:

Are you cleared to reproduce that image?

BAK

Click to expand...

I think this constitutes a textbook case of fair use of quotation, as the image is analyzed and critizised, rather than exploited for gain.

Further all the OP posted is a link pointing to the image residing publicly at the magazine website, who seem to have done nothing to prevent linking.

Anyway, I´m no expert, so the above is what I think, not what I positively know.

Regarding the image, I think the hard light is left where it is to give a feel of spontanious authenticity.

I think the talent of AL is more about superb people skills, and making the most of the access that skill gives her, combined with sometimes brilliant imagination as well as the considerable production resources, rather than technical skill as such.

Let´s assume all the iconic images by AL in the sixties were not of her rock-star friends, but rather of "just models". Would AL then have become AL the trademark?

Those images are iconic because of the people portrayed. If those people were not mega-famous, the images would still be superb, but not icons.

David

Well said. To the OP, try viewing the picture without thinking about how you might make it. I don't know AL's real intentions but I suspect the light is left there because it draws the eye into the photo along that line of light, up her leg and then to her face and the mans face.

At the top end of photography, the composition is often very rich and layered even if it appears simple.

--
-Dan Rode
http://danrode.smugmug.com

DavidSvensson said:

Let´s assume all the iconic images by AL in the sixties were not of her rock-star friends, but rather of "just models". Would AL then have become AL the trademark?

Those images are iconic because of the people portrayed. If those people were not mega-famous, the images would still be superb, but not icons.

Click to expand...

This is how I see it too David.

Regards,
Jacques

--
Shape your reality:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aYyFmllA29M

I would disagree with that. There's been many, many celeb shooters during the time in which AL has shot hers. She's the one who's images have stuck in our psyche. Why are we talking about her shots and not Herb Ritts'? Or Mark Seliger's? Or Victor Skrebneski's. Ever heard of him? I know you can think of a favorite Richard Avedon photo off the top of your head, but how about 25? I can think of 25 Annie's easy.

Yes, photos of celebs have the recognition factor of the subject going for it, but I believe the photographer's skills are the difference on whether a viewer makes an emotional attachment to an image. Her's seem to be the most universally embraced, which might come from the 'iconic' nature of her images, celeb or not.

That's a great observation.

xburrows said:

In viewing the rest of the photos in the article, it seems that 'Betty' is always in the light and 'Don' in shadow / dark. Maybe the highlight on her legs is there to keep the theme uniform and keep her separate from him.

x

Click to expand...