|
c_h_r_i_s wrote: In that sense, yes, fashion per-se is about clothes. We've come to associate the word 'fashion' with what people wear. Apr 16 13 02:43 am Link In part of my reply I'd quoted R. Avedon also from someone who works in the fashion industry. Some catalogue photography makes Vogue look cheap. Apr 16 13 02:45 am Link -B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote: That was just a simplistic explanation I gave. Apr 16 13 05:37 am Link Does fashion photography have to have a model in it ? Apr 16 13 06:45 am Link -B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote: I don't, and don't want to, shoot fashion but I have always wondered exactly what defined it. Thanks, Stefano. That was clear enough for even me to understand. Apr 17 13 11:37 am Link I really just don't see fashion in your portfolio at all. I don't want to buy anything the models are wearing  My advice is to perhaps look for weirder, less conventionally pretty models who have a good wardrobe and let them show you how it's done! Less sunshine, more focused lighting and collaboration. There needs to be feeling behind the pictures, not just pretty smiles. All of these shots are very good for the models if they want to have a great facebook profile, but not very good for booking them or you any real fashion work. Keep doing your research, keep shooting what you love and maybe you'll discover that "fashion" isn't really what you want to shoot after all! Your work is only great if it keeps you and your subjects happy  Apr 17 13 11:47 am Link I have seen work from professional fashion photographers where the model is almost naked. It's usually about the clothes and makeup, but I have seen some so called "fashion" photos that are borderline glamour. Where do you draw the line? The facial expressions in fashion seem to be more serious or pouty too. I mostly shoot portrait and glamour, but I remember doing one shoot with a model where she was wearing a nice dress and in a few of the shots she was holding a handbag. It started off as a portrait/glamour shoot, but some of the photos looked more like fashion to me. I also did a portrait shoot outdoors where the model tried on a few different outfits. The first was jeans and a t-shirt. Then she put on a lovely yellow dress. No complications so far. But the third outfit was a pair of very short shorts and a tank top, so there was a lot more flesh on display. I remember thinking to myself, "Hymm... should I put this in my portrait album or my glamour album?" May 05 13 02:28 am Link 1. I don't see any fashion photography. 2. Despite #1. I love the series of the woman in the Boho dress. Those images are well captured. 3. This is my least favorite.  Too plain for me. May 05 13 03:46 am Link c_h_r_i_s wrote: Indeed May 05 13 06:18 am Link Would you consider these images fashion or glamour or a bit of both? http://www.markderoophotography.com/PFstudio.php May 05 13 01:25 pm Link I see no fashion May 05 13 02:19 pm Link c_h_r_i_s wrote: No May 05 13 02:20 pm Link Most the styles are in right now but the big name fashion companies are getting ready for their fall lines now so it's skinny people in heavy coats, dark colors, couture, and no smiles. I personally don't like the idea of a select few names telling me what to wear and apparently neither do a lot of people. Smaller cities are starting to rise up in the fashion world and times are changing. Here in Tampa there's a big boom for reconstructed, urban, and year round summer-wear. You hardly ever see anyone in the New York, LA, London, or even the vomit coming out of Miami. Each region, body type, and culture has it's own fashion now. The newer pics you have posted would fit in great here. It all depends on what you plan on pursing. If it's big name fashion then you will want to stick with the more rigid rules. If it's local designers and rising fashion you are heading in the right direction and they certainly don't look like any senior pictures I've ever seen. May 05 13 03:53 pm Link Original Sin Photos wrote: As others have mentioned, your work looks more like portraiture than fashion (either editorial or commercial). Have a look at the links Brunesci provided, and rethink the emphasis of your shoots: It should be about the clothes, the accessories, the shoes, the style, the trend for that season - the model is merely one element in all of it, not the focal point. Fashion photography is highly creative, but it's also all about selling things. c_h_r_i_s wrote: No. It's known as off-figure. Aymee Chantelle wrote: They aren't trying to tell you what to wear, they're trying to get you to buy their stuff, just like every other industry out there. If enough people, like you, don't like what a major label is offering, they'll spend millions on market research figuring out what you do like. May 05 13 04:57 pm Link c_h_r_i_s wrote: Nope, just say two great campaigns from Brooks Brothers and Ralph Lauren that do not. Off Figure is usually part of a larger campaign mind you, but its part of fashion and very common in accessories May 05 13 05:12 pm Link Your centering the model is a turn off (personally), except for the spinning dress image,,just something to think about. I do agree you do not have the 'fashion look', study it then shoot it... May 05 13 05:29 pm Link -B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote: I have to agree with Stefano. There is no fashion in your port. Sorry. May 05 13 09:29 pm Link I look at your photos and think, "Ba-donka-donk." Have you considered hooking up with fashion designers? It's not that you don't have good portraiture work. But,.... May 06 13 03:55 pm Link Jorge Kreimer wrote: In fact some of H. Newton's work was quiet ordinary catalogue type images. Mostly what you see of his work is show case. May 06 13 04:44 pm Link c_h_r_i_s wrote: Actually most of what we see from really amazing photograhers are their personal projects and not what pays the bills every week. May 06 13 04:53 pm Link |
