Jill Greenberg, Monkeys and Sharks
(UPDATE: Adds more links, cover shoot video.)Who did I wake up to find under my bowl of Frosted Flakes this morning but the Incredible Being of Lightness herself. Does this mean she has jumped the shark?
Maybe, maybe not. More inside.
__________________
Note to this site's perfectly sensible foreign readers:
"Jumped the Shark" is slang for when anything has clearly reached its peak, and is on the downslope. It's from a "Happy Days" TV episode in which the writers had a lead character jump a shark
__________________
Jill "Dingo Made Your Baby Cry" Greenberg has not been without notice on this site. She has what anyone would at least have to admit is a very interesting lighting style. And she has worked it to the point to where she is practically the Aaron Jones of the day.
As for her lighting, she can imitate Jill Greenberg better than perhaps anyone else on the planet, if that is a good thing. But as for her range, well, I would compare it to the number of facial expressions mastered by Keanu Reeves in his movie career.
(Okay, that's not fair. Keanu has mastered two facial expressions and is said to be working on a third.)
But now Ms. Greenberg is getting written up in family newspapers, aimed at the general public. Or at least The Washington Post, who had a two-page photo spread and interview in honor of her monkey show at the National Academy of Sciences. Usually a newspaper getting around to writing about something being hot is pretty much the death knell.
Her Washington Post piece, by the numbers:
9: Total number of her photos used in the Arts section today.
6: Number of photos which contained monkeys. I thought it was seven at first, but one turned out to be of American Idol host Simon Cowell.
75: Percentage of a page dominated by the lead photo. Seriously, Pulitzer Prize Winners do not get that kind of space.
9,000: Approximate percentage of dot gain on the photos in the spread. They looked pretty rough. This photo, bounce-fill-flashed and adjusted, does not do the monkey-howl-inducing repro justice. Welcome to the world of newspapers, your Jillness.
IMO, she is could go either way. One direction being Annie, Avedon and the like -- the fabric of American culture -- and the other being Fonzie, suiting up to jump. Nothing against the quality of the photos -- they are stunning. But any specific technique, so heavily used, is always in danger of suddenly going out of style. Witness Aaron Jones and the Hosemaster craze of the late '80's.
It will be interesting to see just how long the ride lasts.
At least a little longer, apparently, as shown in this Fast Company magazine video of a recent cover shoot. I did notice the way she just lights the backgrond from behind the paper, to keep things clean and wire-free. (Yes, I'm so pathetic.)
____________
Slideshow: You, Imitating JG
Washington Post: Greenberg Feature
Jill Greenberg's Website
YouTube: Fonzie Jumps the Shark (Thanks, Brian!)
__________
New to Strobist, or lighting? Start here.
Now shipping, in DVD box set or download: Lighting in Layers
Connect: Discussion Threads | Reader Photos | Twitter
Posted at 11:25 AM.
39 Comments:
Just a slight correction for you David. The Fonz jumped the shark on water skis, not his motorcycle. He was still wearing his signature leather jacket though. Anyone who can look cool in a leather jacket and a speedo...well, actually, he looks pretty ridiculous.
You can see it on YouTube of course:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpraJYnbVtE
I've mentioned this before in comments, but you should blog about the pre-press issues that you constantly mention.
As a former printing and pre-press guy myself, I know what you're talking about, but a lot of people here probably don't.
There is a wide variety of print outputs that peoples photographs may end up in, and that knowledge up-front can help immensely. If you know the right questions to ask of you publication, you can give them the images press-ready, so that they will print at the best quality possible without leaving that chance in the hands of monkeys. (forgive the topical pun)
Most photographers assume that the graphics pros and designers of their publication know what they are doing. I'm here to tell you most of them are faking it and know very little about pre-press. I know because I have received work from professional Magazine companies and pro Ad agencies whose names I will not mention but you would certainly recognize.
You may have to dig a little, but by asking the right questions, the good news is those answers will stay the same unless and until the publication changes printing technologies. By having those complete answers once, you can take control of maximizing the print quality.
You should never trust your reputation to a monkey.
(with apologies to Office Space) Yeeeaahhh, I'm going to have to go ahead and, uh,..disagree with that.
