Kendall Jenner Talks to Jimmy Fallon About Photography, Gives Him Some Pointers

Most of us don’t typically associate fashion model and reality television star Kendall Jenner with photography yet. During her recent appearance on NBC’s "The Tonight Show," she had a few pointers for host Jimmy Fallon.

Jenner is one of several celebrities that have received attention for their careers in photography. To the surprise of some, she has managed to put together a professional photography portfolio which includes several magazine covers and one of the most liked accounts on Instagram (2015’s most liked account, in fact).

In her recent "Tonight Show" appearance, Jenner talks to Fallon about her roots in photography and also discusses her images that have made the cover of Love Magazine. To the delight of the audience, Jenner manages to provide a few modeling tips to Fallon, who is known for being a tad bit camera-shy, while snapping a few shots of him with her newest camera. Fallon then introduces Jenner to an iPhone and manages to grab a few selfies with the model-turned-photographer. 

Having been photographed by some of the fashion industry's leading photographers, Jenner should have some insight into how a high-end fashion set should look and feel. Do you think that experience is enough for her to carve out a place in a saturated fashion photography industry as a photographer?

Log in or register to post comments


Can we stop feeding into the b.s. of making unqualified untalented people famous?

Dusty Wooddell's picture

Just out of curiosity, what do you feel would make her qualified?

Oh I dunno, maybe actually dedicating herself to the craft of photography for a number of years? Not being a model, or a diverting her energy to being a celebrity? She's put in absolutely no work for her accolades and opportunities she's receiving.

Dusty Wooddell's picture

Not to defend her too gallantly, but she's only 21. Not many years of anything under her belt really.

Sorry her age is not an excuse look at JoeyL, Lara Jade, Emily Soto just to name a few... all photographers around her age that are doing remarkable work and have done so since their teens.

Dusty Wooddell's picture

I don't think anyone is comparing her to Joey Lawrence, who has to be nearing 30 by now

Correct... the point being address is just because she is 21 doesn't mean she could not have accumulated the knowledge.... all those photogs mentioned started in their teens to become what they are today... as John noted they honed their craft before they got their big breaks.

On the flip side the fact that she is seen as an "influencer" and social media influencers are the in thing for brands today.... it makes sense that she'd get opportunities even before her skills have fully matured.

Pat Black's picture

Joey L, is 27 and has been huge in the industry for how long? that guy was shooting since he was born

Pat Black's picture

like I have to assume this is how any cartoon feels when the simpsons have already done it. "oh look at this epic shoot I just did! wait Joey L did it when he was 21 and did it better" damn

Miguel de Cervantes was around 60 years old when he published Don Quixote. Does that make his work less qualified? No. Yes, she'll get the spotlight easier because she's famous, but as we can see she's not a shit photographer. If she picked it up just now as a hobby because she's spent her life on TV or modeling, I don't see what's wrong with that.

Not sure of the correlation here about Cervantes and if directed toward my response. But, in reply he actually honded his craft through writing other works non published and published (ex. La Galatea) prior to his seminal work on Don Quixote. It's not a matter of being less qualified my point was for us not to use age as an excuse for lack of knowledge or technique (hope that clears it up).

Actually, her work is quite basic and amateurish. If it wasn't a for a good editor and a team to set up, she'd just be another normal person with a camera pushing a button.

Can you honestly say the photos they show are bad or are you so prejudiced you don't think someone who's famous for being on TV can have talents?

I've seen her work, I don't think she has any more talent than every other early 20's kid who picked up a rebel and a fast prime lens. She just has access to teams of trained creatives who can edit and guide her work.

She isn't a photographer, she's a button pusher.

Randy Smith's picture

Who decides what's qualified? I got into photographer a year and a half ago and make close to six figures. Does that make me a fake photographer?

Dragan Jereminov's picture

seeing your stuff makes me wonder how...

Monetary success and fidelity in the work due to acquired and practiced skill are not linked together. I know plenty of mediocre to amateur photographers that make a living on nothing more than a good camera, auto-correct, and purchased plug-ins.

That doesn't make them good photographers, just good button pushers who can sell themselves; And I agree with Dragen's statement above.

Ye TZ's picture

You can come back here and say this again when you are better than her at popularity.
This is life and you can not measure by anything. there's no standard.
Peter Hurley also used to be a model and now a great head shot photographer.

Anonymous's picture

No comment! :-)

Daniel Herrera's picture

Personally, I'll always be sceptical of celebrities and their "photography endeavours".

Some have down really nice work and were/are very serious. In the were category, Yul Bruner stands out. He often had multiple cameras around his neck on sets. Jeff Bridges also has some really nice work. His photos are unusual and often dramatic because he uses a Widelux. A shame he didn't get into photography when doing Thunderbolt and Lightfoot.

Dusty Wooddell's picture

Jeff Bridges is cool AF

He seems like a nice guy. I've enjoyed his roles, starting with Thunderbolt and Lightfoot.

Dusty Wooddell's picture

My favorite bank robbery movie ever! I'm a big Clint Eastwood fan and it was my intro to Jeff Bridges as well

I'm sceptical as well. The first thing she did was switch the camera flash on. She is in a TV studio where the one thing she is not short of is light, and she switches the camera flash on! OK, now for colour balance. The studio lights may not be daylight balanced, so and camera flash colour would be a different.

So me thinks, she may not be technically accomplished and thatshe has a really good "assistant" who sets up the shots for her. However, her photographs, however they are produced, do have a nice 'feel' to them.

Anonymous's picture

It actually depends on the studio. I would agree that Fallon's studio is probably pretty bright, but I was at f/2.8 & ISO 800 to hit 1/125s for the shot below. I would have preferred to be at f/8 for DOF and more like 1/200s as some shots had motion blur, but the light was about 4 stops shy of that and much dimmer than expected. Other studios I've shot have been fairly dark as well.

I hear what you are saying. But switching on the flash means she gets a better exposer not a better picture. I hear what you are saying. But switching on the flash means she gets a better exposer not a better picture. Also, what about the colour balance?

I somehow do not think we will get to see the result of this portrait.

Anonymous's picture

I definitely understand and it does seem like a bit of a rookie thing on her part, but she is young. I'm sure you're right about us seeing the shot, too. When I've shot in the studios, the bigger concern for me is usually the shutter sound. The producers get really nervous about that...even though the lavalier mics don't pick it up from that distance. And obviously flash use is a no go, needless to say.

It's a compact, fixed lens film camera. They're not exactly known for their fast aperture. And we don't know which ISO is on that film.

More comments