Photographer
Digital Czar
Posts: 946
Oak Park, Illinois, US
Michael McGowan wrote:
With the advent of the offset press, it no longer was necessary to put dots in the "white" area. Over time, lots of photographers have used that freedom to blow out highlights intentionally. Sometimes it's well-done, sometimes not so much.
If it draws the eye to what you need to see, it probably worked. If it's just sloppy, it probably didn't.
(Hint, before offset, presses required at least a few dots in highlight areas because the ink would collect in empty areas ... and you'd get black smudges where you wanted highlights. A lot of the "rules" of photography came from that era.) For you to say, "With the advent of the offset press, it no longer was necessary to put dots in the "white" area. " only shows you don't really understand the reproduction process and offset printing(which has nothing really to do with this...)
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
EvergreenPhotography wrote:
It's editorial work, editorial is very rarely, if ever, shot by the clothing company, it's shot by the magazine for the magazine. There's no photo credit so there's no way to know.
The look like Look book shots, not editorial.
Photographer
Herman van Gestel
Posts: 2266
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
There's no photo credit so there's no way to know.
The look like Look book shots, not editorial. *sigh*
it's not ..often the same model in different garments of different labels, photographed the same style....
Photographed by Charlotte Wales | Fashion Editor: Alex Harrington
- Rianne van Rompaey in a Band of Outsiders dress, Prada skirt, Erickson Beamon earrings, and Michael Kors bag and shoes
outside (same photographer and art-director, ringflash)
- Rianne van Rompaey in a Marni top, Chloé pants, and Erickson Beamon earrings (white background, same photographer and art-director)
- Rianne van Rompaey in a Lands’ End vest, Joe Fresh top, Marni skirt, Michael Kors bag, and Erickson Beamon earrings
no lookbook would have outfits of mixed labels....
everywhere same credits of photographer and art-director....often Rianne in different settings...
...not sure where your opinion is coming from....
...Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com
Photographer
Michael McGowan
Posts: 3829
Tucson, Arizona, US
Digital Czar wrote:
For you to say, "With the advent of the offset press, it no longer was necessary to put dots in the "white" area. " only shows you don't really understand the reproduction process and offset printing(which has nothing really to do with this...) It has everything to do with it. The style of shooting shifted with the advent of offset. You could reproduce things that couldn't be done with letterpress. Styles have evolved to the point where people simply ignore a lot of the "old" styles that were developed largely because of limits in reproduction.
Considering I've both etched plates and done offset printing, I kinda know the stuff hands-on, from the late 1960s onward.
Back to the blown highlights. It's a "style" for some people, and they can get away with it in publications now far more easily than they could in the olden days, so some people just push it further and further.
Photographer
Kane
Posts: 1647
London, England, United Kingdom
Thinking Inside The Box wrote:
Are you sure? None of the images there were blown out.
They weren't particularly interesting, but the complaints about blown-out highlights and blending with the background don't seem to be valid for those images. This.
Photographer
Herman van Gestel
Posts: 2266
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
Michael McGowan wrote:
It has everything to do with it. The style of shooting shifted with the advent of offset. You could reproduce things that couldn't be done with letterpress. Styles have evolved to the point where people simply ignore a lot of the "old" styles that were developed largely because of limits in reproduction.
Considering I've both etched plates and done offset printing, I kinda know the stuff hands-on, from the late 1960s onward.
Back to the blown highlights. It's a "style" for some people, and they can get away with it in publications now far more easily than they could in the olden days, so some people just push it further and further. on the one hand what you brought up is interesting , i will look into that too, but doesn't apply to Vogue, as the print run is higher than 100000, so it is printed on rotogravure....
Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com
Photographer
Kelvin Hammond
Posts: 17397
Billings, Montana, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
There's no technical mastery in the zapruder film. The famous Eddie Adams photo doesn't exhibit and special technical mastery.
There's a certain minimum threshold - fundamentals have to be met, but after that point, the content drives everything far more than the technical. I'm a fan of having both, especially so in situations where "couture" is the norm. I mean, if a clothing designer said "it's my artistic style that counts, not my stitching" we'd all laugh. We expect BOTH art and technical quality from a couture designer. We expect less from Kmart, right?
Vogue, at least IMO, is not Kmart... (okay, sometimes it is  ) I think the magazine should be consistent and cohesive in it's offerings. Over the years, as they've cut budgets for photography, you start to see issues come out that are complete crap, and occasionally a really good issue. Perhaps that's how it always was, but when you're new to photography, it all looks good. But after you've had a 30 year career in photography, Vogue isn't as charming as it once was, and a big part of that disappointment is when they offer sub-par photography.
The only mag I still subscribe to is Vanity Fair, and only to see what's new with Annie Liebovitz. Half the time, I go right to whatever she's shot, take a look, and then chuck the magazine out. There's really nothing else in there worth looking at, but Annie hits the mark consistently. I figure $15 a year is well worth it to see her current work.
Retoucher
ST Retouch
Posts: 393
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
If I speak about files from link which I saw here on thread , files are not bad, they are OK , they are technically correct .