Jumping the shark means doing something drastic to get attention. She is just doing what she always does and is perhaps getting a bit overexposed for it.
Repetitive...yes. A desperate cry for attention...no. Besides, if you are always jumping (no pun intended) around with styles, how are you supposed to make a big time name for yourself? Why not milk it? Are photographers suppposed to stay all artsy and underground, for fear of "selling out"? It's not selling out, it's buying in.
I would not be surprised at all if Jill did go the way of the Happy Days. Especially in today's flavor of the week society you either evolve and progress your work or people get tired of you fast....Maybe Jill should go take some lessons from Madonna.....mmm maybe not
Stephen Shore sums up Greenberg better that I could:
"When photographers take pictures, they hold mental models in their minds; models that are the result of the proddings of insight, conditioning, and comprehension of the world.
"At one extreme, the model is ridgid and ossified, bound by an accumulation of its conditioning: a photographer recognizes only subjects that fit the model, or structures pictures only in accordance with the model. A rudimentary example of this is a mental filter that permits only sunsets to pass through. At the other extreme, the model is supple and fluid, readily accommodating and adjusting to new perceptions."
This is quoted from "The Nature of Photographs." Can you guess which end I feel she falls at?
Ummm, not to criticize your social commentary DH, but Fonzie was on water skis when he jumped the shark. Although jumping on a motorcycle might have helped the ratings more...
I agree tho that Jill is teetering on the edge of the same fate that things like "Where's the beef?", "That's so hot", "Can you hear me now?", "Apply directly where it hurts", and pet rocks eventually succumb.
Look forward to meeting you in Orlando!
About as many as photos of colored smoke, water droplets and anything having to do with ringflash. BTW, I say that with a lighthearted chuckle.
**Disclaimer - I've done photos with water (maybe not the droplets) and the ringflash, but not the smoke.
Good explanation of Jumping the Shark, but I can't figure out why a shark would be on a motorcycle.
I'm only kidding, of course -- we know it was Fonzie riding the motorcycle (http://tinyurl.com/82qca
). Interestingly, the actor, Henry Winkler, had no clue how to ride an actual motorcycle.
Not the point, really just thought I'd share.
On to the photos: I think Greenberg's methods are striking. Amazing shots. One would still need some amount of understanding and skill to replicate them ... in addition to a willing victim^H^H^H^H^H model.
Rather, I think it's our standards that have been raised well above the quality of a simple newsprint media because of the type of shots we take. Hey, if you're on this site, odds are pretty good that you're doing some of your own off-camera lighting.
Looking at a two inch wide, half-toned, CMYK reproduction on texturized newsprint isn't the same thing as the original 11 megapixel RAW shot on a 24" Mac monitor.
Or did I miss the point of your post?
John-
Not sure posts made on Sunday morning over Frosted Flakes and the morning paper are even required to have a point.
I'll check the Blogger's manual...
I am with David...very funny.
My first time here and I like your blog.
On style in general (and not about Jill's in particular) - it should be a tool used to express personal vision. With the din of modern culture, however, I find it more often used as a mega phone shouting from the rooftops when unfortunately there is nothing really worthy being said in the first place.
Pete
captaindash-strobist has the definition correct by most people's definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
I'm not sure why people are dogging her -- jealousy perhaps?
I like her work, and I'll bet 99.9% of the photographers in the world would love to get a bit of attention & recognition for the work they do on in a publication like The Washington Post.
I take it you're not a big fan.
I happen to believe her body of work is awesome. Her lighting style is unique, and very recognizable. Creating your own style/genre is something that many photographers (artists) strive for. And yes, it may get a bit old after looking at a portfolio of shots all done in the same style, but that goes with the territory (van Gogh anyone?).
Jill Greenberg is not a news / editorial photographer that may need to change her style depending on the kind of story she shoots. And my guess is that if indeed she had to do that she'd kick many a photographer's butt. There's plenty other photographers out there - some of them hailed on this blog - that do the exact same thing in terms of shooting in a specific style over and over again. It's nothing new and I do not see why you seem to be holding it against her specifically.
Maybe you should put up a link to her web site manipulator.com under the article. Jill's portfolio will make many a strobist drewl.
Manipulator website posted. Also, added a recent shoot video from Fast Company.
