Another vote for Anton Corbijn, and only because of his fabulous photos of Depeche Mode. But that’s some of it.
Bill Brandt.
He’s most famous for his photos of London during WWII, but he’s done some breathtakingn nature photos (mostly shot in Scotland), as well.
He was a student of Man Ray, and you can see the influence.
There’s a website devoted to him – www. billbrandt.com (no space, obviously)-- which triggered my office’s adult filter (he’s done some nudes, but they’re hardly salacious), so beware.
You can also see some photos
here.
I’m not sure whether or not to nominate the nature photographer Art Wolfe. His photos show an impressive craftsmanship and willingness to spend months in the wilderness to get just the right shot of that polar bear mother and her cubs. He know what makes a striking image and how to capture it. But all of his photos look cold and uninspired to me. They sure as heck don’t have the soul of Ansel Adams’ work.
His enormous self-marketing also bothers me (Art Wolfe watches? WTF!?), but I don’t think that should affect my judgement of whether or not I like his photos.
Does anyone else have an opinion?
Another nod for:
Anton Corbijn
Herb Ritts
and I’ll add:
Linda McCartney
Cindy Sherman
This month’s Harper’s (or is it the Atlantic? I wish they’d just merge into Harplantic…) includes an eeny-weeny 3"x4" reproduction of an Andreas Gursky photo whose original is 6’ 9 1/2" x 11’. His work is spectacular.
Now for the fight ;):
Mapplethorpe, on the other hand, is an irrelevance who achieved his reputation only due to his friends and the notariety of some of his subject matter. His craft (I refuse to elevate it to “art”) isn’t photography but embalming: he reduces every surface to a hardened wax that’s impervious to emotion and thought.
Other than that I love 'im.
I have to vote for Sally Mann because her family is friends with my family and (according to her) I was the inspiration for (and am in) this book, but I can caution y’all that what she SAYS the pictures are and what they ACTUALLY are - based on my experience with her - are two wholly different realities.
May I point you towards Tom Baril, who was Mapplethorpe’s printer. Behind every great photograph(er) is a great printer, and Baril’s own photographs have now come to the fore as well.
Art Wolfe has been the subject of controversy. From The Digital Journalist:
In other words, he faked it. I won’t debate the ethics of it here, but perhaps that contributes to the soullessness that Kamandi speaks of?
Speaking of passing down influences, see Bill Brandt’s effect on Michael Kenna.
Earthling, I had no idea that Art Wolfe used digital techniques. Thanks for the information. I don’t think that the use of such tecnology necessarily takes the life out of a photo. I think Wolfe just approaches his subject in a manner that results in soulless photos. Just my opinion.
I agree with your comments about the importance of the printer. Ansel Adams compared the photo’s negative to a musical score and the print to its performance.
Printing brings up an interesting point (and long-running controversy in photography circles) - when does the manipulation of a photo, through digital or conventional darkroom techniques, make it no longer a photograph?
Then again, let’s not hijack Eve’s thread with that question.
Well, I hope I’m not taking the hijack any farther, but an acknowledged master of photographic manipulation is the surrealist Jerry Uelsmann. He also happens to be one of my favorites, which keeps this post on-topic.
Old school here. Matthew Brady, and for here in Colorado, William Henry Jackson. Jackson lugged 100 pounds of equipment up to places that most Coloradoans will never get to.
Blink :eek: blink
Here I was, all ready to come in and extol the virtues of Sally Mann, one of my all-time favorite photographers, when I find that I’ve not only been beaten to the punch (not too surprising) but I also evidently have Hamadryad on my bookshelf.
So, Hama, are you gonna spill? Which one is ye? Ms. Mann is wonderful, although I’ve only seen her work in books and online; I can only imagine what it’s like up close and in all its glory. I found a website that has a really small format rendition of her Deep South portfolio here. Incredible stuff, from the looks of it.
Another favorite of mine which hasn’t been mentioned in this thread is Jock Sturges, a naturist photographer who has spent the majority of his career (not to mention a majority of his finances in legal fees) putting forth the human body as legitimately beautiful, rather than raunchy/sinful/pornographic/degrogatory epithet of your choice. His last book, New Work, is worth every penny if only for the color shots alone.
First photographer I became entranced by? David Hamilton (hey, I was a teenager). Mostly known for his sometimes overtly eroticised portraits of women (both adult and not-so-adult), his landscapes are frequently breathtaking. 25 Years of an Artist is a masterpiece.
“So, Hama, are you gonna spill? Which one is ye?”
I replied in email, but if anyone else has that book, I’m the chick lying on the car hood with the word “DOOM” etched in it.
</hijack>
O. Winston Link. The man took train photography to a whole new level - and one that hasn’t really been reproduced since. The image of people at the drive in, watching a movie as a steam train passes by is a classic - and it was a posed shot, except for the train. Even the image on the movie screen is a fake, cut and pasted, 50’s style, into the image.