Forums > Photography Talk > Terry Richardson - thoughts?



Posts: 18647

Louisville, Kentucky, US

London Fog wrote:
Creepy looking, lucked out dude...that's how I see him!

Oh, and very, very, very average skills!

I guess in LA you just need the right luck!

Doesn't help much in NYC though I'd suppose.

Feb 11 13 02:42 pm Link


Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 31933

Dearborn, Michigan, US

Another old thread.

Feb 11 13 03:36 pm Link



Posts: 4288

Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica

Man, this is like the fourth zombie thread I've seen since this morning...

Feb 11 13 03:40 pm Link


Art Silva

Posts: 9719

Santa Barbara, California, US

What bothers me is the popularity he gets for his "standard" work in the mags. He has other work that is fantastic and technically better quality.

Feb 11 13 03:56 pm Link



Posts: 1157

New York, New York, US

As a PR he is great....Digital makes us great sometime.... by accident.
Out of a few hundred takes you got to get a good one....
As a photographer...Time will tell....10, 20 years from now.

Feb 11 13 05:04 pm Link


Raphael Baker

Posts: 11

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Don't really understand all the hate this guy gets. He was one of my favorite photographers way before I became one.

Feb 11 13 05:29 pm Link


Amul La La

Posts: 885

London, England, United Kingdom

Is he s*** for being the s***

Or does being the shit make him s***

His a photographer, everything else is just subjective or objective.

Feb 12 13 04:36 am Link



Posts: 33

Rome, Lazio, Italy

I thought to be the one against the stream when I disliked hist shoots of Lady Gaga and, just yesterday, of Rihanna for Rolling Stone. He is kind of tacky in my opinion, cheep inexpressive pictures ... that's it.

For some reason he got famous, but I guess being famous is not implying being talented, and not every talented person gets famous ...

Feb 12 13 06:37 am Link


Jon Winkleman Photo

Posts: 110

Providence, Rhode Island, US

I think his work varies. He definitely has chemistry and gets a lot out of his models.

Some of his editorial stuff is very clever, original and interesting. Though his ring flash point and shoot have an unsophisticated look, his creativity and eye transcend the limitations of his gear.

However I do have his X-rated book Kibbosh. I think his explicit images in Terryworld are whimsical and clever but Kibbosh is just sex snapshots. I don't see anything more beyond taking snapshots with a point and click during sex.

Separate matter is the allegations of some models against Richardson which have nothing to do with his skills as a shooter. I do not have firsthand knowledge but if there is merit to those claims, i'm surprised agencies and magazines are still eager to use him

Feb 13 13 04:32 pm Link


Jon Winkleman Photo

Posts: 110

Providence, Rhode Island, US

For any type of photography involving human subjects, what you get out of the model is as important as if not more important than lighting or camera technique.

There are models with great bodies and pretty faces but when you shoot them there is nothing behind their eyes and they are uninteresting subjects no matter how technically masterful every other aspect of the image is.

Richardson is far better skilled at getting something compelling out of his subjects than most all of his haters are. I admire that.

Richardson's father was a famous photographer. Terry grew up an LA brat who met many young up and coming celebrities in the club and music scene. Taking pictures of people who have become famous will get your work a lot more professional attention than someone with a port of unknown models. That just got his foot in the door.

His work is edgy and has impact. That's why he is where he is today.

Feb 13 13 04:43 pm Link