VisualRamblings wrote:
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.

I can think of many groups of bigger kids playing with much more expensive equipment yelling "look at me."

If you look at the way you dressed two years ago...five years ago...three decades ago (age providing)...i guarantee it was pretty different than the way you dress now.

The fashion industry dictates that to a large degree.

And, if I may, using our friend Earth as an example once again, what the fuck does anything matter?  We're just passing through.  Let's relax a little and enjoy a touch of superficiality from time to time.

Minor Threat:


Major Threat:

Eduardo Frances wrote:
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.

(Editorial) Fashion photography is a branch of commercial photography? Sigh.

No.



Marco's involvement here reminds me of the Gecko discussing Geico's program for older drivers with the women at the golf course. My friend, you are entering dangerous waters................

Bob's admiration for the work of Steven Meisel is understandable, both are wonderful craftsmen. I admire Meisel as well, but for reasons most here would be unfamiliar with. What did Eastwood say in the movie, "a man's got to know his own limitations"? What Steven did with the Madonna "Sex" book told me most clearly he knows who he is, and is comfortable with that.

I can't really help in a few words, or even a lot (lot) of words (although that hasn't stopped me in the past). Suffice it to say that first you have to accept that the audience for editorial fashion photography is (primarily) women. They bore easily. Editorial fashion photography is the flashy lure that brings the desired audience to the magazines so the advertisers can beat them to death with advertising. Most of what you dislike or find unintelligible in fashion is just the spice that keeps the main course from eventually tasting like an English dinner. The main course is ideas, ideas that challenge, stimulate, and even frighten the mind.

Men like Playboy. In color, full frontal, and beautifully crafted. It is almost impossible to bore men. One black and white cover photo in 55 years (Cindy Crawford, 1987). Once you get this essential difference between men and women you begin to understand why Editorial Fashion Photography is one of the few things worthy of an adult's attention. The goal line is always moving, the closer you get to it, the exponentially harder it is to make further progress. The journey is exhilarating but exhausting, most burn out rather quickly, take their "winnings" and if lucky settle into a happy commercial retirement (or move to LA and do celebrity portraits).

Editorial fashion photography is ultimately a young man/woman's business, fashion requires a flexible mind. I have trouble recalling an important editorial fashion photographer who did not make their mark early, then lived off that for the rest of their career(s). Fashion photography at it's core is art, the physical manifestation of an emotion. You must first feel the emotion, then figure out how you will construct the physical manifestation that allows others to feel your emotion. That's why looking at fashion photography as a craft which can be reduced to it's essential elements is futile. Craft is involved most certainly, but craft alone is not enough, and may actually get in the way. Marko may have said all of this better than I have, but he is young, and sadly I get that.

Fish
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida  33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

John Fisher wrote:
(Editorial) Fashion photography is a branch of commercial photography? Sigh.

No.

Marco's involvement here reminds me of the Gecko discussing Geico's program for older drivers with the women at the golf course. My friend, you are entering dangerous waters................

Bob's admiration for the work of Steven Meisel is understandable, both are wonderful craftsmen. I admire Meisel as well, but for reasons most here would be unfamiliar with. What did Eastwood say in the movie, "a man's got to know his own limitations"? What Steven did with the Madonna "Sex" book told me most clearly he knows who he is, and is comfortable with that.

I can't really help in a few words, or even a lot (lot) of words (although that hasn't stopped me in the past). Suffice it to say that first you have to accept that the audience for editorial fashion photography is (primarily) women. They bore easily. Editorial fashion photography is the flashy lure that brings the desired audience to the magazines so the advertisers can beat them to death with advertising. Most of what you dislike or find unintelligible in fashion is just the spice that keeps the main course from eventually tasting like an English dinner. The main course is ideas, ideas that challenge, stimulate, and even frighten the mind.