My tongue-in-cheek point is that her body of work is very one-dimensional, from a stylistic point of view. And yet is getting a huge amount of attention in this flavor-of-the-month, hyper-visual culture.
Aaron Jones was huge in the late 80's and early 90's, too. He saturated the world with his light painting, then built and sold the machine to other shooters just as the whole style was jumping the shark.
This comment has been removed by the author.
David,
I like you MUCH better when you are not bashing someone.
Get off it, and do what you do best inspire and teach
Debbi
ps
I'm a born in Californian and I never heard that term before 'Jumpin the Sharks'
I do not think she is a hack, nor am I bashing her. I think there is way more being read into this than was intended, FWIW...
Geez, David - God forbid you post an opinion-provoking entry!
As with everything you post, it led me to spend this lazy Sunday afternoon doing MORE internet research (:shakes fist:).
Personally, I think you're spot on in pointing out that she is moving into rarefied territory among photographers.
Weirdest connection I made? I realize now that I first heard of her on "Entertainment Tonight" around the time she was first exhibiting her crying kids photos.
When was the last time a photographer was making that sort of "mainstream" impression, regardless of her technique/purpose?
jumping the the shark does refer to things that are over the hill, once great things that have lost their magic.
jill has shown that the technique can be used with an amazing array of subjects and still be stunning.
but i agree with david in his critique, her lighting technique is spectacular, but sadly in imminent danger of becoming overused. that could doom it to future ridicule and would be a shame.
she should keep branching out and pushing limits. but reality check... if you get t o shake an entire field once, thats alot more than the average joe.
good job jill! if we want to see more variety and ingenuity, lets keep taking great pictures, strobist are up to it for sure.
As a former newspaperman, I agree with grunyen -- you'd be perfect to write an article about photographing for pre-press. I don't think you need to get into how to correct for dot-gain in Photoshop -- there must be sites you can link to on that -- but the importance of separation, what dot gain is, and the basic differences between that medium and the web should be a great post you can do in your sleep.
Funny. It didn't read like an "I hate Jill Greenberg" post to me. And I understood all of the prepress points. Even though I was just the copy jockey, I worked in a print shop for 3 years. I completely ken.
Seems to me that what David's saying here isn't so different of the criticisms lodged against JoeyL and Dave Hill over in the Flickr fora. *shrug* Their particular lighting styles work for each of them.
This didn't seem like a bash post at all.
is the bowl your frosted flakes arrive at the table in
from Ikea? Cause it looks remarkably similar to my bowls.
Sorry, it was the only thing interesting I could find about an article featuring photos of monkeys.
I personally don't think Greenberg's all that interesting. When the flak came out about making the babies cry, I thought big deal really, didn't get worked up over it. Now she's making monkeys howl? Yea she jumped the shark I think.
Yes she uses a unique lighting style over and over again, that doesn't necessarily mean she's over. David LaChappelle uses a lighting style in 99% of his photos that is the same, and yet he is constantly re-inventing himself and finding unique new photos. I don't see her doing the same.
It's a double edged sword. You have to have a unique style to get noticed. Everything I've read on portfolio development touts having a recognizable style throughout-to tie everything together. I enjoy the quirkiness of her images but would prefer them with a less plastic treatment (combination of lighting and post processing). I would think she can evolve in terms of her lighting style as needed. In todays market, it probably makes sense to milk whatever style, trend, gimmick is getting you noticed. She'll just need to be prepared to evolve as the market demands. People do it all the time. We'll have to wait and see if she get's the timing right and evolves before she's considered yesterday's news.
In the meantime, photographers everywhere are dissecting her style and knocking it off like crazy. I guess that's the real challenge these days. As soon as you do something unique (good or bad), it's hard to keep the technique a secret.
Jill Greenberg is an inhuman monster.
She is a pompous, self-styled "artist" and one-trick pony.
I hate her.
Having said that, the newsprint reproduction of her photos is probably more to do with the totally unskilled pre-press staff at the newspaper in question than any technical deficiency in her photos.
a little addon to the backdrop thing: she is lighting it from the back to get a different look, not to keep the front wirefree.
paper has the tendency to produce specular reflections. by lighting from the back you eliminate that possibility and get a consistent backdrop no matter what angle you are shooting.
also you can use a simple standard reflector while you'd need a special longreach reflector (BIG!, difficult to pack) to do it from the front.
