Testino Royal Pix

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arkady2
  • Start date Start date
andy700 said:
Is that all its about then, the one who ends up with the executive jet, and then rests on his laurels for the rest of his career (or until someone sees through him, and challenges the fact that he has stopped "delivering").
Click to expand...

No. But I think it's worth bearing a person's success in mind when critiquing their work.

Any possibility whatsoever that "issues" that some people see with the images are actually part of a carefully crafted scene? Is it in any way possible that somebody who has been earning his living like this for 30 odd years might know a little more about the subject than somebody who, err, hasn't? Or maybe he just turned up for another day at the office and banked a fat cheque. Either way, it's unlikely he cares too much for pot game analysis by armchair managers.

Funniest thing I ever saw was a world championship chess match on telly. Commentators were explaining exactly where the international grand master had made elementary blunders right up to the point where he won.
 
I like the pictures.
The one with the paintings is very nicely 'compromised' by concentrating on getting her right, never mind the goofy bloke.
 
Wobbler said:
It wouldn't surprise me if that was just a stunt 'for the public...' cos we all loved her so much (after she died, anyway - before that, ISTR she was given more flak by the tabloids than just about anyone in history, funny how death canonises people...) and I'd be AMAZED if she didn't have a 'proper' ring, made for her specifically.




LMFAO! She's getting porked by the future King of England! You really think you lot could turn her head with a few glasses of Pinot and a 'drop yer trolleys!' - hahahaha, course you could! :D:D:D

I'd love to see the shots taken that weren't used....
Click to expand...

Diana had several "flings" if I remember rightly, and that was while she was married.
 
I wonder if Testino is actually getting paid for doing the wedding or if he's doing it for free for the boost to his reputation.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I wonder if Testino is actually getting paid for doing the wedding or if he's doing it for free for the boost to his reputation.
Click to expand...

pretty sure he's just going it for 'a photo credit' :nono: :lol:
 
How good you are as a Photographer (or anything else) depend entirely on what your client thinks.

We all know Recommendations are worth any number of advertisements.

Reputation quantifies as Cash in the bank.

I suspect, no one who has commented here would not be very happy to be even half as successful as Testino in pleasing both his clients and the public.


What other Photographers think is worthless in these situations.

What potential customer would ask competitors what they think about each others work?
It is like asking a salesman if his product is what you need?
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
What other Photographers think is worthless in these situations.

What potential customer would ask competitors what they think about each others work?
It is like asking a salesman if his product is what you need?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you to a certain extent (including the snipped part) if these were just commissioned portraits, however they are not.

These are 'The Firm's' PR shots, designed for release to the public at large, rather than just hanging in the Drawing Room. Every nuance and implication will have been considered before the shots were chosen.

If you think that offering a critique on the photographs is unwarranted then you are sorely misguided. Look at the history of almost every portrait of the Royal Family that has been officially sanctioned and released. They are considered, ripped apart and praised until the canvass has been scraped dry.

The same thing happened to Prince Charles and the (then) Lady Diana's engagement portraits back in 1981 and I don't mean those dreadful pie collar announcement pictures.

So I do believe that what other people think counts in this case. After all we are part of the target audience.
 
DemiLion said:
So I do believe that what other people think counts in this case. After all we are part of the target audience.
Click to expand...

Are we? It's unlikely any photographers, or even any members of the general public, are going to be employing Testino and I doubt the royals could care less what any of us think.......
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Are we? It's unlikely any photographers, or even any members of the general public, are going to be employing Testino and I doubt the royals could care less what any of us think.......
Click to expand...

Of coarse we're part of the target audience. The pictures were taken to mark an occasion of a well known couple and made public for people to see (and take pleasure from or not).

In the same way a painter will do a royal portrait, a photo is no different. It IS a piece of art whether you like it or not and one day will hang in a gallery.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Are we? It's unlikely any photographers, or even any members of the general public, are going to be employing Testino and I doubt the royals could care less what any of us think.......
Click to expand...

I don't think that employing Testino has anything to do with it. Does a casting agent care who took the head shots of an actor that she's looking at? She is more concerned about the overall impression that the photograph gives and what it portrays about the subject.

As for caring about public opinion; Yes I do think that the Royal Family give a damn, quite a big one. They've been actively engaged in a ratings war since the mid 30's.
 
BlackDevil said:
Of coarse we're part of the target audience. The pictures were taken to mark an occasion of a well known couple and made public for people to see (and take pleasure from or not).

In the same way a painter will do a royal portrait, a photo is no different. It IS a piece of art whether you like it or not and one day will hang in a gallery.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it was or wasn't a work of art? :shrug:

What I said was

It's unlikely any photographers, or even any members of the general public, are going to be employing Testino and I doubt the royals could care less what any of us think.......
Click to expand...

I don't see any comments about the artistic value of the images there.....
 
