La Seine by the Hudson wrote:
You know, what a lot of you who have recently come in here and denigrated the fashion world from the outside have said is honestly not 100%, but neither is it anywhere near 100% true, either.

All that can really be taken from much of that is that you don't like it, and that you weren't their intended demographic. I mean if I were to turn on Oxygen, I'd see a lot of ads and a lot of shows that I'd find contemptuous or boring, but they weren't producing that for me.

my point exactly.

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:

It does to a point sum up a healthy chunk of the fashion world that I don't play particularly well with, if that makes any sense to you.

Definitely makes sense. When the right people and the right magazines endorse something, a new trend just materializes... I hate trends, who the hell said Crocs look good?

Photograph Danbury wrote:

Definitely makes sense. When the right people and the right magazines endorse something, a new trend just materializes... I hate trends, who the hell said Crocs look good?

Yes, but I'm not big on "trends." They mean little to me. I prefer "style."

Nate K wrote:
I think almost all fashion photography is about selling a lifestyle and not necessarily a piece of clothing. When I go to Scotts blog(which I have been doing regularly for quite a while) I'm always thinking about how he makes everyone look really cool. From young men and women to people over 60. They all look stylish and flattery, never have a seen images from him that look forced. His photos don't try to be anything at all, which is what makes them have something. It's just normal people in well put together outfits. The irony I personally feel about "fashion photography" is that its more about the person wearing the outfit in a stylish manner rather than the outfit making the person.

Nate, I think you are on to something here. Schuman is about his column and blog, the photos he takes are simple illustrations for him to show what he's talking about. I don't think he's ever presented himself as doing anything else. We here in these discussions about him are making him out to somehow be a threat to good photography. Hardly. Here's the way it works, you pull up his blog or open your GQ and come across his column, you read it, you look at the pictures to see what he's talking about, you take it in, and move on. There really isn't much to discuss about his work in and of itself, rather I'm sure he'd want you to use his images as a vehicle for a discussion on current fashion trends, but not photography or art.

Robert Randall wrote:

Your assessment of me is accurate to a point. I view most of what I see through the eyes of a competitor, which is a lot of what I am. I see what my competition is doing and who among them is succeeding at what. None of them that shoot in the style you called out is doing very well. There was a move afoot to dumb down commercial images, but it faltered a while ago and things seem to be going along as normally as they ever do. We haven't been influenced to a great degree by Dave Hill looks, and Fiscus by his own admission is tired of his post process look.

So, while I appreciate Meisel, I just today saw Steven Kleins web site. His moving images of Brad Pitt are pretty cool to view, and they are in a similar style to what you've described for your concept of fashion, except they have more substance in my eyes. There is a grit finish to them that adds an allure that most low end fashion images, to my eyes, don't have. (I'm going to use the term LOW END to describe them, mostly because I don't have any other reference that isn't insulting, and I don't want to insult, I want to learn).

Fair enough. I wouldn't claim your point is unvalid. Much of what it sounds like you dislike I honestly like a hell of a lot more than either Meisel or Klein, though. Certainly not all of it, however.

What about Deborah Turbeville? What about Paolo Roversi? What about Peter Lindbergh? What about Horst Diekgerdes? What about Javier Vallhonrat? I mean, certainly it would vary from work-to-work, but each of these photographers has a fairly identifiable sensibility that they're more-or-less consistently exploring, such that whatever editorial or ad that you're thinking of would probably make for an analysis where I know what you're referring to, even if I haven't seen it or I'm thinking of another. (And yes, those are all photographers I like very much, by the way, though Vallhonrat is definitely the odd man out in terms of his priorities and sensibilities.)

Robert Randall wrote:
It doesn't surprise me in than I've heard it before, but the reasoning still eludes me. For instance, please elaborate on how a commercial look hurts a fashion image.

Bob, I suspect that there is a changing of the guard. I think you need to maybe get out and away from the chemicals or maybe there is something being fead into your air conditioning?