I urge those of you who think she is one dimensional to check out her website and the "straight portraiture" and "location portraiture" section in her portfolio. Her overused lighting scheme gives way to other styles. I agree the pictures for which she is getting acclaim have strikingly similar setups, but she is brilliant for making that a trademark while maintaining flexibility.
It's no real secret that Jill has been trying to position herself as more than just the "manipulator". From her crying babies series to her monkey series she is trying to stretch her talents and her viibility while style maintaining a signature style. There are few modern photographers that I can admiringly look at the photo and immediately know it's them, Jill, Terry Richardson, Annie and Michael Thompson to name a few. Go back and look at her old work from the mid 90s for Paper Magazine and you'll see she has evolved quite a bit and she is probably one of he most influential photographers of the past ten years. She deserved national attention, she's not "hot", she's a tried and true trailblazer and institution in my book.
I have never heard of Ms Greenburg so I checked out her website. She seems to have photographed anybody who is anybody in the US. I think her lighting perfectly fits her subject matter and style. The words "superficial" and "sterile" come to mind and I must say i have never before looked at a set of portraits and found myself so totally disengaged from the subjects. There is absolutely no empathy between photographer and her sitters and her lighting seems to heighten the effect.
Who is that Aaron Jones guy that you refer to? It's hard to find information about him on the internet. What style did he use, that got connected with his name?
david
is it usually your policy to allow personal hate and invective to be used against the subject of your posts anonymously?
and to anonymous--it takes real guts to say "i hate her" without using your own name. bravo, well played.
as for the rest, i'm an interested party but i must say in the main this has been a very interesting discussion of jill's work. i'll add (to the point made above) that jill has been doing this since 1990 so i don't think you can say it's her style that's newfound--what is newfound is all the hoopla that seems to have come since the crying baby controversy--a controversy that was fueled by anonymous posters on internet forums, aka gutless cowards.
I think I need to qualify what i said in an earlier post. I think the point is "does the technique overwhelm the the actual subject of the picture and does regular use of it become a cliche?" It is very striking, I must say I prefer Dave Hill's style, but I also find Dave's subjects and approach more interesting.
The Fonz is now immortalized with the expression "Jump the Shark" However, Henry Winkler did not keep jumping the shark. He went on to produce MacGyver. Now, we know how much Strobists like to make cheap, yet very inventive lighting ala MacGyver style. So, maybe Jill will go on to produce the next MacGyver II when her shark jumping days are over.
Or maybe her next project after monkeys will be photographing sharks as she waterskis. In which case she'd better learn to jump them holding an SB800 on a boom and an umbrella between her knees.
Heck, I'd pay to see that.
2 points-
- No matter the industry, if you have a talent/skill/look that someone is willing to pay you top dollar for, than take it. Sell out, to hell with the critics. Just keep your moral standards intact.
- I'm sure Greenberg has put alot of effort into getting to where she is now and if it came down to her having capture a different look, I'd put money down that she's learned enough to do pretty well for herself.
I'm with david on this... I think these photographers with the ultra-recognizable styles are flavors of the week/month/year. They will have to evolve the styles to stay ahead of the imitators.
Eventually the art directors and editors will be on to the next best thing and the Greenberg style will go the same direction as the cult-of-hosemaster.
I'm sure Greenberg will probably stay ahead of the game with some other new style or look.
OK, I see a style. So how is it lit?
Is this an "envy because I'm not there" threat? Please men this is just style nothing less nothing more...
- G.
Fonzie on waterskis: Little did I know when watching the original episode -- which as a kid we thought was so cool (he wore his leather jacket!) and so Evel Knievel -- that twenty-some years later it would be laughable and anonymous with mediocrity. So it goes.
But I like monkeys. What's not to like about having a prehensile tail?
Would you like to touch my monkey??
Chris
http://www.baltimoresun.com/photoedge
Animal Planet has a YouTube commercial feature her animal portraits: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuJ64WsKmWc
Whether a person likes her work or not, she has what many other photographers lack: style. To each their own, respect to all.
Post a Comment
<< Home