Vanity Fair with Tiger Woods cover

[hughes]

<p> Am I missing something with this February Vanity Fair cover by Annie Leibovitz or am I the only person who thinks it's an amateurish snapshot, poorly lit and unsharp. Is it a deliberate attempt to portray Tiger in an unfavorable light [no pun intended]. The pictures inside are far better but it seems that the Art Editor or whoever chooses the cover looked for the worst shot to put on the cover. Would love to hear other opinions because the more I look at this cover the less I get it. And this is not a personal Attack on Annie I admire her but just hate this cover.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Actually, I think it nicely illusrates a fit, intense guy going through some real turmoil. It's a far, far more interesting image - to me - than the <strong><a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/obama-family-photo.jpg">genuinely awful recent portrait</a></strong> she did of the president and his family. That one could have been so much more compelling, given her photogenic subjects and setting.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>It is no better or worse than the presidential family portrait.</p>

<p>My favorite quote remains</p>

<p>"How many photographers does it take to screw in a light bulb?"</p>

<p>Answer: "50. One who actually did the job and 49 who said "Hey; I could have done that.""</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>My standard, here, Kevin, isn't that <em>I</em> could do a better job on that presidential family portrait (no sir!). Rather, it's that Liebovitz <em>herself</em> could have done a much better job, based on her own abundant examples of wildly superior work.</p>

[pge]

<p>For the record I think it is a great shot.</p>

<p>If you are going to judge Annie on lighting and sharpness or other commonly accepted criteria for good photography then look no further, she fails. However if you are going to judge her on somehow being able to catch that thing, that undescribable naked moment, then she is hard to top. Remember her shot of John and Yoko, nothing special, very ordinary, but amazing at the same time, and of course he was killed later that day.</p>

<p>When I first saw that shot it really caught me. I had never seen Tiger so naked, so raw. Its one of those photos you know is Annie's without being told, kind of like a Newton photo.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>Hey Steve, good post. My rule is: DON'T JUDGE A PHOTOGRAPHER BY WHAT AN EDITOR CHOOSES TO PRINT! Editor's choose the strangest stuff sometimes. Even though they say they care about quality, they often don't have the ability to control it or judge it.</p>

<p>Even the best photographers make bad images. But they have the ability to recognize it and throw the bad ones away. The photo editor often misses the point entirely. Let's give Annie the respect she deserves. Cheers, JJ</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>My standard, here, Kevin, isn't that <em>I</em> could do a better job</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No..No Matt. I fear you have misinterpreted my dry humor.<br>

My intent was to show that it often is NOT about the skill of the photographer, but the name of the photographer along with his/her connections in the biz.</p>

<p>Too many well known shooters (IMO), Annie being a perfect example, rest on their laurels of days gone by, while their motivation to improve wanes.<br>

I find Ms. Liebowitz's work lacking compared to the few years following her legendary, if not career launching shot of John Lenin.</p>

<p>Art is art, open to wide interpretation, yet often dictated by the "in" crowd.<br>

Afterall, if it's shot by Mr. BigDog, it <strong>MUST</strong> be good; right? ;)</p>

[hughes]

<p>Phil you have a point but Annie is and has been a great photographer, sharpness is not very important, but I would judge her on lighting, photography is all about light.<br>

The point of my question was this, is she deliberately trying to make him look a certain way to create a reaction in the viewer. Tiger is iconic and attractive but from Southern California privilege not the south side of Chicago or Harlem, so is the picture is a caracature or worse a stereotype, either way I don't think I get it and I don't think it deserves to be on the cover. </p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I thought it was great. I pondered the shot for quite awhile on the news stand (Don't know why my issue hasn't come yet). It was dark and moody. I've never seen Tiger with his shirt off, so that was interesting to me, since he is an athlete.</p>

<p>Jeremy, that's a great quote and so true.</p>

[cmitchell]

<p>Is that really true, that sharpness isn't important? You mean if it's art, it doesn't have to be sharp? I keep trying to get everything sharp. Do you think they make it "unsharp" on purpose or that they come across a good photo that just happens not to be sharp and use it anyway, calling it "art"? I've always wondered about that with some photographer's work I've seen.</p>

[cmitchell]

<p>By the way, I love that photo of Tiger.</p>

[Ray House]

Just went to take a look...I think its very, very good.

[markci]

<p>Annie was never that good a photographer. She has always relied on props, gimmicks, huge budgets, talented assistants and unparalleled access to iconic and extremely photogenic subjects who are themselves very camera-savvy. You can't really ask the Obama family to wear blue face paint or pose in a bathtub of milk, so these are the results you get. Photography at that level (actually any level) is a matter of self-promotion, not talent.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Matt, I agree. Horrible photo of the First Family. Help me with what's wrong with it? I can't seem to put my finger on it...beyond thinking the green walls in the background clash with their skin tone.</p>

 

[mark_ethridge]

<p>John, I think the setting was just a poor choice. The dark walls, door frames, mantel and pictures (all in sharp focus) are terrible backdrops for a family portrait. Add to that, everything is too evenly lit. The lighting doesn't separate the subjects from the background enough. You've got a picture growing out of a head and the first lady's hair disappears into a dark doorway. I think this picture would fail Portraiture 101. That's my (very) non-professional opinion.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>I think that's a fair assement, Mark. Thanks. I also noticed that as a result of her daughter being wrapping around her, Michelle looks to be leaning awkwardly forward...seemingly trying her best to look as though the pose is natural and comfortable.</p>

[cmitchell]

<p>I have to agree also that the portrait of the first family isn't very good. Everyone just looks so awkward with fake smiles. She should have done much better.</p>