Is Annie Leibovitz Overrated?

When you tell someone you're a photographer, or aspiring to be one, usually Annie Leibovitz's name will come up...not because she's the most influential, but because she's the most famous. People who know very little to nothing about photography, for some reason or another know who Leibovitz is.

There aren't too many well known photographers out there..
Annie (yes, I will call her by her first name, as if I know her personally) is the most well known photographer I can think of besides David Lachappell and Patrick Ecclesine, but they are a whole other blog post.

When I first discovered a passion/love for photography I looked at who the best of the best were, and in searches.. Annie's name always came up. I found her fascinating, worked for Rolling Stones (something I really wanted to do), Works for Vanity Fair (How cool was she?), and some of the most memorable photographs I've seen (like John and Yoko) she took!! This girl already lived the life, I wanted to live! Well at least professionally she did.

Then I heard some not so great things about her.. like that shes hard to work for, and not the nicest person on the planet. And while you try not to let that affect your opinion of a person too much..it does.

When her book 'Woman' came out  I got to learn a little more about her life, but i wasn't too impressed with the book. Kind of felt like you're looking through someone else's well organized scrapbook or photo album. Almost felt invasive.

Fast forward to 2007... The gap ads came out.. And I fell in love with her work all over again.. She made you  want to buy clothes from black and white portraits.. That's talent! And I still have yet to see John Mayer look so good!

After Gap came the Disney Dream portraits, and the woman impressed me yet again. The woman had me, a 30-something year old single woman, with NO kids.. want to go to Disneyland. Until I realised Disneyland isn't as majestic as the photos are.

About 3 months ago, I met a photographer in Santa Fe. He said he use to live in the Los Angeles area, and that he shot a few celebrities. Of coarse.. Annie Leibovitz's name came up, and he said something that really resonated with me. He said.. "Annie's NOT a great photographer, have you seen her Nature book? And all her commercial stuff, she has someone else light!... but what she is... is a marketing genius. Whoopie Goldberg in a tub with milk.. that's whats brilliant."

I had to think about that for a while.. am I wasting my time studying photography? When really all I needed was marketing degree?
Then.. I thought about it some more.. Annie Leibovitz is old school!  She was a photographer before it was easy to be a photographer.  She did not just point and shoot (and as you can tell from my last post.. I obviously have issues with those kind of photographers), but  going through older pictures of hers, before digital cameras, I decided.. She's more amazing than I thought she was..She IS an amazing photographer as well as a creative genius. and that's what separates her from other photographers. So her nature stuff isn't all that great, and most photographers these days have people light for them... She's still amazing at portrait photography! Who cares if shes "Barbara Streisand with a camera".. She's kinda earned her diva status.. If she wasn't the best at what she does, These companies would hire someone else who was less temper mental for a lot less money.

What makes a good photographer??

Have you ever wondered.. What makes a good photographer?
Is it the equipment? Perhaps the lighting technique? Is it the knowledge of aperture? Or the knowledge of software such as lightroom, photoshop.. etc? Or is it just the talent (or "eye") behind the lens?

I know many Hollywood Photographers and Celebrity Photographers. From the ones who have the right equipment, yet know nothing about ISO, Aperture, or Photoshop.. but take so many pictures that every so often I will see a really good photo come from them, and wonder how I didn't get an equal or better  image. And I still don't know if its the camera or the fact that they take so many shots. that they're bound to get one good shot, out of the five hundred pictures taken.. or perhaps its the combination of the two.

Than there's the super technical photographers, who know everything about lighting, aperture, ISO, and have all the right software, and though I may like some of their work.. for the most I'm not inspired by it.

There's the photographers that use a simple point and shoot camera, and come up with amazing pictures.
Or the photographers that have less than great images and photoshop the hell out of it. Are those photographers though? Or just photoshop artists?

And lastly there's the photographers who have assistants light everything, and all they do is pick up the camera, and click away, then hand their images to a retoucher. Which I believe is the case with a lot of professional photographers.

After much evaluation, In my opinion this is what makes a great photographer:
Someone who cared enough about the art of photography to at least learn photography 101. Whether self taught or in a classroom. Someone who also knows the basics of composition and lighting.

The less photoshop, the better..I strongly dislike over processed images. If I can't tell if its a painting or a photograph.. What's the point? I do feel that some knowledge of photoshop is important, because models aren't as perfect as we'd like them to be, and sometimes there's just a thing or two you need to fix in a photo. Someone who can take inspiration from other photographers without being a copycat.

And last, but most certainly not least:  Talent.. someone with "an eye". This is the hardest to write about because its the "IT factor". It's something almost unexplainable.. Something that stands out for reasons unknown. I feel all these components are important..without one, you just feel like something is lacking.