<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Photography: Leibovitz In Royal Photoshoot Controversy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pebblesfromparadise.com/photography-leibovitz-in-royal-photoshoot-controversy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pebblesfromparadise.com/photography-leibovitz-in-royal-photoshoot-controversy/</link>
	<description>A photo-journal from Amos Bay, Near Marmaris, Turkey</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:42:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Pebbles From Paradise &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Photography: Three Generations</title>
		<link>http://pebblesfromparadise.com/photography-leibovitz-in-royal-photoshoot-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-41883</link>
		<dc:creator>Pebbles From Paradise &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Photography: Three Generations</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:55:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pebblesfromparadise.com/?p=603#comment-41883</guid>
		<description>[...] Sir Roy Strong doesn&#8217;t care for Norman Parkinson&#8217;s triptych portrait of our Queen, her mother, and sister but I think it pure theatre, human at its best, and far better than more recent works by Rankin and Leibovitz. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Sir Roy Strong doesn&#8217;t care for Norman Parkinson&#8217;s triptych portrait of our Queen, her mother, and sister but I think it pure theatre, human at its best, and far better than more recent works by Rankin and Leibovitz. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Bray</title>
		<link>http://pebblesfromparadise.com/photography-leibovitz-in-royal-photoshoot-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-41600</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Bray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:47:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pebblesfromparadise.com/?p=603#comment-41600</guid>
		<description>I am a royalist, but I also think that this image by Ms. Leibovitz although technically good really is in the style of another era. It&#039;s very much in the tradition of C19 oil portraiture, rather than photography. It conveys our Queen imprisoned in the pomp of her monarchy. 

Actually I disagree totally with Sir Roy Strong. He is critical of Norman Parkinson&#039;s triptych of the Queen, her mother, and her sister which I think combined both the power and human-scale of the monarchy appropriately.

Cecil Beaton&#039;s classic photograph of the early monarch is also a more pleasing image. Rankin&#039;s image says more about Rankin than the Queen.

Stephen BRAY

&lt;strong&gt;P.S.&lt;/strong&gt; I have looked at your web-site. I suspect that the College of Arms hasn&#039;t approved the &#039;device&#039; you have posted there, and if this is the case they would be within their rights in asking that you remove it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a royalist, but I also think that this image by Ms. Leibovitz although technically good really is in the style of another era. It&#8217;s very much in the tradition of C19 oil portraiture, rather than photography. It conveys our Queen imprisoned in the pomp of her monarchy. </p>
<p>Actually I disagree totally with Sir Roy Strong. He is critical of Norman Parkinson&#8217;s triptych of the Queen, her mother, and her sister which I think combined both the power and human-scale of the monarchy appropriately.</p>
<p>Cecil Beaton&#8217;s classic photograph of the early monarch is also a more pleasing image. Rankin&#8217;s image says more about Rankin than the Queen.</p>
<p>Stephen BRAY</p>
<p><strong>P.S.</strong> I have looked at your web-site. I suspect that the College of Arms hasn&#8217;t approved the &#8216;device&#8217; you have posted there, and if this is the case they would be within their rights in asking that you remove it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: our-royals</title>
		<link>http://pebblesfromparadise.com/photography-leibovitz-in-royal-photoshoot-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-41412</link>
		<dc:creator>our-royals</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:24:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pebblesfromparadise.com/?p=603#comment-41412</guid>
		<description>this picture shows the power of the queen, totally different to that of most other images of past monarchs</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this picture shows the power of the queen, totally different to that of most other images of past monarchs</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Bray</title>
		<link>http://pebblesfromparadise.com/photography-leibovitz-in-royal-photoshoot-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-16577</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Bray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:53:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pebblesfromparadise.com/?p=603#comment-16577</guid>
		<description>Chris,

Bless you. You have made a good point in drawing attention that Annie Leibovitz and The Queen deplore the misrepresentation of this photoshoot.

Personally, I think Ms. Leibovitz images are far too theatrical and dramatic. They are not representative of either Elizabeth, or the Monarch, however, technically they are difficult to fault.

Stephen</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris,</p>
<p>Bless you. You have made a good point in drawing attention that Annie Leibovitz and The Queen deplore the misrepresentation of this photoshoot.</p>
<p>Personally, I think Ms. Leibovitz images are far too theatrical and dramatic. They are not representative of either Elizabeth, or the Monarch, however, technically they are difficult to fault.</p>
<p>Stephen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Cheesman</title>
		<link>http://pebblesfromparadise.com/photography-leibovitz-in-royal-photoshoot-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-16576</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Cheesman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:45:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pebblesfromparadise.com/?p=603#comment-16576</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Annie Leibovitz&#039;s UK agent has criticised elements of the press for its sensationalist coverage of the photographer&#039;s portrait session with The Queen following the BBC&#039;s TV editing mix-up.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Neil Burgess, the founder of NB Pictures, said he was already &#039;pretty angry&#039; at the portrayal of Liebovitz as depicted in the trailer for the upcoming documentary.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, he told Amateur Photographer magazine that his fury was further intensified by subsequent newspaper coverage of the furore.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Though Leibovitz has so far maintained a &#039;dignified silence&#039; on the matter, Burgess, the UK representative of the American&#039;s picture agency Contact Press Images, told us: &#039;I was pretty angry about Annie being slagged off, but mostly about the state of our press where this so-called story made the front page of the Sun [yesterday] and the Daily Mail [today].&#039;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Mail focused on the BBC&#039;s apology to The Queen.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Burgess also condemned makers of such TV programmes for appearing to treat the recording of history as &#039;some sort of game show&#039;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The BBC and production company RDF are understood to have apologised to both The Queen and Annie Leibovitz for the editing blunder.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As we reported earlier, BBC One&#039;s controller said he has no plans to resign over the matter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For details click here:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Queen_error_BBC_One_boss_speaks_out_news_129060.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BBC man speaks out&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Annie Leibovitz&#8217;s UK agent has criticised elements of the press for its sensationalist coverage of the photographer&#8217;s portrait session with The Queen following the BBC&#8217;s TV editing mix-up.</p>
<p>Neil Burgess, the founder of NB Pictures, said he was already &#8216;pretty angry&#8217; at the portrayal of Liebovitz as depicted in the trailer for the upcoming documentary.</p>
<p>However, he told Amateur Photographer magazine that his fury was further intensified by subsequent newspaper coverage of the furore.</p>
<p>Though Leibovitz has so far maintained a &#8216;dignified silence&#8217; on the matter, Burgess, the UK representative of the American&#8217;s picture agency Contact Press Images, told us: &#8216;I was pretty angry about Annie being slagged off, but mostly about the state of our press where this so-called story made the front page of the Sun [yesterday] and the Daily Mail [today].&#8217;</p>
<p>The Mail focused on the BBC&#8217;s apology to The Queen.</p>
<p>Burgess also condemned makers of such TV programmes for appearing to treat the recording of history as &#8216;some sort of game show&#8217;.</p>
<p>The BBC and production company RDF are understood to have apologised to both The Queen and Annie Leibovitz for the editing blunder.</p>
<p>As we reported earlier, BBC One&#8217;s controller said he has no plans to resign over the matter.</p>
<p>For details click here:<br />
<a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Queen_error_BBC_One_boss_speaks_out_news_129060.html" rel="nofollow">BBC man speaks out</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

