Shooting Stars

Maybe this has come up before but at least I couldn't easily find it in the history folders.

<p>

I found a book 'Shooting Stars' by the Zeitlins in our friendly local library. I have seen it in Borders too, but wanted to spend the money on film instead.

<p>

It is a book about celebrities and the photographs they have taken, mostly elderly Hollywood movie stars with some singers, sports people and army generals thrown in. There is, for example, a delightful picture of Elvis kneeling in front of a woman with a Rolleiflex in his hand and two Leicas slung over his shoulder.

The book mentions about their equipment and there are quite a few Leica photographers, including:

-Dean Martin

-Helen Hayes

-Sammy Davis Jr.

-Bobby Jones

-Jerome Robbins

-Gloria Vanderbilt

-Gregory Peck

-Burl Ives

-James Stewart

<p>

I enjoyed glancing through the book. You might too.

<p>

Regards, Ilkka

There is also a series of volumes called "Double Exposure" featuring

celebs who have photographed each other. Paul Newman by Joanne

Woodward; Fed Astaire by Mikhail Baryshnikov; Bette Midler by

Laurance Olivier. Must be about a hundred and fifty of them. But I

bought volume 2 for the photo of Audrey Hepburn by Gregory Peck.

My local "Buck a Book" has that 'Double Exposure' book for sale, if

anyone is looking for it... probably alot cheaper than retail, maybe

50% or so...

Phillip

Celebrity books have been a major contributor to the death of high-

quality photography publishing. I think it's worth looking at what

gets easily published and what doesn't, and then making a decision

on what books to buy or take out of the library.

Oh boy, a book about celebrities and their photographs, wasting

valuable retail space. Meanwhile photographers with real talent

go unnoticed by the publishing world. You did a good thing by

spending the money on film instead.

Personally I think there is a little jealousy or such going on here.

I picked up 'Shooting Stars' because it was in the bargin bin and

thought it had some interesting photos in it. Where is it written

that if you're famous (celebrity) and talented (by the way - quite a

few actors have gone on to become directors - where having an 'eye'

is extremely important). There are just as many good photos in this

book as in a lot of books I've seen by 'photographers'. From the

comments that keep cropping up on this website about National Geo of

late, I'd say the photos are better in Shooting Stars.

Well said Bob! Just because someone is famous does not mean they are

devoid of talent. They might be but not necessarily. Also many of

greatest photos are that way because of historical or other

associations not necessarily directly connected with "quality", so if

a famous person takes a photo of something important to them it might

well be more interesting to many than that taken by a struggling

unknown. I understand this.

Bob, Robin: Point taken. I'm sure there are some interesting

photos in the book, both from historical and aesthetic stand

points. But c'mon, do we really need to have a book of photos by

Burt Ives and Gloria Vanderbilt, et al? Meanwhile, a photographer

such as Paul Fusco shops around his photos for "RFK Funeral

Train" for over 30 years before finally getting it published (to use

an example). The cult of personality around celebrities is tiring.

Sure, some of them are talented and multi-faceted, but I get the

feeling that so many actors just use their fame to weasel their

way into other fields. Look now I'm a photographer! Look now I'm

a writer! Look now I'm a stage actor!

Richard

<p>

Interesting point about the RFK funeral train. Such an interesting set

of photos. One cannot imagine that at the time people did not want to

publish them in some way. It seems such a no-brainer today - but this

in itself tells us something about the state of photography back then

too - perhaps it was not a golden age in the 60s either.

I thought the funeral train stuff was pretty boring myself. So many

pictures of people waving from the side of the tracks. But maybe

there was more to it than what I saw, I don't know.