This guy is not a threat to your business nor is there a conspiracy behind the fashion scam that is ,,,whats his name? See I have already forgotten it. What I think you may be missing here and I am jumping out on a limb. This guy has friends in the business. He has been watching it for a while and he has decided to play a new angle.?

I look at his images in that blog as reference of what he looks for that is stylish. Like when scouting a location, you take pics of an area for reference. He has clearly shown that he has an eye for trend. I doubt that DKNY is trying to sell the details of a particular garment with this type of add. Maybe they want their adds subdued? Maybe they want grunge! Maybe they will expect a much higher product from the guy? Only time will tell if he has what it takes to put a team together and deliver the final product.


I see where you are coming from but I also see that you maybe over-thinking this as well?

Maybe he will bring you on as a consultant, this guy that is gonna do the DKNY ad campaign that I cant even remember his name????

Publicity stunts sometimes go badd?

Nate K wrote:
I think almost all fashion photography is about selling a lifestyle and not necessarily a piece of clothing. (etc.)

I've been saying this and things very similar to this on this very website over and over again for the past, oh, 4 years? I don't think more than a teeny handful have heard me, and fewer have given it much ear at that.

I'm glad that somebody got the point, whether or not they got it from me.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
There are no rules.

Only those the client imposes in the end, again fashion photography is a branch of commercial photography, you can give your input about the project, but the client has the last word.

Robert Randall wrote:
So here is my conundrum, and it took less time to get to than I thought it would.

To me, everything you've said sounds like a cop out. It sounds as if you want to walk into a scene, accept what it gives you, and not work any harder than breathing, while you shoot away. In a crap shoot sense, some of the images may turn out magnificently if you catch things just at the right moment, but for the most part, they will be sub par. Shadows will cause ugly hidden parts, highlights will be blown out, patterns will conflict. Its as if you celebrate the total loss of control, and the resulting bad images they produce. All of that is fine if its what you want, but how do you get people to buy it on a consistent basis.

Except that I get the essential style statement I'm trying to make time and again. Most don't.

Different priorities, Bob. Your thinking is too much in terms of product. You're more concerned with portraying product than you are with creating a world. Fashion NEEDS that world or else it really is all about The Emperor's Clothes. From a certain point of view, you're entirely right, of course. From another, you're completely missing the point, hence this thread, hence the lack of agreement on, well, anything. It's like saying that Tiger Woods sucks because you've never seen him dunk. Not that I'm Tiger Woods, but the point remains.

You can strip me of my title of "photographer" and instead call me "a photojournalist of people wearing clothes" if you like, though you'd be missing the point. It wouldn't change much. And frankly I CAN light, and I CAN fuss, but the means are at cross-purposes with the intended result. Hell, I studied table-top for several years before I ended up shooting fashion. Not that I was a table-top master, but strobes and modifiers and moving and posing products minutely so that everything's perfect and thinking in terms of 1/6th stop pulls is not exactly new to me. It just doesn't fit with what I need to do anymore. I didn't develop that to your level, but that's because I haven't needed to. I've had other sensibilities that I've had to develop. Those don't rate highly on your scale. That's ok.

Like I'd said, your lighting, which is fantastic, would not work well at all for what I shoot. I most likely wouldn't get anything useful out of the shoot at all, it would severely constrain the sense of mood. For the same reason, stylists often tend to fuck my shit up as much as they tend to help with all their fussing. Ok, so the patterns don't clash and the dress hangs just right. Fabulous. Except now the romance of the moment is dead in that 18 year-old Russian girls' eyes, and nothing's going to bring it back. I could get her to simulate it, and I do, but it's just not the same. It's not about crafting a "picture." It's about creating a WORLD.

And I fully understand your point on an earlier post about the whole "competitor" thing. My wife (who hates fashion) definitely wishes I'd think like that. As for myself... it's just not in me. I leave that to you guys.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Well know brands don't need to show a product in every detail it's more to do with the image they portray. The logo is usually tucked somewhere in the corner of the adv.