Do you think that saying "I just want to experiment and try something here" would work when you are photographing the future king? They wanted what they wanted, nothing else, and that is what he delivered. Saying he didn't experiment is a moot point, as it was not wanted, there was no intention of using it, and I am sure there were PR people seeing every shot coming out of his camera. He was the photographer on the project, not the art director, which is where some of you are becoming confused. You do not stray away from what would have been a watertight brief.

Also do you not think he wanted the blown highlights? He could have had them done if he desired, but he wanted that. The look of an average shot taken by a friend is what they wanted, and to do that intentionally is a hard task. Also being able to get such high profile people comfortable around him is where he and others in his field excel. There are good photographs of many celebs and some amazing ones, the amazing ones are usually by someone who has captured a personal moment of the celeb, something that others could not get, which is where Testino excels.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Where did I say it was or wasn't a work of art? :shrug:

What I said was



I don't see any comments about the artistic value of the images there.....
Click to expand...

Sorry, in my last Iine I was just making a general point. It wasn't directed at you.

What I meant is that the pictures are shot to mark an occasion and not for any other reason therefore we are the target audience.
 
Flash/Graham you're selectively quoting yourself instead of admitting you were plain wrong.
In post #91 you denied that we are part of the target audience.
Denying you said it by quoting your following statement is simply dishonest.
 
Arkady2 said:
They're not 'bad', just 'absolutely average' which I'm pretty sure I mentioned - maybe some of you should look the word up?
Click to expand...

So you meant average as in perfectly good?

As noted above, I am not sure quite what else anybody was expecting. Perfectly decent shots of a couple. Nothing more, nothing less. I am sure loads of people could have taken the shots just as well. Testino just got the gig and he took the shots the couple (and their advisers) wanted. That's what being a professional photographer is all about.
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
Flash/Graham you're selectively quoting yourself instead of admitting you were plain wrong.
In post #91 you denied that we are part of the target audience.
Denying you said it by quoting your following statement is simply dishonest.
Click to expand...


Where did I deny I said it? I didn't make any reference to it at all, my next post refered specifically to the part about whether the picture was a work of art or not, so please don't call me dishonest, just because you are unable to read, ok?
 
I notice that the image in question has just made the front cover of Hello magazine. Where it looked pretty good to me.

I would have said that was mission accomplished for The Royals.

How many of the obviously much more talented photographers on here, that claim to know much better than Testino, have done the front of Hello?
 
I'm going to guess at none.

And moreover, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he charged nothing for the shoot, considering the syndication fees that are going to be seen here.
 
Radiohead said:
I'm going to guess at none.

And moreover, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he charged nothing for the shoot, considering the syndication fees that are going to be seen here.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that. If Testino was smart, he'd have done it 'as a favour' and used that as a lever to retain the rights. If the RF was smart, they would have paid him and purchased all rights for the estate.

Same goes for the wedding gig ;)
 
ianmarsh said:
So you meant average as in perfectly good?

As noted above, I am not sure quite what else anybody was expecting. Perfectly decent shots of a couple. Nothing more, nothing less. I am sure loads of people could have taken the shots just as well. Testino just got the gig and he took the shots the couple (and their advisers) wanted. That's what being a professional photographer is all about.
Click to expand...

No Ian - average, meaning average.

Not 'perfectly decent' (they're not) or bad or even acceptable.

Average.
 
just roughly what would this Testino chappie be paid for his services to produce these pics?

any ideas?

In case it matters either way, i am in the amazingly average camp.
 
Arkady2 said:
You can also see some of his other 'breathtaking' images there - I particularly like the 'Disciples' series...mmm...blurry...
Click to expand...

A great photo does not have to be technically perfect, in focus or anything many seem to associate with good photography. Photographers tend to get way to caught up in these things and use it as a way to claim photographers who are way better than they ever will be are just average.

If he was average would he have shot Princess Di? If he was average would he have shot Madonna? If he was average would he have done so many Vogue covers?

And those who say ah well he is just a name, he wasn't at some point and had to make it the same way everyone else does. If he is that bad do you not think the mass of photographers biting at his heels would be in his place. He is where he is because he is a great photographer.

I am sure he is worried though, the amount of people on here who could do better. I'll await news of your calls from vogue in the forums shall I?
 
Arkady2 said:
*more yawning*
Click to expand...

The problem is that so much crap gets printed these days that people forget about the technical bits.

It should be the bit you do on "autopilot" and the creative/composition bit is what you think about.

If he's so well respected then his subjects wouldn't mind if he took a little bit longer to get it right...
 
jamesb84 said:
The problem is that so much crap gets printed these days that people forget about the technical bits.

It should be the bit you do on "autopilot" and the creative/composition bit is what you think about.

If he's so well respected then his subjects wouldn't mind if he took a little bit longer to get it right...
Click to expand...

