Dan Howell wrote:
Annie Leibovitz is rumored to have a $100,000+ day rate and as much as $250k in some cases

Dan Howell wrote:
Annie Leibovitz's fee is not a rumor it is a range. $100k-$250k.

.
OK, so it's a rumour. And a range..

Annie Liebowitz is primarily a portrait photographer, well known for her work with numerous celebrities over her long career, rather than a fashion photographer in the usual sense.

According to this article there is a trend among fashion brands towards doing their publicity and marketing in-house as far as possible;

https://leap.london/beyond-cost-cutting … -it-right/

The internet and digital photography now make it possible for them to do that to a far greater extent than was practical when they had to rely largely on advertisements in print magazines, requiring a huge range of specialist skills to produce a printed image on glossy paper.

TestShoot wrote:
Skepticism is ok, and fine, but nobody here is in the industry up there. I am around a lot of people from major studios to neighbors that have big homes and assets that are well-paid photographers. They don't have to prove it to anybody. I'm sorry that if you thought you were going to get into this and make those numbers but none of us are, though others clearly are, but we are not accountants or signing the checks, so let's not try to deminish those that can becuse we can't.

The industry up there? It can get pretty ugly I think, at least if the movie Gia, a biopic of Gia Carangi is anything to go by (or perhaps you're going to tell us that they made everything up). I suspect that a conflict zone may be preferable in some ways.

In any case I think it's always worth making the point that there is no direct relationship between the true value of things and the amounts of money people pay for them, heavy drugs being an obvious case in point.

The question of whether art, or photography should be classically beautiful or decorative, or an interpretation of reality is going beyond the scope of this thread I think.

JSouthworth wrote:
The question of whether art, or photography should be classically beautiful or decorative, or an interpretation of reality is going beyond the scope of this thread I think.

Hey Southy, I appreciate that you post regularly.... because the forums really need the action.
But did you really just lecture the group on "going beyond the scope of this thread"?????

TestShoot wrote:
Philistinism describes the attitudes, habits, and characteristics of a person who deprecates art, beauty, spirituality, and intellect.

I am around a lot of people from major studios to neighbors that have big homes and assets that are well-paid photographers.

So what is important, do you think? What are your priorities?

Looking at this question of beauty, or whether art should be beautiful, I personally look for a balance between what is beautiful and what is not beautiful, what is believable and what is not believable, what is erotic and what is not erotic, what is glamourous and what is not glamourous. Unless the image is balanced in this way it becomes irrelevant in the real world, this partly explains why traditional glamour photography has declined in popularity.

JSouthworth wrote:

So what is important, do you think? What are your priorities?

Looking at this question of beauty, or whether art should be beautiful, I personally look for a balance between what is beautiful and what is not beautiful, what is believable and what is not believable, what is erotic and what is not erotic, what is glamourous and what is not glamourous. Unless the image is balanced in this way it becomes irrelevant to the real world, this partly explains why glamour photography has declined in popularity.

Bringing the discussion back to topic, the statement  prescribes rules: art must balance opposites or risk irrelevance.

But art thrives precisely because it breaks "rules" — including rules of balance, as Coulson would say.

This statement tries to elevate a personal aesthetic preference into a universal law of art, but it relies on false binaries, ignores historical and cultural complexity, and oversimplifies why glamour photography declined. It confuses taste with theory.

In other words, a. typical JSouthworth post.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
I can sincerely say my biggest takeaway from this thread is, do not feed the troll.

It's the only thing he's got

I wish photographers would just shut up

Richard Blackstone wrote:
I must be doing something right.

It could be.. Helmut Newton was responsible for the gallery photographs that feature in the film Eyes of Laura Mars. Rebecca Blake also contributed to the movie;

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077530/fu … m_2#writer

Focuspuller wrote:
Having followed Coulson for a while I have seen this to be a particular trigger: Criticism of a photo because it violates what he calls "camera club rules." "Rules" like, "never cut off the feet", "horizons must be level", "portraits must have catchlights". One may argue that he is overreacting to criticism of any kind, but I think his overall point for photographers - "Damn the "rules"or the opinion of others, you do you"-  is excellent advice.

