juergen teller's flash technique

Subject: juergen teller's flash technique

 

i love the look of the likes of juergen teller (who did the marc

jacobs and ysl ads) and terry richardson (sisley). do they just use

a powerful hotshoe mounted flash and (in the case of juergen)

overexpose a stop or two? i know terry uses point&shoot cameras a

lot, what about juergen and other similar photographers?

 

juergen teller:

 

http://jord.duval.club.fr/imagesHD/YSL/ysl_ss2005_karen-

elson_004.jpg

I have the March/April 2002 issue of picture magazine, with Jeurgen Teller cover of Stephanie Seymour lying prone in a forest. Lucky I saw your post...

Here's an excerpt from the interview:

 

What cameras are you using?: "All my cameras are 35mm. I like the Olympus O-product, the Contax T2, and the Leica M6."

 

What do you think about the Contax T3? "I don't even know about that. John, have you heard of the Contax T3? He hasn't heard of it either. We're not so technical. Maybe I should write that down."

 

(The "John" is his assistant, I think.)

That means that he's doing on camera flash. You can pretty much tell by the way the pictures are lit. Juergen has good stuff here and there, but his technique can be overwhelmingly awful. I bought his book "Marchenstuberl" and I can definitely say that its not my favorite photography book (doesn't look like his Marc Jacobs ads really). His ads are more polished (of course) than his personal stuff, which can be too sentimental, with poor choice of subject, and awful technique.

 

If you like Jeurgen, and Richardson, you might enjoy taking a look at the book "Lapdancer" by Juliana Beasley. She was an assistant of Annie Leibovitz, but by this book you woudn't know it. Much better than Jeurgen's stuff. And Terryworld is great too, so check that out.

 

So...

 

The good: It doesn't take much effort or cash to match Juergen/Richardson's work on a technical basis. (Juergen doesn't need a Leica/Contax to get that look. He uses them so people take him seriously).

 

The bad: Juergen/Richardson make frequent use of celebrities to "elevate" their work above their horrible camera technique.

(And BTW, their work draws tons of criticism and hatred because of it.) So unless you know Angelina Jolie...

 

The ugly: Richardson and Beasley overcome the "point&shoot" dullness by using outrageous subject matter.

 

Hope that helps and good luck.

I can't believe Terry Richardson is hired by the likes of Vogue, Gucci, Complex, etc...

I refer to this style of shooting as the "look mom, they let me into the afterparty" pics.

 

Never a big fan of it.

For really amazingly good on camera flash technique (which is 99% being in the right lace with the right attitude, check out Clay Enos, especially his Night photos... t

I know Terry Richardson uses a Yashica T4 and Juergen also uses point and shoot cameras. In my opinion they are teasing with all photography world by their simple technique trying to tell people that photography is not about using complicated systems to achieve a picture. In a way they are right and although I dont like their punk pictures they are making big bucks and giving some hints about the world we are living in that we shouldnt take anything so seriously.

Tom, what a great recommendation on Clay Enos! I will have to poke around for info on his technique.. if you have any links on hand, please post.

I'm kind of tired of reading jealous little posts about Richardson, Teller etc etc. If they're so bad, and you're so good, how come they're really famous and successful, whilst I've never heard of you? These arguments always seem to come from the type of photographer who disguises tedious images with overproduction and fail to realise that content will always triumph over technique. When was the last time you looked at a photograph from the 1940s and critiqued the technique? No-one cares. The image is everything, the core being the subject, and those that last & impress depict interesting things. That is why everyone wants to look at Richardson's schlong & Tellers girls, and not at your time lapse traffic photos or whatever the hell you do. I love the democracy of cheap cameras. They separate the wheat from the chaff. If you can take a great photo with a shit camera, you're OK by me. If you can take an OK photo with an expensive camera, forty lights, make-up, a stylist, a studio, umbrellas and re-touching, i couldn't give less of a shit.

"These arguments always seem to come from the type of photographer who disguises tedious images with overproduction and fail to realise that content will always triumph over technique."

 

Exactly. But Richardson and Beasley definitely have their own shtick in the mud as well.

We all have our way of doing things. Nothing in art is right or wrong.

However, there are many images that just are not art.

<p>One thing I've always wondered if the film that they would use. I'm guessing a high ISO with perhaps 1+ overexposure?</p>

<p>If a pile of bricks can be considered art how can you dismiss a photograph by two highly successful photographers as not?<br>

The thing that sets Terry Richardson and Juergen Teller apart is their ability to capture an image beautiful enough that hours of editing and airbrushing are not neccessary.<br>

So many successful photographers today publish images that are so re-touched you have to ask whether it is a photograph or a digital manipulation.<br>

when an image is over edited and over air-brushed you loose the aesthetic of the image.<br>

If you can't take a decent photograph without a lengthy editing process afterward you are not a photographer in my eyes.<br>

On top of that all, air-brushing creates unattainable aspirations that have often lead to the destruction of women's self esteem</p>