Guiness TV advertising only showed the product at the end the ad. had nothing to do with the drink.. but won a lot of awards.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nnMl_EXYPx0

Scott Schuman's maybe radical is to stronger word. His Gap shots rock.

You're so right about this! Look at A&F they're a clothing brand yet they sell sex rather than clothes, most of the time they have nude models as the faces of their campaigns..
It's all on the brand and how they want to portray their product.. I don't think it's fair to group fashion into one category.. the amazing thing about it is that it lends itself to so many interpretations . It should remain that way.

Robert Randall wrote:
It doesn't surprise me in than I've heard it before, but the reasoning still eludes me. For instance, please elaborate on how a commercial look hurts a fashion image.

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:
It cheapens it. It places it in the realm of the mundane...

So you're saying commercialism would MAKE those pics mundane.  But they're not mundane now?  Mundane defines most of those pics, with one or two exceptions.  Bottom line, it's the fashion, the non-descript location, and the overcast skies that create the picture.  I honestly believe the 9 year old daughter of a guy I work with (who also makes a great assistant at weddings, by the way) could take 93% of those pictures.  Possibly better.  Fine, I don't get it.  I don't want to get it.  I'm kind of glad I don't get it.  I wouldn't accept money to do it.  I'm glad someone else gets it, and I'm glad they get paid to crank it out.  I am also glad someone carts my trash off every Thursday morning.  I'm not drawing a quality parallel, I'm just saying the money doesn't make it worth it.

Robert Randall wrote:
Its unfortunate the "Photographer becomes famous by blog" thread was killed, because I think I was maybe getting somewhere. My problem stems from how differently many view fashion images. There can be a pristine editorial story by Steven Meisel that just simply kicks ass, in the same magazine as a story by some unknown horrible photographer, the images of which makes me want to vomit.

When I voice my opinion about the horrible images, many come to their defense with a statement saying that I simply don't get what goes on in the fashion world, and there fore I can't be expected to appreciate the art I'm viewing. I say bunk, they say elitist... off to war we go.

So, when 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... why do you defend it? What am i not getting.

Can we use Scott Schuman again as an example to argue about, and this time no fighting?

http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/

Oh, I forgot, the thing that prompted this post was something someone said in the other post about how Schuman finds subjects that stand out sartorially. That part I get. I also get what he is doing with his blog and the incumbent pictures on it. What I don't get is why DKNY hired him to shoot a campaign for them.

Can we play nice this time? I promise I will try my hardest to as well.

Frankly I like his work. It is simple and quite interesting. You can like or dislike anyone's work, but you cannot judge whether it is worthy.

Laura Ann Nudes wrote:
I'm going to watch this thread like I watched the other one.

I'm immensely interested in what everyone has to say about this.

Although, throwing this out there, perhaps DKNY asked Scott Schuman to shoot the campaign simply because of the notoriety.  If what I read in the other thread is correct, Scott has quite the following, and there are people who do believe his work offers something that others don't.

Is it possible that DKNY wasn't thinking about patterns or texture, but only about appealing to a group of people that they thought the images might appeal to.  If Schuman has the following that I'm lead to believe he does, perhaps DKNY assumed that consumers would also like the image and would feel compelled to build their products.

But really, that's just my stab in the dark, and fashion photography isn't something I claim to know.

Bingo.  I agree.  DKNY sells clothes not art.

However..

Some shooters crave light.  Some crave attitude. Some crave beautiful subjects.  Some crave rule-breaking (and in art, there's a good case to be made for that...although sounds like the OP doesn't think so, much).

Shulman craves style in everyday life.  And even more the personal VARIATIONS in style.  And that's as valid an approach as any.   I don't know if it's his technique (or lack some might say), that you don't like...but the man has a sense of style in the selection of his subjects that's amazingly acute.  He's done his homework, most of his adult life, sounds like.

And if you back up and look at his photos/blog/attitude he's DEFINING style, in a way.  What is it?  How does it work?  WHY does it work? 

Sounds as worthwhile as any photo endeavor, don't you think?  Just as art?

And in fashion..that's gold.