Men like Playboy. In color, full frontal, and beautifully crafted. It is almost impossible to bore men. One black and white cover photo in 55 years (Cindy Crawford, 1987). Once you get this essential difference between men and women you begin to understand why Editorial Fashion Photography is one of the few things worthy of an adult's attention. The goal line is always moving, the closer you get to it, the exponentially harder it is to make further progress. The journey is exhilarating but exhausting, most burn out rather quickly, take their "winnings" and if lucky settle into a happy commercial retirement (or move to LA and do celebrity portraits).

Editorial fashion photography is ultimately a young man/woman's business, fashion requires a flexible mind. I have trouble recalling an important editorial fashion photographer who did not make their mark early, then lived off that for the rest of their career(s). Fashion photography at it's core is art, the physical manifestation of an emotion. You must first feel the emotion, then figure out how you will construct the physical manifestation that allows others to feel your emotion. That's why looking at fashion photography as a craft which can be reduced to it's essential elements is futile. Craft is involved most certainly, but craft alone is not enough, and may actually get in the way. Marko may have said all of this better than I have, but he is young, and sadly I get that.

Fish
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida  33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

I haven't said that fashion isn't or doesn't includes art, nor I am stating that you should shoot a styleless or copycat replica, I'm stating that the field is also commercial photography as a part of commercial photography your results are regarded as a product for the client to modify to their needs, this process starts with the concept for the shoot created by the Art director of the magazine, creatives at advertising agency, etc. Many of those who have worked in this field can state that they are under an Art director who is the one in charge on the aestethics of the look wanted for the photoshoot, yes you have the right of expressing your opinions, yes you are hired because of your style, but ultimately the client and AD have the ultimate word on how things have to be done.

What's funny is that we are in an professional photography industry forum and yet this point -the one that is relevant for those who bring food to their table with photography- escapes so easily, you are hired based on the work of your portfolio but you are limited to what the client/AD asks you to do.  So yes you are as free: as the client let's you be, yes you have to be artistic: as long as it follows the guideline or the concept asked for the photoshoot you were hired to do.

Is less artistic a photographer that was hired to do this stuff commercially? dunno Helmut Newton was magazine wonder boy and it seems pretty artistic to me.

Eduardo Frances wrote:

I haven't said that fashion isn't or doesn't includes art, nor I am stating that you should shoot a styleless or copycat replica, I'm stating that the field is also commercial photography as a part of commercial photography your results are regarded as a product for the client to modify to their needs, this process starts with the concept for the shoot created by the Art director of the magazine, creatives at advertising agency, etc. Many of those who have worked in this field can state that they are under an Art director who is the one in charge on the aestethics of the look wanted for the photoshoot, yes you have the right of expressing your opinions, yes you are hired because of your style, but ultimately the client and AD have the ultimate word on how things have to be done.

What's funny is that we are in an professional photography industry forum and yet this point -the one that is relevant for those who bring food to their table with photography- escapes so easily, you are hired based on the work of your portfolio but you are limited to what the client/AD asks you to do.  So yes you are as free: as the client let's you be, yes you have to be artistic: as long as it follows the guideline or the concept asked for the photoshoot you were hired to do.

Is less artistic a photographer that was hired to do this stuff commercially? dunno Helmut Newton was magazine wonder boy and it seems pretty artistic to me.

He was also given far more latitude than most at times. Not every fashion campaign is art directed so tightly. But most are. Many of the best aren't, but that's because they picked the right guy to shoot the right collection at the right time. Just as that photographer may not light so fussily, but he'll shoot the right girl wearing the right garment with the right mood in the right moment in the right environment.

When all that comes together, the rest really doesn't mean a crap. We're transported into their world. Detail schmetail...

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.

Some insight: It seems possible that a commercial look could hurt a fashion image, because having a commercial look would then mean that the image isn't making an attempt to hide the fact that it is trying to sell you something. In other words, a commercial look is usually an overt attempt to sell clothing or a lifestyle, while fashion is more subtle by attempting to hide the "sales pitch" behind a story or some kind of artistry.

