Testino Royal Pix

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arkady2
  • Start date Start date
Agree, you'd have thought he would make an effort...
 
Just seen these shots on TV, looked OOF to me, probably 90% of TPers could have produced better images than these, and I know of a fair few that would have produced some far, far better shots .............. but what do we know.


Dave .....
 
They're good images, nothing wrong with them. But yes, very average.. nothing too stylish or daringly creative about them. But I guess the Royals weren't exactly going to go for that were they?

Makes me wonder how exactly one gets to a position that he's in and as renowned fashion photographer.
 
According to Vogue "Mario Testino makes anyone he photographs look the best they ever will. That's part of his magic."
 
As I've said elsewhere, the shots were chosen by the couple, who knows how many pics were taken in total and which one was realy the best phootgraphically? Last time I looked Willaim & kate weren't pro photographers, and would certainly not have chosen the best image in the same way as a photographer might have.
 
whites (kate's dress) look overblown to me in the formal shot and lost shadow detail.
 
It would have been nice if they'd broken the mould and maybe given someone different a chance, rather than playing safe with Mario, who's done loads of other royal stuff.

Interesting to see who gets the actual wedding job....or not!
 
His customers seem really happy with his work so what's the problem?

I would hazard a guess that this particular photographer makes a good living from his work. Good look to him.

Can't help but smile at the TP reaction though, you could have written the script.
 
Very poor choice of backgrounds in both those shots.
 
When I worked on a picture desk the arrival of Testino's Royal Christmas pictures were always of great interest.

Usual question was "How out of focus are they this year?"

No idea how he gets away with it, emperors new clothes?
 
Steep said:
Very poor choice of backgrounds in both those shots.
Click to expand...

lemme guess, a poorly blown out hilite with loads of gold fringing round their heads would have been better?

they're of a good standard, yes.

Outstandingly creative work? No, but then... that wasn't the brief. The brief was standard, graceful and smart photos of the couple for PR and handout... for the purpose, I kinda like them. Something straight out of venture would have just looked weird.

Can't help but smile at the TP reaction though, you could have written the script.
Click to expand...

:D

As for the choice of photographer... sometimes, it's not about the cost, or anything else...it's about getting it done /right/, not just photographically, but logistically, organisationally and in terms of interacting with these people, and the royal family knew that Testino could deliver there - and if he couldn't, then regardless of what they thought of his photos, he wouldn't have been hired again.
This article is a good read... 2 shots on black and 2 shots on white overall cost to client $30k...please don't come around saying 'I could do that with two TFCD models and a hilite for £50'... this is WHY high end professional photography is what it is.

Usual question was "How out of focus are they this year?"
Click to expand...

XD
 
Last edited:
BBC said:
The images were chosen by the couple, both 28, following a photoshoot last month about a week after they had announced their engagement.
Click to expand...

I guess they don't come on TP much :thinking:


At least they're not standing about a foot away from the wall like they did on the day they announced their engagement.
 
Last edited:
Great quote from daves post
Did they want it produced in a cheaper way? No. They wanted what they wanted. A job that almost could not fail. If one camera dies we had three more. If the lens died we had a bag full. If a light died we had several replacements standing by. Don't like the green shirt? We have red and yellow and blue. Need a vegetarian entree'? We've got that too. It's dangerous in this business to presume that everyone wants the lowest price you can possibly offer. Many, many times they want to assurance that everything will be just as they want it to be. And many times photographers get hired not because they are masters of imaging (that's assumed) but because they are also masters of production.
Click to expand...

As for those calling him a hack. Look at the pictures the shot of the princes mother, think the guy can handle a camera even in a way TP'ers would be happy with. The unposed one catches 2 people in love, which is hard to do with that amount of people around and pressure of knowing how the pictures will be part of history.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
Originally Posted by Steep
Very poor choice of backgrounds in both those shots.
-------------
lemme guess, a poorly blown out hilite with loads of gold fringing round their heads would have been better?
Click to expand...

No, just less busy, preferably without picture frames sticking out of the subjects head and/or subject not washed out by strong side light. If the brief was to take amateurish snapshots of the royals then I reckon he succeeded.

Also

Do you think maybe you could be a wee bit less confrontational with your replies? we're all entitled to our opinions.
 
Steep said:
No, just less busy, preferably without picture frames sticking out of the subjects head and/or subject not washed out by strong side light. If the brief was to take amateurish snapshots of the royals then I reckon he succeeded.