B

martinimages wrote:
Bingo.  I agree.  DKNY sells clothes not art.

However..

Some shooters crave light.  Some crave attitude. Some crave beautiful subjects.  Some crave rule-breaking (and in art, there's a good case to be made for that...although sounds like the OP doesn't think so, much).

Shulman craves style in everyday life.  And even more the personal VARIATIONS in style.  And that's as valid an approach as any.   I don't know if it's his technique (or lack some might say), that you don't like...but the man has a sense of style in the selection of his subjects that's amazingly acute.  He's done his homework, most of his adult life, sounds like.

And if you back up and look at his photos/blog/attitude he's DEFINING style, in a way.  What is it?  How does it work?  WHY does it work? 

Sounds as worthwhile as any photo endeavor, don't you think?  Just as art?

And in fashion..that's gold.

B

Ah! There we go! Bravo!

(For the record, I'm not terribly fond of Shulman's work, personally, for reasons different than most here or on the other thread have expressed, and I don't have any reason to get into here, and certainly doesn't diminish his work; again, differing priorities. But it IS pretty highly evolved; there can be no doubt of that if you know what to look for, and what to look for is pretty much what you've just said.)

Robert Randall wrote:
So here is my conundrum, and it took less time to get to than I thought it would.

To me, everything you've said sounds like a cop out. It sounds as if you want to walk into a scene, accept what it gives you, and not work any harder than breathing, while you shoot away. In a crap shoot sense, some of the images may turn out magnificently if you catch things just at the right moment, but for the most part, they will be sub par. Shadows will cause ugly hidden parts, highlights will be blown out, patterns will conflict. Its as if you celebrate the total loss of control, and the resulting bad images they produce. All of that is fine if its what you want, but how do you get people to buy it on a consistent basis.

Aren't you defining excellence in photography as how much the photographer "works" (read, manipulates) the scene to get an image?  That IS a technical approach..and it's hardly all there is to it.  Any artist's sensibility way outweighs his ability to 'fill shadows' or expose highlights correctly.  You get how to do that in your first 10,000 shots.  If you're still stuck on THAT stuff as the criteria for good work, you're limiting your own vision, and preoccupying yourself with the tiny details.   And believe me, that's the least of the concerns of the fashion business.

B

photobymhanly wrote:
I feel photography is ruled by those with marketing and Networking ability and that
"the cream really doesnt often rise to the top"  I really feel that fashion takes this to a whole new level.  "impact" is one of the catch words that seems so mispalaced, "Edgy" is another.  All too often I see some talentless hack puke up a scene of a drug addict sprawled on the floor in a $4000 Dress. ooh la al  How daring.  Quite frankly I think fashion is all about who ya know and who ya blow!

"...talentless hack"?

VisualRamblings wrote:
As far as fashion itself goes... how important can something that changes with the seasons actually be?

You mean--like Earth?  Planet third closest to the Sun?

Brian Ziff wrote:

You mean--like Earth?  Planet third closest to the Sun?

You know exactly what I mean. In three decades or two or even five years from now, what difference is the DKNY campaign, Scott Schuman or his blog gonna make. Of what importance is he or what he is doing?

It is a bunch of grown up kids playing on a very expensive playground yelling look at me.

hobson fotografie wrote:
so he shoots based on the tailoring and shaping in the clothing he admires in everyday people,

Which is EXACTLY what I'm loving about it....Whether or not it's true, there is the appearance of "everyday" people- with their OWN sense of style, and the way THEY put the clothes together, and as he crosses paths with them, they are shot on the spot. The colors, the composition, the groupings...(I LOVE the set of photos of people walking AWAY from the camera..)
Now me, I don't "get" Jurgen Teller He just makes people look ugly, in my opinion.... But there you go. Terry Richardson...How many ways can you reference a penis in one shoot? (I think the work he's doing for GQ recently is AWFUL!) It's all just a matter it taste, though....It's like saying, "How can you POSSIBLY date someone with blond hair? What are you, CRAZY?"