Two Great Photographers: The Unique and the Shared

Both Annie Leibovitz and James Nachtwey are renowned for setting the bar high with their outstanding works in photography. In this post I will compare and contrast the two as photographers. While having starkly different moods in their works, the two still share several common characteristics as talented photographers with good technique. By looking at the differences and similarities I hope to bring out elements that all photographers can learn from two of the world’s most known photographers.

VOGUE FEATURE: Beauty and the Beast Midnight in the Garden 

"I thought I felt only friendship toward you," cried Beauty, "but I see that I love you." Christian Lacroix Haute Couture voluminously ruffled dress with pink and purple chiffon layers.

First I want to take a look at the differences between the two. The clearest difference is in the nature of their work. Leibovitz is on the cutting edge of artistic and portrait photography. In the beginning Leibovitz shot very casual photographs of her family that held sentimental value for her. Later she got first big job working with Rolling Stone magazine where she gained recognition for her revolutionary portrait work. Since then she has done work with Vanity Fair magazine and various commercial work. She is famous for her “story portraits” that incorporate something to be said about the person in the photograph. Some say that she has the ability to use feelings, music, and poetry and turn them into photography, meaning that the moods in those elements are carried through and understood through her works. Some of them, like the one below titled Susan at the House on Hedges Lane, have a very natural feel, but several of her more recent works border on fantasy. For example, the photo above titled Beauty and the Beast: Midnight in the Garden is very clearly a photo set up in order to resemble a scene from a fantasy. Even the background has either been edited or is something like a painted screen.

Annie Leibovitz (American, b. 1949). Susan at the House on Hedges Lane, 1988. Photograph © Annie Leibovitz. From Annie Leibovitz: A Photographer's Life, 1990–2005

This is photo above is more comparable to Nachtwey’s work—which I will describe in the next paragraph—because it’s a snapshot of the natural setting and less manipulated. Still, you can see that is a very artistically composed photograph.

Chechnya, 1996 - Ruins of central Grozny.

Nachtwey has a more serious stance in the profession. He made the decision to be a war photographer after encountering images from Vietnam that didn’t match the claims of the government. Instead of being commercial, he produces his photography very much with the intent of being a raw documentation of the truth to counter those images and information filtered by the government. In fact, the quote on the main page of his website reads, "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." Natchwey’s photography, while still having artistic elements, focuses on the harsh conditions of war and the emotions felt by those caught within them. For example, take a look at the photo above titled Ruins of central Grozny. The composition is quite artistic, but the point is rather the expression of sadness on the boys face together with the amount of destruction that can be seen behind him.

 Cam Lo, Quang Tri Province. Phan Thi Hoi bathes her 14-year-old son, Bui Quang Ky. She was exposed to Agent Orange when she was in the North Vietnamese Army during the war.

This second photo by Nachtwey is very typical of his work. It is of a mother washing her son who was deformed as the result of Agent Orange, a chemical used during the Vietnam War. Although the photograph is still very well composed, it is less artistically daring and rather a realistic moment of truth in which the viewer can feel the emotions felt by the people in the photograph. Leibovitz too uses emotions in her works, but hers are much more lighthearted and fun while Nachtwey’s photographs are intended to tug on people’s heartstrings and motivate them to help make a change in the world.

Despite having strikingly different moods in their results, they still share several characteristics of what it means to be a good photographer. Both of them are able to create images that have the power to move emotions, touch hearts, tell stories, and captivate those who see them. I believe that those of us still beginning to pursue our interests in photography can also learn from these two great photographers. Their success, I think, is due to their methodology of photography. Both Leibovitz and Nachtwey are very respectful of their subjects and recognize that in order to be a good photographer, it is necessary, and in fact unavoidable, to be involved to some extent. They become a part of the scene to the point that the people being photographed either don’t notice them or don’t mind, and this enables a more natural and moving result. For example, whenever Leibovitz spent time with the people she was shooting, she would join them in their normal activities so that everyone would feel comfortable and so that she could get an insider’s perspective. Many of her portrait subjects admitted that sometimes they forgot she was even there. Nachtwey’s situation was different because he shoots in the war-scene scenario, but even so he doesn’t just shoot and leave. He is careful and slow with his movements, gets the consent of those he photographs—although sometimes the consent is non-verbal—and talks with them for a while. What we as learning photographers can take from this is that we should be careful to stay considerate of those we are photographing. This doesn’t always have to be through verbal communication, but getting some form of consent is ideal. Even if it isn’t possible before taking the photo then perhaps asking for permission afterward is acceptable as well. Also, in order to make the setting more relaxed, it is a good idea to become involved with your subjects, whether that means just talking with them for a while or joining the activities they do. This helps to dissolve the idea of you being a stranger taking photographs and to create the feeling that you are one of them.

The second major characteristic shared by Leibovitz and Nachtwey is that they both take shots of everything. Both of them expressed the idea that everything has meaning. Leibovitz says that even the little things that some people may deem as trivial can also have meaning. Then, because Nachtwey’s goal is to document and testify to the truth, leaving out parts of the activities would possibly give a slanted impression. In order to get a full truth, he needs to take photos of everything and not just screen what he thinks will be important or preferred by viewers. What we should take from this is that we too should not be afraid to take photographs of anything and everything that impresses us or not. Even something that seems mundane could have meaning somewhere.