Also

Do you think maybe you could be a wee bit less confrontational with your replies? we're all entitled to our opinions.
Click to expand...

sorry, I did come over as abrupt. Just fed up with everyone and their dog claiming that they could have taken better photos than these (imo) perfectly good photos on a polaroid while wearing a blindfold on I guess :(

There's nice separation between his head and the pictures in the background, the pictures provide context for the photo itself while not being distracting, the posing, lighting and style is good - I really don't see what the fuss is about here :/
 
they're good shots, everything I've seen so far has very very good emotional contact in it which is way more important than them being technically correct and dull, always nice when you get good technically good shots but its less likely :D
 
I think it's tremendously short sighted that people on a photography forum are criticising this photographer the way that they are while completely missing the point. Even the Royal photographer missed out because of one large fact. Diana felt massively comfortable in the presence of Testino. He has delivered consistently for the Royals over the years.

Even if you could technicay do better I doubt it'd be enough.

This thread reminds me of the Obama family portrait by Annie.
 
KayJay said:
I think it's tremendously short sighted that people on a photography forum are criticising this photographer the way that they are while completely missing the point. Even the Royal photographer missed out because of one large fact. Diana felt massively comfortable in the presence of Testino. He has delivered consistently for the Royals over the years.

Even if you could technicay do better I doubt it'd be enough.

This thread reminds me of the Obama family portrait by Annie.
Click to expand...

lol I remember that, everytime something big photographic happens we rip it to shreds :D

I hadn't thought about the Dianna angle, shoulda twigged from the ring
 
FFS.

What did you expect?

27 lights and a bit of crazy post to give a fake Dave Hill shot? Tilt shift of their hands with some god-awful "vintage" bleurgh all over it? HDR?

I've been watching responses to these pictures in a couple of forums and on Twitter. The world seems split into
(1) people who feel that he's captured the joy of a couple in love in a wonderfully relaxed way and also served up a semi formal portrait showing much more intimacy than we'd expect from a royal iconic image approved by 37 different committees

and

(2) photographers who feel they could have done better.

I'm in camp 1.
 
JonathanRyan said:
(2) photographers who feel they could have done better.
Click to expand...

Surely you find these people amusing though?

Spend all their time on a photography forum telling people how better at it they are, knowing full well they dont have what it takes to reach that level.

Its hilarious! :lol:
 
just because people might not make money from photography does not make them any less capable nor does an opinion. I might not be great at landscapes but I can certainly crit one.

Quaker said:
Surely you find these people amusing though?

Spend all their time on a photography forum telling people how better at it they are, knowing full well they dont have what it takes to reach that level.

Its hilarious! :lol:
Click to expand...
 
Quaker said:
Surely you find these people amusing though?

Spend all their time on a photography forum telling people how better at it they are, knowing full well they dont have what it takes to reach that level.

Its hilarious! :lol:
Click to expand...

Lighting and posing-wise, there's no difference between these and the shots I take at events and charge 10€ a pop for...

They're not 'bad', just 'absolutely average' which I'm pretty sure I mentioned - maybe some of you should look the word up?

Testino is a 'name' and because of that, people - especially photographers, look at his work perhaps more critically than they would otherwise. What I see here doesn't live up to the hype surrounding the images.
Had they been released under an anonymous byline no-one would be muttering about them as they are 'OK'...but that's it - they're just OK.

These are well within the capabilities of any jobbing High-Street Photographer and more than a few capable enthusiasts on TP...

And as to the argument that 'the couple' chose them - wake up: do you seriously think the Palace Press Office had no input? I know these guys - everything that gets released goes under a microscope - the Royal Family is a Business - HM the Queen even calls it that as a nickname...
 
Arkady2 said:
Lighting and posing-wise, there's no difference between these and the shots I take at events and charge 10€ a pop for...

They're not 'bad', just 'absolutely average' which I'm pretty sure I mentioned - maybe some of you should look the word up?

Testino is a 'name' and because of that, people - especially photographers, look at his work perhaps more critically than they would otherwise. What I see here doesn't live up to the hype surrounding the images.
Had they been released under an anonymous byline no-one would be muttering about them as they are 'OK'...but that's it - they're just OK.

These are well within the capabilities of any jobbing High-Street Photographer and more than a few capable enthusiasts on TP...

And as to the argument that 'the couple' chose them - wake up: do you seriously think the Palace Press Office had no input? I know these guys - everything that gets released goes under a microscope - the Royal Family is a Business - HM the Queen even calls it that as a nickname...
Click to expand...
You miss my point mate.

For a gig like this you are to be "selected" to do it. Its not about being the best photographer its about being the best for the job in the eyes of those selecting.

Average or not, the artists selection was based, I suspect, on many things not just photography. He has something that most photographers don't have, maybe COSMIC/TS/ATOMAL clearance who knows but why the sour grapes and the "hack" reference?

