Heroes of post processing

So yesterday afternoon, on the last day (of ninety-four) it was in town, TG and I took in the Annie Leibovitz Pilgrimage exhibit at the Columbia Museum of Art.

Of all the art museums in the Southeastern United States that made a bid for the coveted Leibovitz exhibit, the Columbia Museum of Art was the only one to get it.

As a corollary of our visit, we are now members of CMA. Going to contribute more to the arts in twenty-fourteen, apparently.

My fifty-ninth-minute-of-the-eleventh-hour attendance notwithstanding -- for months every time I saw the LED billboard on I-26 I would say, "We've got to get over there and see that" -- I was keenly interested in viewing the exhibit for a couple of reasons.

One: Like Annie Leibovitz, I am a photographer. Although unlike Annie, I do not do celebrity portraits. Unless you count Javier.

Also I doubt the Library of Congress is likely to certify me a Living Legend.

At least not for photography.

Two: I wanted to study those sixty-four pictures. After all, a few of them promised to involve Emily Dickinson.

The fact that they also had to do with people like Annie Oakley, Sigmund Freud, Mies van der Rohe, Ansel Adams, Louisa May Alcott, and Elvis -- among others -- was a plus.

And I did study them, as much as I could given the fact that the galleries were overwarm -- stuffy, even -- and droves of others also had waited until the last minute to pay their respects.

Now, what you need to know is, although Annie has been famous throughout her illustrious forty-plus year career for being a photographer of faces, there was not a single human face in the exhibit.

The pictures were of places and things associated with famous names, mostly American.

And it was fascinating, and if you ever visit the Smithsonian after Pilgrimage is eventually parked there for good (as part of its permanent collection), you should go see it.

But for our purposes here today I will say just one other thing about the exhibit: Almost all of the pictures were elaborately edited.

So much so in fact, that most of them looked less like photographs than like paintings. Or even in some cases, pictures of paintings.

In fact, Annie Leibovitz is known for heavily editing her photos. Process that, all you SOOC snobs, most (if not all) of whose names the average person will never hear, much less recognize, in connection with photography.

Still, it struck me as strange that, while I am deeply committed to post-processing of my own pictures, when it came to this exhibit of Annie's, I was more drawn to those that clearly had spent less time in Photoshop.

Nothing much seemed to have been done, for example, to the extreme close-up of the only dress in existence known to have belonged to and been worn by The Belle of Amherst.

And I had my nose near to the glass of that one for a very long time. Emily touched those two little white buttons! I kept saying to myself.

The only thing better would have been to see the garment with my own eyes, in person.

Anyway. In other news, a pretty big branch fell off a pine tree on the neighbor's side of our privacy fence, late last week.

And it did about as much damage to the fence as if I had stood there and snapped the shutter of my Nikon twenty times.

In other words: none.

Even so, like some photographers, the large branch was very comfortable where it had landed. It didn't want to move.

So TG simply cut the portion that stuck way out into our pool area, into manageable pieces.

A bit of creative post processing, as it were.

And I like the way my beloved stacked the pieces, so artistically.

And I really like it that Annie Leibovitz is devoted to post processing of her pictures.

And I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to see a beautiful collection of them, up close.

And that is all for now.

=0=0=0=

Happy Monday ~ Happy Week

=0=0=0=

Comments

[Mari]

Oooh! What a fun exhibit to go to. Glad you got to see her work and I'll just have to hope that it comes to an art museum near me someday!

[Donna M.]

I am a big fan of post-processing, and I don't hide that fact. To me, a photo image is not done until post-processing is completed. And SOOC enthusiasts who decry the practice of digital editing don't understand photography, IMHO. It's no different than what photographers used to do in the darkroom, including such greats as Ansel Adams. SOOC enthusiasts also don't realize that they are not taking "pure" photos because they are taking jpegs. They are merely letting the camera do some post-processing steps for them. If they want to take photos with absolutely no editing, then they should be taking Raw. But if SOOC enthusiasts enjoy their hobby, fine. Just don't decry my use of of the digital darkroom. Photography is a big tent, so everyone should be able to play nicely and be respectful.

I know what you mean about some images being over-processed. Some artists like a lot of spice and some like less. It is a matter of personal taste. HDR images, especially, can have a tendency to be overcooked, LOL. I can swing both ways when it comes to photo creativity. I like to do some over-the-top post-processing when the subject matter seems to call for it (e.g., old cars and buildings). But most of the time, I am aiming to have my photos look realistic, particularly for landscapes and wildlife.

Like you, I find it great fun to study the work of other photographers. I've learned a great deal in the past couple of years through such study.

[Jennifer]

@Mari .... I hope you get to see it too. I think you'd enjoy the photos immensely.

@Donna ... Actually I believe the SOOC folks on flickr advocate shooting in RAW, then saving as jpeg so they can post the images. But it's neither here nor there to me; I don't do the flickr thing anymore and I'm not in competition with anybody. I take a lighthearted approach to photography, refusing to take myself too seriously. I'm just grateful to have the cameras and the whole wide beautiful world to aim them at. Unfortunately when it comes to writing, I tend to take myself too seriously. So no kudos to me either way. I will say that I don't like HDR and won't be guilty of it! Actually I can't get the hang of photoshop at all. But to each his own. Photography is art; it is whatever the viewer perceives it to be. There should be more pictures and fewer rules. Live and let live, as it were. Whatever Annie Leibovitz has done or not done, she certainly has followed her own star.

[Donna (Texas)]

NO FACES??? NONE???? Bummer!
I, personally would LOVE to see Milton Green's photos of Marilyn Monroe....Those two had an interesting time together....
And PS- I am on Team Zavier!!!Hahaa
hughugs