+1
i wii say

JSouthworth wrote:

It could be.. Helmut Newton was responsible for the gallery photographs that feature in the film Eyes of Laura Mars. Rebecca Blake also contributed to the movie;

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077530/fu … m_2#writer

Ah, IMDb, always the go-to source for in-depth knowledge of photography’s greats.

Appreciate the film trivia, but just so we’re clear: Mark Arbeit wasn’t hanging around movie sets in the '70s, he was working directly under Newton, helping shape some of the most iconic fashion and nude editorial photography of the 20th century.

Might be worth brushing up on the difference between being published in Vogue and being listed on IMDB.
Seems like you've still got a bit to learn about photography, and its legends.

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Might be worth brushing up on the difference between being published in Vogue and being listed on IMDB.

Rebecca Blake can claim both of those distinctions;

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rebecca-blake-films/

Richard Blackstone wrote:
Might be worth brushing up on the difference between being published in Vogue and being listed on IMDB.
Seems like you've still got a bit to learn about photography, and its legends.

LOL! Yes.  A listing on IMDB is no distinction - it's basically a resume.

JSouthworth wrote:

Rebecca Blake can claim both of those distinctions;

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rebecca-blake-films/

That’s great for Rebecca. Not sure what it has to do with Mark Arbeit engaging with my work, but glad to see you’re doing your part to keep IMDb traffic up.

There’s a difference between reading about legends and being acknowledged by one.

But hey, if either Rebecca or Mark ever tip their hat your way, I’m sure we’ll all hear about it… or not.

Focuspuller wrote:
LOL! Yes.  A listing on IMDB is no distinction - it's basically a resume.

Exactly. But it’s pretty clear to me the troll is only here to split hairs, feign authority, and derail conversations.

How small his world must be to think that’s a contribution.

JSouthworth wrote:
Who's the most famous person with whom you can claim a direct or indirect connection in a photographic context?

In my case it's probably Suzi Quatro because I knew a photographer, Barry Stacey who did some publicity photographs for her in the 1970s. And he taught me to develop and and print B/W.

Perhaps you would like to start a new thread with this question/topic?

Because your question has nothing to do with this thread.

Mod 7 (Cust. Svc.) wrote:
Please stop the bickering and sniping. And if you feel someone is a troll, please do ignore them.

Interesting.  Are you saying the mods are ok with comments from trolls while we should just ignore them??

JSouthworth wrote:
Who's the most famous person with whom you can claim a direct or indirect connection in a photographic context?

In my case it's probably Suzi Quatro because I knew a photographer, Barry Stacey who did some publicity photographs for her in the 1970s. And he taught me to develop and and print B/W.

That's not how connections work. You have no connections to another photographer's experience. It's not transferable. I have a personal connection to one of the most prolific celebrity photographers working today. I don't claim a connection with any of his subjects. That's ridiculous.

Honestly, I don't even claim connections to any of the many celebrities I have personally photographed for magazine assignments.

The idea a photographer would try to claim a connection through another photographer's work strike me as both sad and desperate. I had one experience where a photographer asked me to use my connections and experience with model agencies to get him models for free to shoot with. It was such an inappropriate request that I declined immediately. That photographer was upset despite the irregular nature of his request that he started to send me threatening emails. Fortunately those emails were intercepted by my mail host and traced back to his work computer where he was demoted, all before I even knew about it. You strike me as that kind of inappropriate. I feel bad for Suzy Quatro.

Dan Howell wrote:
That's not how connections work. You have no connections to another photographer's experience. It's not transferable.

And equally, an expression of approval from someone who used to work as an assistant to Helmut Newton is not quite the same as praise from Helmut Newton, that being the point I was making there.

