tc89 wrote:
There are photographers that always bring up Terry's technical skills in photography. Just remember, in the fashion world, it's all about the strength of a photographer's portfolio. If it was all about technical, Terry and Annie Leibovitz would never have been hired in the beginning of their career. In my experience, I have found that photographers who focus on technique are hobbyists and beginners. Advance photographers do not focus on technique because it's second nature. Their focus shifts to concept or emotion of the image.

I think that's a bit naive. It tells me you're not watching any of the available production/behind-the-scenes videos of top photographers.

-they have assistants there to physically enact all the technical stuff, most likely as a result of pre-planning and previsualization.
-they hire folks like Pascal Dangin to master the image in post

What you end up with is that they are far more focused on technique then the average joe, and that's the key to a repeatable signature style.

There's nothing haphazard or accidental about it, and it's not reduced to Zen.

In the case of Richardson, that look isn't accidental either, but nor it is without practice and forethought. He's been doing it since the 90's, so my guess is that he could probably do it in his sleep. It's a shooting style that requires spontaneous and somewhat vulgar communication, a p/s with a hard source light near the camera, and  sense of what is fashionable. But it's neither rocket science nor absentminded - it's a discipline that's infinitely repeatable.

me voy wrote:
A lot of his work is technically undesirable by many photographers however, it is the content in the photos that make him a genius.

Agreed. Like him or hate him he has a style and get results.

Fernando L Pacheco wrote:


Terry Richardson seems to be doing alright as a photographer.

more...
http://gasstation.tumblr.com/post/26781982416

If Terry has done anything clever, it's that he only releases BTS videos of him using a PnS or flash on a bracket.

Is there anyone here believe that the above image what made with either of those two methods?

Smedley Whiplash wrote:
I think that's a bit naive. It tells me you're not watching any of the available production/behind-the-scenes videos of top photographers.

-they have assistants there to physically enact all the technical stuff, most likely as a result of pre-planning and previsualization.
-they hire folks like Pascal Dangin to master the image in post

What you end up with is that they are far more focused on technique then the average joe, and that's the key to a repeatable signature style.

There's nothing haphazard or accidental about it, and it's not reduced to Zen.

In the case of Richardson, that look isn't accidental either, but nor it is without practice and forethought. He's been doing it since the 90's, so my guess is that he could probably do it in his sleep. It's a shooting style that requires spontaneous and somewhat vulgar communication, a p/s with a hard source light near the camera, and  sense of what is fashionable. But it's neither rocket science nor absentminded - it's a discipline that's infinitely repeatable.

I really do not care how many behind the scenes you have watched and what you think you know from them. These top level photographers hire photography students whom have proven that they have great work. It's the students who think about the technical issues.

I agree that Terry, Annie or Mario do per-visualize their shoot, I call it concept. And concept drives the whole project, from location, equipment, transportation on location, hiring of models and stylists (hair, make-up, etc) which is pre-planning. But the furthest Terry thinks about pre-planning is: "I would like to shoot at this location", "I want to work with these stylists" and "I need to work with so and so model." Then it is the production manager's job to take care of all the details to make sure the concept is shot quickly, meeting the deadline and under budget.

I also agree with you about repeatable signature style. But disagree with your statement "...they are far more focused on technique then the average joe." Maybe at the beginning of their career they focused more on technique but not now. The furthest they think about technique today is looking at a computer screen and pointing out the problems and having the assistants fix the problems.

Zen? Just because the technical is over shadowed by concept does not mean the photographer is unaware what is happening on his set.

Fernando L Pacheco wrote:


This photo may sell magazines-- But will it help Kate Upton's career? He makes her look like a dim bulb.  My guess is that comes from his own distorted view of women... (Personal opinion)

me voy wrote:
A lot of his work is technically undesirable by many photographers however, it is the content in the photos that make him a genius.

The same group of photographers work to perfect the technical aspects of their photographs, then produce technically perfect, boring work that goes ignored.