Successful fashion images tell a real story or make some kind of meaningful statement, while those images that make you want to vomit (from your OP) are just poorly executed, thinly veiled BS (i.e. the aforementioned coked-out looking models in expensive dresses - don't bother trying to find meaning in those types of images, as they epitomize the pretension that I spoke of earlier).

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:

He was also given far more latitude than most at times. Not every fashion campaign is art directed so tightly. But most are. Many of the best aren't, but that's because they picked the right guy to shoot the right collection at the right time. Just as that photographer may not light so fussily, but he'll shoot the right girl wearing the right garment with the right mood in the right moment in the right environment.

When all that comes together, the rest really doesn't mean a crap. We're transported into their world. Detail schmetail...

You have to understand that being Helmut Newton, Annie Leibovitz, and other photographer celebrities  grants you more freedom, but for the rest of us mortals it doesn't translate into the same experience. And as much freedom they had they weren't doing what they wanted only they had to follow the guidelines because in the end they are under a chain of command, with more freedom than the rest of the mortals? sure, but under a chain of command too.

Eduardo Frances wrote:
You have to understand that being Helmut Newton, Annie Leibovitz, and other photographer celebrities  grants you more freedom, but for the rest of us mortals it doesn't translate into the same experience. And as much freedom they had they weren't doing what they wanted only they had to follow the guidelines because in the end they are under a chain of command, with more freedom than the rest of the mortals? sure, but under a chain of command too.

I work in this world. I know. But becoming Newton has to do with more than simply who's blowing whom (something that a lot of people have wanted to oversimplify it into.) It has a lot to do with the stuff I was talking about earlier in this thread.

VisualRamblings wrote:

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.

We're not yelling look at me, we're too preoccupied with how fabulous we look.

VisualRamblings wrote:
I still hold by the quote from Bob Carlos Clarke; "fashion photography is the most stupid thing you can do with a camera."

That pretty much sums up half of the posts in this thread.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
There are no rules.

Wrong. There is one rule. Sell.

BYS wrote:
well i see that as classic music / punk rock
i love both but i don't love both for the same reasons
and both are music
only close minded will argue that one of the two is not music
for the same reasons i love Peter Lindbergh and Jurgen Teller just to pick two names
and
i can't stand Norah Jones , she bores me to death , no matter she have much technical skill than the Sex Pistols ,she will never rock my world even if any Requiem bring me to tears
there is nothing to get , bob , just things to appreciate or not
tb

I agree with this... other than I was going to use techno!

http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/

All under the same huge umbrella of electronic music, but (as with this) you should see the respect battles that break out between some of the sub groups, it's just funny.

fStopstudios wrote:
Robert,

While I rarely "get" fashion, I do find Scott's work to be conceptually refreshing. As fashion moves towards what I would generalize as staid and cliche, his work hearkens back to the 70s and early 80s-- at least in my aging eyes. In this day and age of technical second guessing, I envision some would have issue with shadow detail, cropping, blown highlights, skin tones, etc but imho it does not detract from the concept itself. If fact, it assists in the overall effect and effort for most of the images.

I think we as an audience have come to equate highly stylized work with style, which is a sad commentary.

Thanks for the continued generosity in providing thought provoking threads and discourse. It's a wonderful break from what lens someone should buy

I will say that the aspect I enjoy about it is the spontaneity of the subject matter. And I do get the culling out of people that are dressed up style, but in reality, that to me would be the easy part. Think of the way 99% of us dress on a daily basis. The subjects he culls from the crowd have fashion klieg lights pointed at them.

And as much as I understand what he is doing, pay just a bit more attention and quit cropping the toes off your subjects.

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:

I work in this world. I know. But becoming Newton has to do with more than simply who's blowing whom (something that a lot of people have wanted to oversimplify it into.) It has a lot to do with the stuff I was talking about earlier in this thread.

Being that you work in the world of fashion do you have the same freedom as David Lachapelle, Annie leibovitz, Helmut Newton or any other photographer that has became a celebrity?