JSouthworth wrote:
And equally, an expression of approval from someone who used to work as an assistant to Helmut Newton is not quite the same as praise from Helmut Newton, that being the point I was making there.

In the other thread you were talking about a model you had to keep referring to as the honey boo boo. What exactly did you mean by that?

Arizona Shoots wrote:
In the other thread you were talking about a model you had to keep referring to as the honey boo boo. What exactly did you mean by that?

Your guess is about as good as mine, because I have no recollection of that post. What would you assume, if we were to suppose for a moment that I did in fact write something like that?

JSouthworth wrote:

I can think of a few professional photographers whose capability in the field of model photography seems to go no further than getting exposure correct.

I would encourage anyone who might be tempted to take JSouthworth's constant criticisms of other, much more successful, photographers seriously, is to (rather obviously) compare his portfolio / level of expertise, with those that he constantly criticizes.  And come to your own conclusions.

JSouthworth wrote:
Your guess is about as good as mine, because I have no recollection of that post. What would you assume, if we were to suppose for a moment that I did in fact write something like that?

I'm not sure. I figured you'd remember since you talked about it for like 3 pages. It was a few months ago so I'm not sure if it got locked or burried.

Arizona Shoots wrote:

I'm not sure. I figured you'd remember since you talked about it for like 3 pages. It was a few months ago so I'm not sure if it got locked or burried.

If it exists, you can post a link to it.

JSouthworth wrote:
If it exists, you can post a link to it.

JSouthworth, was that the name of the model that you posted for TWO YEARS about (according to really quick forum search),  claiming that she was an undercover cop sent to entrap you?   And then repeatedly claimed another photographer, who was familiar with both of you from another model site (that you were then banned from), was also a "dirty undercover cop" sent to MM to confront you?   P.S.  He was on MM long before you were...

Was that the name of the model that you kept accusing / going on and on about?

Many of those "undercover cop" links (that you asked about), are still there.   At least the ones that aren't from threads that you hijacked, inflamed and got locked (a surprisingly significant number)...

LightDreams wrote:

JSouthworth, was that the name of the model that you posted for TWO YEARS about (according to really quick forum search),  claiming that she was an undercover cop sent to entrap you?

Who are you referring to? Some clarification is required here I think.

JSouthworth wrote:
I would like to think that we could put the past behind us and do more work together.

Not sure why any model would be interested in working with someone (again or ever) who so cavalierly outs them by linking their model alias to their real name in a publicly accessible forum.

JQuest wrote:
Not sure why any model would be interested in working with someone (again or ever) who so cavalierly outs them by linking their model alias to their real name in a publicly accessible forum.

I'm not stating as fact that Laura Gale is her real name. She mentions her modelling in the LinkedIn profile.

JSouthworth wrote:
I didn't state that Laura Gale was her real name.

If it's not then why did you include it? You've not only outed her, you've provided a link to her Linked In profile and posted her employment history. I am seriously disinterested in debating your lack of self awareness or your proclivity for prevarication. Outing anyone is against the rules this is now an issue for the Mods.

JQuest wrote:
If it's not then why did you include it? You've not only outed her, you've provided a link to her Linked In profile and posted her employment history. I am seriously disinterested in debating your lack of self awareness or your proclivity for prevarication. Outing anyone is against the rules this is now an issue for the Mods.

I'm not stating that it isn't her real name. I suspect that it isn't her real name. And I haven't outed her as working for the police because she's discussed it on another modelling site forum.

JSouthworth wrote:
I'm not stating that it isn't her real name. I suspect that it isn't her real name.

Really? That's not what you said before you edited that comment. You admitted to lifting it from her Linked In profile, and that's some seriously creepy stalker shit. Why are you even discussing what she may or may not have posted elsewhere here? Why would you do that? When you're trying to get out of a hole the best thing you can do is stop digging. You're just trying to cover your ass with those edits.