He obviously has something that no other photographer has up his/her sleeve and probably will never have.
 
I've been looking at his work from way back and he is a hack...there's nothing remotely different about any of his images from the past ten or fifteen years. He's found a simple style (that people like) and never deviated from that.
That's my definition of a hack. They're not unpleasant even, just...a bit boring.
Even Cecil Beaton pushed the boat out a bit when he photographed King Edward and Wallis Simpson and after them, George VI and The Queen Mother (as she later became) - Just Google: Beaton; Royal Portraits...for the day, they were avant garde...

The choice will have been made by the Palace Press Office (in consultation with the Couple) as he's on the list of Palace-Approved photographers and his style is easy-going and light. My point is still that after the release of the images, everyone was and is raving about how avant garde the images are when they're nothing of the sort - they're utterly 'safe'.
 
Rovers_Andy said:
i agree, i have seen far far better in the people and portraits section of TP
Click to expand...

This is one of the differences between an amateur and a pro.

Amateurs can turn in exceptional images. Pros must never produce bad ones.

Some of the stuff I do is pretty easy. But I get paid quite a lot to do it because it will get done.

On his worst ever day Testino will still turn in a decent snap. It may be hackneyed, derivative, repetitive - call it what you want. But it will be good enough to be on magazine covers.
 
LOL at this!

I think it's a lovely capture, and clearly it is exactly as ordered by the Royal PR Machine. (In the same way as AL's photos of the Obamas was.)

Bottom line is Testino got the job, he delivered, and that picture will be published a billion times, for ever. It will become as iconic as all his other Diana images.

Well done that man I say. I went to his exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery a few years ago. Loads of huge and spectacular prints, ten feet high. I was impressed by the relaxed beauty he manages to capture, and amused by the less than 100% techncial perfection in many of them!

Rob, I look forward to your next show at the NPG :D
 
HoppyUK said:
LOL at this!

I think it's a lovely capture, and clearly it is exactly as ordered by the Royal PR Machine. (In the same way as AL's photos of the Obamas was.)

Bottom line is Testino got the job, he delivered, and that picture will be published a billion times, for ever. It will become as iconic as all his other Diana images.

Well done that man I say. I went to his exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery a few years ago. Loads of huge and spectacular prints, ten feet high. I was impressed by the relaxed beauty he manages to capture, and amused by the less than 100% techncial perfection in many of them!

Rob, I look forward to your next show at the NPG :D
Click to expand...

I saw that show too - apart from the subject matter - all 'celebs' - there was nothing at all remarkable about any of them...
I was impressed that he still manages to con so many people into thinking his images are something special when they're not.

Hoppy you're still a grotty little Troll - go off and buy some UV filters - you know you really want to...:lol:
 
Arkady2 said:
I saw that show too - apart from the subject matter - all 'celebs' - there was nothing at all remarkable about any of them...
I was impressed that he still manages to con so many people into thinking his images are something special when they're not.

Hoppy you're still a grotty little Troll - go off and buy some UV filters - you know you really want to...:lol:
Click to expand...

I know Rob, I've been practising my trolling while you were away on another of your little bans :D Still need to work on my grottiness more.

The difference with Testino is that his images are of celebs. That's the whole point really. And it's that weird celebrity thing that makes us think that somehow we can relate to them, and that the images capture what we perceive as some significant aspect of their personality.

There was a TV programme about Terry O'Neill recently, and his large collection of often fairly dire black & white snaps. But they are of The Beatles, Sinatra, Clint Eastwood, Newman, Redford, a who's who of famous faces a mile long - interesting people doing ordinary things. It's ironic that O'Neill, who is a very able snapper, is best known for his worst photographs.

Now run along and go sit on your UV filter. See how much protection is gives you :razz:
 
HoppyUK said:
I know Rob, I've been practising my trolling while you were away on another of your little bans :D Still need to work on my grottiness more.

The difference with Testino is that his images are of celebs. That's the whole point really. And it's that weird celebrity thing that makes us think that somehow we can relate to them, and that the images capture what we perceive as some significant aspect of their personality.

There was a TV programme about Terry O'Neill recently, and his large collection of often fairly dire black & white snaps. But they are of The Beatles, Sinatra, Clint Eastwood, Newman, Redford, a who's who of famous faces a mile long - interesting people doing ordinary things. It's ironic that O'Neill, who is a very able snapper, is best known for his worst photographs.
Click to expand...

Which was my point in the OP - they're 'average' photos of 'special' people. :D
 
Quaker said:
He obviously has something that no other photographer has up his/her sleeve and probably will never have.
Click to expand...

He has Diana's ring up his wizard's sleeve?? :eek:

Must have been blackmail that got him the job then!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top