|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Fashion Photography and what I don't get about it.
Robert Randall wrote: You watched a fearture length movie in 20 minutes? I want to know how to do that. speed reading a movie sounds like fun? Feb 11 09 10:20 am Link Robert Randall wrote: Of all people, a commercial photographer should be quite aware of the subtlety of using an unknown like Crowe to validate a truly raw production style documentary film shot in HD with 5:2 SurroundSound. Feb 11 09 10:28 am Link Smedley Whiplash wrote: The ranks are about to change and some will be left behind. When and old schooler doesn't show respect he may find himself butthurt. Feb 11 09 10:35 am Link Digital Soup wrote: You pointed me to a link that had a movie on it. I watched what they showed me. You don't have to respect anything I say, crunchy or smooth. Feb 11 09 10:36 am Link Robert Randall wrote: But here is the deal. I want to, without any resistance! Feb 11 09 10:39 am Link Digital Soup wrote: My guess is that the show was funded, produced, and shot by old schoolers telling yet another story of murderous surfer dudes innocently caught up in the nefarious underworld, with the will to survive. Feb 11 09 10:40 am Link Digital Soup wrote: Sounds like Utopia. Didn't Orwell discuss this in Animal Farm? Feb 11 09 10:46 am Link Smedley Whiplash wrote: Watch the fuckin movie then come back to me and give me your opinion! Feb 11 09 10:52 am Link MMDesign wrote: As the moral fabric of society corrodes. Things get more competitive! Feb 11 09 10:55 am Link just my 0.000002 cents in commercial 2+2=4 and will always be 4, that explaines why in those real estate catalogs, the head shots will always be somewhat the same, 2+2=4 in fashion 2+2= could be 5 or 3 or maybe just 4. if you look at fashion to have a set of rules then you will have a hard time of seeing what the editor or the company head would, since you insists that its 4 and not 5 or 3 while they do. fashion is about the trends, trends of the target audience and therefore could be 3, 4 or 5, insist on being 4 all the time and it wont be you who would say "you dont get it" but they who would say "you wouldn't get you". there are reasons upon reasons why even though we dont get it and they did, after all, in fashion, we dont wear all the same clothes, do we. you might have a fashion sense of 10 while the company is targeting the 2 or 3, in commercial, everybody looks 10, try looking like a 1 and your jobless tomorrow. in fashion they could be 1 and they're still okay. after all, our 10 for us might be 1 for them. thats why in fashion, the only permanent trend is change, therefore 2+2 is not 4 all the time. Feb 11 09 11:02 am Link Fashion IS commercial. Feb 11 09 11:09 am Link Brooks Ayola wrote: yes, thats true but commercial will never be fashion. therefore, there are differences between the two. Feb 11 09 11:45 am Link Try 'awareness' and whatever works. Marketing brief blah, blah, blah...$, $, $. But how many buy the fashion mags to look at the clothes and be persuaded to buy it ? I look at them for the pic's. I'll confess that I watch fashion TV for the cut and styles of the clothes. Catwalk and no pretty pic's. Feb 11 09 12:21 pm Link Benjie Urbina wrote: I just meant it involved commerce, which is what commercial photography is. Fashion is merely a sub-category of commercial photography. Obviously, the whole can't be equal to one of it's small pieces. Feb 11 09 02:25 pm Link The never-ending quest for complication...and exclusivity in it's understanding. I just wanna say "wow" every now and then...and create a "wow" moment for others occasionally...anybody want a daisy? -Ceek Feb 11 09 03:49 pm Link Mag such as Vogue are for advertisers to stand out from the crowd, a show case for one or two pages amidst other advertisers who are trying to do the same. And by being that bit different they can attain that bit more attention. If an advertiser want to be part of the crowd they'd produce a Walmart type catalogue. That about sums it up. Feb 11 09 04:21 pm Link I think we know that only in-craft personnal see or care about on first impression, " . . . the blacks are all plugged up, the patterns all get lost in the pampas grass backgrounds, the light is so hard you can cut diamonds with it if only you could find them in the images, the highlights are blown so hard even a hooker wouldn't demand payment... " What is seen -- or valued by the artist who produces it -- is some kind of essential content that resonates in some heads whatever melange of experiences, iconography, and attitudes happen to be in it. I'm not much for the repetitive painting of soup cans, say, but Warhol sure had a lot of fun with that pursuit. I've a fine collection of scarves I thankfully forget about every winter--life's complicated enough without tying another knot around my throat, but if someone wants to feteshize that element (and shortened pants and jackets and other PeeWee Herman type perversions (let's not go too far with that), they're going to garner a little attention. How long it lasts, well, we'll see. One can't blame most photographers for wanting photography to be about aesthetics, but (Tiny Time and "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" comes to mind) sometimes the indulgence is about freedom, and there's nothing more indulgent (snoots might say "transgressive", lovely weird popular word, that one) than stealing the freedom to be bad--and turning a few bucks while at it. No one cares about blown highlights while they're full of themselves and creating or adopting (also discarding) popular emblems. Feb 11 09 04:45 pm Link "You go to your closet and you select out, oh I don't know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise, it's not lapis, it's actually cerulean. You're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar De La Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St Laurent, wasn't it, who showed cerulean military jackets? I think we need a jacket here. And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of 8 different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic casual corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff." ~Miranda Priestly Love that movie Feb 11 09 07:46 pm Link Robert Randall wrote: You're kidding about Blondie, right? Please say yes. Feb 11 09 07:57 pm Link Brooks Ayola wrote: That's not a fair categorization. Some parts are esoteric. Feb 12 09 05:40 am Link CEEKuno wrote: Nah, I'd probably shoot my eye out. Feb 12 09 09:25 am Link Having poked my finger into the pie called fashion photography and having a tiny taste, I'm also having a lot of questions come up. Burberry sells a cashmere scarf for nearly $300.00. It's not a particularly attractive scarf. I'm sure it's well-made, maybe not as well made as an 8-yard hand-made wool kilt that might sell for $500.00. http://www.burberryusaonline.com/produc … age=search But somehow Burberry has sold people on the idea that a piece of plaid material is worth $300.00. And somewhere in there is the selling of an image -- a lifestyle -- an attitude or something that people identify with or want to be seen as being a part of to the tune of 300 smackers for a couple of yards of cloth. The question of how that's done is probably far more pedestrian that what Robert is asking. In fact I'm so far down the chain that I'm pretty sure now that I don't have the knowledge to know what I don't know to be able to even grasp what Rob is asking. But this thread has certainly got me thinking and being more observant. Feb 12 09 11:40 am Link Creative Works LLC wrote: Thank you for that; one of the better and more honest statements in this thread. I know that applies to me. And I'd wager it applies to a lot of the people who have posted, though they'd never know or admit it. Feb 12 09 11:50 am Link Robert Randall wrote: The Sartorialist is old and busted. Feb 14 09 10:25 am Link Very interesting thread. I think the simplest way to break it down is that catalog photography is direct communication and fashion is indirect communication. DKNY's choice to use the guy from The Sartorialist says many things. It suggests they're cool from know who's '"in" at the moment. It suggests that their clothes are for people who read the blog or for people who like the idea of clothes that make strangers stop you on the street. They also know that he's going to write about the shoot, so they get free advertising on top of it. There are plenty of reasons beyond who knows who. Jul 19 11 01:21 pm Link Zombie thread. The OP is no longer a member. Jul 19 11 01:22 pm Link I hate to be simplistic, but ever heard the phrase "it's who you blow?" Jul 19 11 01:31 pm Link Stefano Brunesci wrote: And that's the purpose 'is is art, is the photogapher expressing some sorts of creative deep meaning or is total BS'. Jul 19 11 01:38 pm Link  this thread. It was started and finished 2 years ago, and someone had so much time on their hands that they revived it. Jul 19 11 01:45 pm Link What an interesting thread! I personally like his works and admire it because he chooses his "model"/image carefully, he goes for a specific trend or what appeals to him in a fashion sense. Fashion photography is not often understood by all, it's like not everyone understanding cooking. It is highly subjective. Sorry if I went off topic or anything but that's just my thought so far for this thread. I do admire the way he manages to get his "models" to look relaxed in every photo and there's no force into it, they just seem all natural. I have a strong passion for fashion (can't believe I just used that quote). This is because I was influenced by my mum, I believe fashion shows your identity, not just your style. I guess his works are just highly subjective, some like it, some don't. Same with many things, you like it, or you don't. As for his appreciation of his works, that leaves a question to the audience, I like his work because I enjoy looking at the latest trends. As for his photography, it's not perfect, but it did capture a moment of style and the relaxation of the "models" is a +1. Jul 23 11 05:26 am Link  Moderator Warning!Photography by BE wrote: There is nothing inherently wrong with reviving a legitimate thread. Jul 23 11 07:40 pm Link La Seine by the Hudson wrote: Bingo! Jul 23 11 08:45 pm Link I miss Mr Randalls quirky sense if humor. DNO Jul 23 11 09:37 pm Link |