If I speak globally about magazines these days , the fact is that files are not like they used to be.
I don't remember when I saw last time some real high fashion world class photography in magazines , except some less/more medium level of work .
High fashion photography means Location ( beside amazing models, dresses, costumes, styling, production and post production ) and what I can see in all magazines are some cheap editorial files captured in local parks, on the street etc.
That is not real high fashion photography, there is no real high fashion photography captured in local park or street without amazing locations and without post production.
More then 50% of files are even without any sky details they don't want even to recover sky details or to replace sky in post production which is a must for any serious photography.
Magazines don't have budgets anymore for real photography and when they offer very modest budget or free work you can expect shots in local parks or cheap look book editorials on the covers called "high fashion editorials" in magazines.
Maybe for some newbies that level of photography is "spectacular" but for any experienced person in this business that level of work has nothing to do with real high fashion photography which we used to see in the past in magazines.
Best to all
Photographer
sunn fotography
Posts: 278
Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
JBerman Photography wrote:
bad photography on MM is crap.
bad photography in Vogue is "art" agree....
Technics and art can go opposite way~~~
Stop bitching... start with the basic technics and work your way up to be the "toppest" photographer. By the time you are there, you can shoot a crapy photo and tell this is "art" and people just follow the way you did!!!
Photographer
Amul La La
Posts: 885
London, England, United Kingdom
Smedley Whiplash wrote:
I only got to #9. The images are boring and the models are bland. The crappy white on white "technical mastery" didn't register because I was put off by the photographer's homage to JCPenney's, which might be more interesting 300 years from now. I'd have to agree.
Photographer
PR Zone
Posts: 897
London, England, United Kingdom
I thought the mono shots outdoors were OK...
...but the editing (magazine - not Photoshop) on the studio ones was highly suspect
Taking a really tall model and having her tip her head etc - as if she is actually too tall for the frame - is pretty cool
But when one photo creates that 'box' - and the next chops off part of the head - and the next frames the model perfectly in a straight-standing pose etc...
...then I start to worry about the layout quality - as if the page designer is trying too hard to 'be the star'
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Herman van Gestel wrote:
*sigh*
it's not ..often the same model in different garments of different labels, photographed the same style....
Photographed by Charlotte Wales | Fashion Editor: Alex Harrington
- Rianne van Rompaey in a Band of Outsiders dress, Prada skirt, Erickson Beamon earrings, and Michael Kors bag and shoes
outside (same photographer and art-director, ringflash)
- Rianne van Rompaey in a Marni top, Chloé pants, and Erickson Beamon earrings (white background, same photographer and art-director)
- Rianne van Rompaey in a Lands’ End vest, Joe Fresh top, Marni skirt, Michael Kors bag, and Erickson Beamon earrings
no lookbook would have outfits of mixed labels....
everywhere same credits of photographer and art-director....often Rianne in different settings...
...not sure where your opinion is coming from....
...Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com Maybe I'm not looking at the same link.
I didn't see any photo credits and the photos don't look like a Vogue produced shoot.
Can you post a link to a page that has the credits?
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Smedley Whiplash wrote:
I'm a fan of having both, especially so in situations where "couture" is the norm. I mean, if a clothing designer said "it's my artistic style that counts, not my stitching" we'd all laugh. We expect BOTH art and technical quality from a couture designer. We expect less from Kmart, right?
Vogue, at least IMO, is not Kmart... (okay, sometimes it is ) I think the magazine should be consistent and cohesive in it's offerings. Over the years, as they've cut budgets for photography, you start to see issues come out that are complete crap, and occasionally a really good issue. Perhaps that's how it always was, but when you're new to photography, it all looks good. But after you've had a 30 year career in photography, Vogue isn't as charming as it once was, and a big part of that disappointment is when they offer sub-par photography.
The only mag I still subscribe to is Vanity Fair, and only to see what's new with Annie Liebovitz. Half the time, I go right to whatever she's shot, take a look, and then chuck the magazine out. There's really nothing else in there worth looking at, but Annie hits the mark consistently. I figure $15 a year is well worth it to see her current work. Having both is ideal.
I just don't think the technical part is relevant in determining whether a photo is good or not since it can go both ways.
Photographer
Image House 2
Posts: 136
Miami, Florida, US
Quality vs quantity, quality vs cost, quality vs apathy, quality vs no one cares, quality vs. very few know the difference. Welcome to 2014.
Photographer
BillyPhotography
Posts: 467
Chicago, Illinois, US
Most of the photogs in vogue daily are papparazi, not sure why you chose that section of a website with millions of pages of content for inspiration of photography work.
|
) I think the magazine should be consistent and cohesive in it's offerings. Over the years, as they've cut budgets for photography, you start to see issues come out that are complete crap, and occasionally a really good issue. Perhaps that's how it always was, but when you're new to photography, it all looks good. But after you've had a 30 year career in photography, Vogue isn't as charming as it once was, and a big part of that disappointment is when they offer sub-par photography.