Bailey does it again?

Bailey does it again?

29 posts
21 April 2014
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
That man, David Bailey, does it again with a stunning portrait of the Queen for her 88th birthday. For me he is one of the finest portrait photographers, simple lighting with enough modelling and a result that says more about her then him? She looks happy, relaxed and he has captured a sense of humour. I am no Royalist but you can't help but feel it would be ok to have a chat and a cuppa with her!!! The Queen Mother used to wander around London's East End and now one of its greatest sons has turned up in Buck Palace...a true collaboration between the classes!!

Anyway...does it 100% for me! I suspect this one will go viral and with any luck remind people of one of one of the main purposes of photography? Its about simplicity, stripping away all that is unnecessary leaving just the subject to make the picture....its about her, not him and yet there is enough of a "signature" to know it is his work?

What do you think?

Posted 21 April 2014
LaurenceJPower
Photographer
LaurenceJPower
I note a distinct lack of skin smoothing, thank C*****

Posted 21 April 2014
marlhamphoto
Photographer
marlhamphoto
OldMaster
....its about her, not him...
I disagree. The image is at least as much about him as it is her, possibly more so. It's undoubtedly part of the continuing and deliberate process of making the Royal Family more personable and engaging. In that context I'd say it's less of a portrait and more a piece of propaganda. In any case I like it. But principally because I see the 'mischief' of Bailey in it rather than anything else.
Posted 21 April 2014
I like.

The Queen, so it is said, only has two expressions...I prefer her Majesties smilie one - which Bailey has captured perfectly...cheeky

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2014042018300/new-portrait-queen-elizabeth-ii-released/

Posted 21 April 2014
RupertRudd
Photographer
RupertRudd
Rather nice to have a B&W, makes a change. To me it looks a bit "wide" and would have been better if Bailey had taken three or four paces backwards.
Like it.

Did he say, "thats the portrait shots over, now get your kit off and we'll do the heels in the knickers with rose petals next".

Posted 21 April 2014
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
Of course One can only really appreciate the image when One is standing in front of a full size print....
Posted 21 April 2014
Paul_Jones
Photographer
Paul_Jones
I like it.  It makes her look friendly and approachable.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/royalfamily/article4068447.ece








Posted 21 April 2014
Shawry
Photographer
Shawry
Looks to me to be distorted by using wide angle - surely not Mr Bailey?
Posted 21 April 2014
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
If we are to believe he shot it with film as per the borders then his favourite tools are the Rolleiflex 2.8f and the Blad. Looking at the nicks in the corners of the borders I would say 'Blad and he could well have shot it with the 80mm standard lens? Decisions here are do you work closer and have more connection with the subject or drop back for "nicer" perspective but less " chemistry"? If he used the Rollei you only have the standard lens but great human contact without the camera getting in the way. We may never know but I would suggest that there may be only a very few who could deal with the stress of this assignment let alone get such a cracking result. Of course its going to be a great publicity shot but that does not detract from the fact that this comes across as a superb natural portrait? As I said it has the Bailey signature but I think he has really caught her brilliantly and if I were her, I would be dead chuffed
Posted 21 April 2014
CCP
Photographer
CCP
Shawry

Looks to me to be distorted by using wide angle - surely not Mr Bailey?


Someone pointed out on the news it was with a 50mm lens. sad Don't know if that is true or not though.

Posted 21 April 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
CCP

Someone pointed out on the news it was with a 50mm lens. sad Don't know if that is true or not though.



So that'd be around 28mm equivalent (35mm) if shot with a 6x6
Posted 21 April 2014
Shawry
Looks to me to be distorted by using wide angle - surely not Mr Bailey?
have to agree. Rob.
Posted 21 April 2014
w4pictures
Photographer
w4pictures
Maybe that's what Bailey wanted. Wide lens, low angle, job done. Maybe he's not a royalist
Posted 22 April 2014
PaulManuell
Photographer
PaulManuell
Shawry
Looks to me to be distorted by using wide angle
That was my immediate thought, too, when I first saw it.
Posted 22 April 2014
PaulManuell
Photographer
PaulManuell
Shawry
Looks to me to be distorted by using wide angle
That was my immediate thought, too, when I first saw it.
Posted 22 April 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join