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.

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:
Except that I get the essential style statement I'm trying to make time and again. Most don't.

Bingo! Now, if you can just explain to me what that is, I think I can go home happy. No mumbo jumbo, I won't understand stuff, just a full in my face explanation.

Robert Randall wrote:
quit cropping the toes off your subjects.

Indeed. Cropping ranks right behind where to stand and when to click in terms of importance. For the life of me, I will never understand poor crops.

Robert Randall wrote:
Bingo! Now, if you can just explain to me what that is, I think I can go home happy. No mumbo jumbo, I won't understand stuff, just a full in my face explanation.

Maybe you're asking the wrong people, have you posed this question to the ad's and buyers you work with, or even asked your agent? They would have a different perspective that you're not going to find on a site like this...

That and do you think in your professional opinon that if the pictures were cropped just a little better/different that they would gain something, or lose what they are? The same question goes to the color, and tonal quality of the image - if it were done with what seems to be more care would the image lose more than it would gain or would it be a wash?

I'm not really getting at different styles, just sloppy technical work, or what seems like sloppy technical work. Which after reading though this thread, that disreguard for what's correct seems to add something to the image, and the photographer stops being such and turns into more of an artist that is using a camera and picture as their medium...

Which, and not knocking artists, they could be and more than likely are looking at different things other than what we would consider technical, and what would get them a big smile would make us scratch our heads and wonder.

Also, I'm not a fashion person, and I'm just wondering about these questions, more or less I can see both sides to this.

MKanji wrote:
The only thing i can think to say Bob is he must have a kick ass agent. Or the Art buyer / Designer was just pumped and primed on his work.

Or perhaps he pumped and primed the art buyer ;-)

Favors can go a long way...

Brian Ziff wrote:
If you look at the way you dressed two years ago...five years ago...three decades ago (age providing)...i guarantee it was pretty different than the way you dress now.

Maybe maybe not...

Jeans Black
Band T-shirt Black
Lace Panties Black

Not all of us are influenced by fashion as the fashion realm would like us to be...

Robert Randall wrote:
And as much as I understand what he is doing, pay just a bit more attention and quit cropping the toes off your subjects.

Question: What if the image is not about the toes?

haole wrote:
The fact there's a long thread on here about Schuman & dkny, is the same reason he got dkny. If that makes any sense...

You make the same mistake most have made... this thread isn't about Schuman or DKNY, its about me, and what I do or don't get.

M. Carle wrote:

Question: What if the image is not about the toes?

I have to assume that the shoes are part of the sartorial splendor the image is trying to display.

Robert Randall wrote:
Bingo! Now, if you can just explain to me what that is, I think I can go home happy. No mumbo jumbo, I won't understand stuff, just a full in my face explanation.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
Maybe you're asking the wrong people, have you posed this question to the ad's and buyers you work with, or even asked your agent? They would have a different perspective that you're not going to find on a site like this...

For what I'm trying to find out, I'm asking the most right people there are. I already know what AD's and AB's will say, and for this, they don't count. You have no idea how much I'm learning from this and how much I hope it will help me. So far its been fantastic.

Robert Randall wrote:

You make the same mistake most have made... this thread isn't about Schuman or DKNY, its about me, and what I do or don't get.

It looks like you are not getting the DKNY campaign? Sorry Bob I m gonna go stick my head up my ass for thirty minutes.. call me I a can be done?

Crawling away with tail between legs........

Digital Soup wrote:

It looks like you are not getting the DKNY campaign? Sorry Bob I m gonna go stick my head up my ass for thirty minutes.. call me I a can be done?

Crawling away with tail between legs........

You would have to be pretty desperate to call me up for a DKNY campaign. Now GAP, thats a totally different animal, you see, I'm beginning to get it.

Peter Claver wrote:

To be frank... that's my opinion of the fashion industry in general.. nevermind the photography of same.

+1