He did get it right, he got what he wanted and the client did too. I think the opposite is true. Too many get caught up in the technical, there are many more yawn worthy technically perfect shot with no life and soul in them.
 
I like the way the images in the movie at the start are out of focus lol

his website is pretty poor got bored waiting for images to come up

Arkady2 said:
Go to:
http://mariotestino.com/

and contact:
info@mariotestino.com.

For all photographic and film related enquiries please contact Art Partner
for Europe: brigitte@artpartner.com
for all others: lucy@artpartner.com


You can also see some of his other 'breathtaking' images there - I particularly like the 'Disciples' series...mmm...blurry...
Click to expand...
 
ding76uk said:
He did get it right, he got what he wanted and the client did too. I think the opposite is true. Too many get caught up in the technical, there are many more yawn worthy technically perfect shot with no life and soul in them.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle to what you say about images in general - where I disagree is that Testino's work has any 'life and soul' to them... to me they look hackneyed and samey...:shrug:
 
Arkady2 said:
*more yawning*
Click to expand...

*double yawn*

In a previous life, I was lucky enough to interview a lot of very famous photographers - Bailey, Lichfield, Donovan, Norman Parkinson, Carlos-Clarke etc - and the defining character of these guys was their extraordinary personality. They are interesting, engaging, compelling, charismatic, driven - all those difficult to define characteristics that you find in all super-successful people at the top of any profession. I guess Testino must have plenty of that good stuff too.

That's what opened doors for them, and that's what got them amazing subjects to shoot in extraordinary locations. That's what made them successful, the technical stuff comes second.
 
Last edited:
Arkady2 said:
I agree in principle to what you say about images in general - where I disagree is that Testino's work has any 'life and soul' to them... to me they look hackneyed and samey...:shrug:
Click to expand...

an I think that is where it comes down to personal preference. Images I love you would probably hate and vice versa, just the way everyone sees art differently.

I think the point about personality is the most valid in the thread.

HoppyUK said:
the defining character of these guys was their extraordinary personality. They are interesting, engaging, compelling, charismatic, driven - all those difficult to define characteristics that you find in all super-successful people at the top of any profession. I guess Testino must have plenty of that good stuff too.

That's what opened doors for them, and that's what got them amazing subjects to shoot in extraordinary locations. That's what made them successful, the technical stuff comes second.
Click to expand...

And that is always what will define the good and the great. The personality behind the camera is as important as what they get from it. Like it or not that is how photography has always been.

There is nothing worse than the way perfect moments are described and how the photographer strauggled to get them, when in reality sometimes a great image has a dose of luck thrown in.

Glen E Friedman is an example of that. He claims photos he took when he was 14 were perfect artistic statements and that everything was meant to be how it ended in the final shot, when in reality he was lucky to be hanging with the right people, had a camera, and took shots of friends.

Read his interview on fecalface for what i am on about he has the gal to call out the interviewer for having an opinion, saying on twitter "bitch ass writer tries to have his say... so much for being nice to press"

http://www.fecalface.com/SF/index.php/features-mainmenu-102/2404-the-glen-friedman-interview-part-1
 
ding76uk said:
He did get it right, he got what he wanted and the client did too. I think the opposite is true. Too many get caught up in the technical, there are many more yawn worthy technically perfect shot with no life and soul in them.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is what annoys me is when people bring up the technical merits instead of what the picture is actually about. I was at a Magnum workshop recently and the editor of the Sunday Times was saying how she despises images that are technically perfect. Some of the photos she gave as examples were OOF, underexposed and shot on what I could see very cheap film (and that included the fashion ones!)

However saying all this, the royal pictures did disspoint me. Just because they are bland and completely "beiged out". But I wouldnt say this is any fault of Testino, the Royal PR team clearly want to keep a tight hold of this wedding to make sure it runs as smoothly (tediously) as possible.

Also has anyone seen The September Issue documentary? Testino features in that and I cracked up when he came on. Clearly mad as a hatter.:D
 
A Photographers ability to judge the worth of their photographs, is why there are picture editors and Art editors and directors.

Almost no photographer has a choice; as to the photographs selected, nor on how they are cropped and presented.

Some like Karsh and Cartier Bresson (who were often at the opposite ends of the "quality" stakes) did manage to retain some control over the use of their images. ( I would add Jane Brown to that list)

Some very famous society and advertising photographers left the camera and technical matters in the charge of their assistants, and restricted them selves to lighting, talking, and choosing when the shutter should be fired.

Testino certainly needs no advice from anyopne here.
 
Last edited:
Lynton said:
Is it my eyes / my monitor or is all his website blurry??????? :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's a really really gash Flash page that hasn't had it's size limited.

For someone of Testino's profile I must admit to being rather surprised.

He and Floris de Vries (the designer) haven't done themselves any favours with that pile of poo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top