John, I couldn't agree more. Leibovitz's current work is atrocious for someone of her caliber. I too have been a long-term fan of her work, but have recently noticed a trend. That trend is sloppy work. I was floored when I reviewed "Woman" in the book store [where it remained, I would never waste money on that piece of crap!] not only are there obvious continuity/technical/technique problems, but she even includes an accidental portrait of her assistant operating a smoke machine! I mean come-on, if you attain the level that she has, wouldn't you have the gumption to be a better editor of your work than that?(posted 8789 days ago)I understand that "things" can happen while shooting on location, and that often the allotted time frame can be critically short, but when you are of the Leibovitz-Ritts-Newton-Penn-Avedon genre, I'd bet my final sheet of 679 that you get special [or at least preferential] treatment beyond a putz like me. There is absolutely no excuse for sloppy work, regardless of who you are. And given the budgets she gets for these projects, Id feel embarrassed to submit those images to a PAYING CLIENT!
Her recent work appears to me to be careless and haphazard at best. For a real treat, check out the lame-ass images she shot for Pirelli's new calendar. YUK! Nothing like pasty, veiny, UGLY nudes. It seems that she is not alone in this campaign of "I don't care, what ever I do is great!", because she continues to get high profile assignments.
It's good to be the Queen; you obviously don't have to try any more!
Sorry for the rant, but I'd be blown out of my market if I submitted anything even close to that "quality". Maybe I should stop wasting my time with site prep and film testing, and see how little I can spend on every shot.