JBerman Photography wrote:
I was present at one of Terry's shoots for a major magazine cover.
I was hoping that he'd show up with a point & shoot wrapped around his wrist...no such luck.
I was there when his equipment arrived...multiple bodies/lenses/hard drives/CF cards/laptops/strobes.  A ton of assistants...and his dog.

So which camera do you think he shot with?

his penis.

j/k!

Efan Bruder wrote:
This is an idea that recently popped into my head:

Terry Richardson isn't a photographer...

is a millionaire...

me voy wrote:
A lot of his work is technically undesirable by many photographers however, it is the content in the photos that make him a genius.

I totally agree... for me it is by far more important what story the photo tells, than if I have perfect lighting.

Some studio photographers may (and have violently) disagreed with that perception.

MC Photo wrote:

Fernando L Pacheco wrote:



---His character aside, why take a girl this beautiful and make her look retarded.  What a wasted opportunity!

New Art Photo wrote:

Fernando L Pacheco wrote:


This photo may sell magazines-- But will it help Kate Upton's career? He makes her look like a dim bulb.  My guess is that comes from his own distorted view of women... (Personal opinion)

Of course it is helping her career, it's a GQ cover. You think a photo of her reading a book or helping a little old lady across the street would benefit her more? Models are mostly seen, not heard. The fact that Kate and Terry have an awesome working rapport makes this image POP. It is the staple of Terry's work imo. His ability to build trust & connect with the top talent / celebrities in mainstream media make him special.

New Art Photo wrote:

MC Photo wrote:

Fernando L Pacheco wrote:



---His character aside, why take a girl this beautiful and make her look retarded.  What a wasted opportunity!

Make her look retarded?! Are you serious?! When your girlfriend / wife teases you that way, you think they're acting retarded? She looks sexy as hell and confident to me.

New Art Photo wrote:



---His character aside, why take a girl this beautiful and make her look retarded.  What a wasted opportunity!

I saw the magazine on a shelf at the airport last night and I actually liked it. I don't think it makes her look retarded at all and, after all, it's on the cover of GQ, so what more do you want?

The bottom line is, a LOT of people thought this shot looked good and ran with it, and say what you want about Terry, the bottom line is his shot with this actress made the cover of this magazine.

How many of your shots have made it to the cover of GQ? Just sayin.

me voy wrote:
A lot of his work is technically undesirable by many photographers however, it is the content in the photos that make him a genius.

According to whom?

Technically undesirable in what way?

Most photographers, especially wannabees tend to "over-light" everything. Go to any strobist meetup around the planet. Guys will be setting up lights everywhere even if there is beautiful natural light already happening.

He uses simple lighting and a lot of pizazz.

And he has lot's of fun doing it: http://vimeo.com/41393068

MC Photo wrote:

If Terry has done anything clever, it's that he only releases BTS videos of him using a PnS or flash on a bracket.

Is there anyone here believe that the above image what made with either of those two methods?

Yes I do!

Illuminate wrote:
He uses simple lighting and a lot of pizazz.

I can't find any pizazz in his p/s style, it's to photography what Howard Stern is to radio. (in other words, it has a following, but it's got no universal pizazz)  It's more like a schtick. Yeah, that's it, simple lighting and lots of schtick.


piz·zazz or pi·zazz or piz·zaz (p -z z ). n. Informal. 1. Dazzling style; flamboyance; flair. 2. Vigorous spirit; energy or excitement.

shtick (Yiddish: שטיק) (or schtick) is a comic theme or gimmick.

Efan Bruder wrote:
This is an idea that recently popped into my head:

Terry Richardson isn't a photographer.  He's a performance artist seeing how much crap people will put up with from someone calling himself a photographer (and having a somewhat famous father in the photo business).

Discuss.

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of guys like him who are in the modelling world.  Why is it he gets singled out and they largely get ignored?

Chris Curnutt wrote:
I follow TR on Tumblr, and I loath the Hollywood worship and 90% of his work, but I learn from him in spite of how I feel about his subject matter. He is indeed a photographer and a good one, in spite of me not being keen on much of his subject matter.   He is indeed a photographer of the stars. And he's not a big guy, if women find him offensive they can easily punch him in the nose.

As a side note I often wonder if the GQ editors are all pantie sniffing mysogynists or just bitter virgins.  More often than not they portray women in such a cartoonish way, like the GQ cover shown in this thread.  Perhaps their subscribers are all pantie sniffing virgins, thus the crap they produce.  The treatment and portrayal of women in Esquire is far superior. 

I have been wanting to rant about GQ for some time now, thanks OP for opening that door for me :-)  ps: GQ subscribers are free to flame me at will!

I would flame you but it appears you already know how ridiculous your claim is as you have opened the door for us to flame. lol

Erick Prince wrote:

I would flame you but it appears you already know how ridiculous your claim is as you have opened the door for us to flame. lol

What I know is tacky sells, as evidenced in that GQ cover , there is a huge market for it and many if not most people have bad taste.  Bad taste sells and probably most men think that photo is "hot", they probably think Girls Gone Wild is art.  Thus flame me if you want :-)  Pick up a GQ if you question my claim.  That is all the evidence i need to back it up. 

Oh they occasionally do tasty stuff, but more often than not it is a cartoonish portrayal of a woman, the sort of thing I would expect from someone terribly sexually frustrated or just sexually stunted person (TR is a perfect example) or worse.   Then pick up a copy of Esquire and compare the two styles of how woman are portrayed and photographed.  Ignore or flame me, but look at the evidence of what I am describing.  I might be ridiculous, but my point is supported by evidence which is not ridiculous.

tc89 wrote:
There are photographers that always bring up Terry's technical skills in photography. Just remember, in the fashion world, it's all about the strength of a photographer's portfolio. If it was all about technical, Terry and Annie Leibovitz would never have been hired in the beginning of their career. In my experience, I have found that photographers who focus on technique are hobbyists and beginners. Advance photographers do not focus on technique because it's second nature. Their focus shifts to concept or emotion of the image.

+1  In the glamour world too, in many cases!

me voy wrote:
A lot of his work is technically undesirable by many photographers however, it is the content in the photos that make him a genius.

+1000

Smedley Whiplash wrote:

I can't find any pizazz in his p/s style, it's to photography what Howard Stern is to radio. (in other words, it has a following, but it's got no universal pizazz)  It's more like a schtick. Yeah, that's it, simple lighting and lots of schtick.


piz·zazz or pi·zazz or piz·zaz (p -z z ). n. Informal. 1. Dazzling style; flamboyance; flair. 2. Vigorous spirit; energy or excitement.

shtick (Yiddish: שטיק) (or schtick) is a comic theme or gimmick.

Well that's a matter of interpretation and taste. I don't like american made cars, but many people do and they get the job done.

His style by the way: snapshot aesthetic

Just remembered the term used to describe it.

Efan Bruder wrote:
This is an idea that recently popped into my head:

Terry Richardson isn't a photographer.  He's a performance artist seeing how much crap people will put up with from someone calling himself a photographer (and having a somewhat famous father in the photo business).

Discuss.

Who? Seriously...

tc89 wrote:
There are photographers that always bring up Terry's technical skills in photography. Just remember, in the fashion world, it's all about the strength of a photographer's portfolio. If it was all about technical, Terry and Annie Leibovitz would never have been hired in the beginning of their career. In my experience, I have found that photographers who focus on technique are hobbyists and beginners. Advance photographers do not focus on technique because it's second nature. Their focus shifts to concept or emotion of the image.

yep... Terry has his style, he runs with it, and he makes bank... the rest of us have been pigeonholed into following techniques...

i have met the man on a couple occasions and he was pretty homey... he didn't have that air about him that you should know who he is... one of the times i bumped into him, he was walking through the L.A. River off 6th street in downtown L.A. scouting for shoot locations and inspiration... the guy does his own homework, like any good photographer...

i was shooting a girl and he was very respectful as i introduced him to her and he took our picture for his terrys world blog... as he walked away, he smiled at me and told me to have a great shoot...

as for his crazy sexcapades, he has no private life, so of course it's gonna get played up... i have known a couple MM photogs who hook up with their models... nobody talks publicly about it, but that stuff happens...