Very cool, I'm going to check my local newsstand to see if the issue has made it this far North yet. Here's an on-line teaser with some BTS and a few sample images:
http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywo...ortfolio-shoot
Very cool, I'm going to check my local newsstand to see if the issue has made it this far North yet. Here's an on-line teaser with some BTS and a few sample images:
http://www.vanityfair.com/vf-hollywo...ortfolio-shoot
He did the same thing for President Obama a little while ago. Personally I think he needs a longer lens.
I want his jumpsuit/warmups. Sweet.
Longer lens, more bellows for 20 x 24 which I've found to be problematic in shooting my 20 x 24 work. I use as short of lens as will cover, most often 550 mm, to compensate when I want one to one portraits or bigger. My longer lenses ( Dallmeyer 30 inch RR and Dallmeyer 8D) i use for 3/4 body and full body portraits. Not sure what lens he has on the Polaroid. What did you find disagreeable if that is the right word about them?
Monty
I agree with the comments about preferring a longer lens, but I also feel quite ridiculous for critiquing Chuck Close! I also wonder if he has an infinite supply of Polaroid, since the rest of us ran out a long time ago. Still, very happy that the link was posted, it's fun to see both the portraits and some scenes of how they were made.
20x24 studios still has a large supply of raw Polaroid materials. More than they can hope to use in the 20x24 cameras, AFAIK.
http://www.20x24studio.com/?page_id=1653
Nice, I wish we all could afford to do this. I will settle for my project which is very similar in 11x14, using my infamous friends.
I'm not familiar with his work at all. I think what others are referring to is some of the shots (scarlett johanssen) look distorted like they were shot on a wide angle lens. Hers looks awful btw. It appears that he uses the same lighting setup for each person which we almost never do when lighting actors for motion picture work. Every face is different. Showing actors "as they are" without makeup or retouching is one thing, awful lighting just to get exposure is another. I hate to be so negative but I calls em as I sees em.
Look him up, he is a huge long time art star, he has made insane self portraits with mosaics of tiny self images. Most major museums collect anything he produces.
Originally Posted by vinny
It's a link to MOMA and Chuck Close.
http://www.moma.org/collection/artis...artist_id=1156
A lot of his actual printing is done down the street here. His self-portraits in particular almost remind me of the shots of our pet squirrel my wife took with her little
BB-lens cellphone camera - all big nosed out of proportion, characteristic of a wide angle up close. But locally, they're printing actual museum and public installations large-scale, including laser etching on huge slabs of granite. Some of the projects are well into seven figures. A lot of Chuck Close's work is enigmatic and involves portraits. But for those of you unfamiliar with his handicaps, one of them is that he is psychologically incapable of face recognition, even his own face - some sort of genetic flaw which causes him to analyze faces according to a multitude of cumulative details. Some of his paintings are fascinating in this respect. I respond far less to his photographs, but his personal limitation does explain his obsession with faces, and why so much of his photography in particular involves self-portraits.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks