B R U N O wrote:
It seems to me that photographers who are somehow shooting within the genre improve as their resources do.  In this particular case, 'resources' is synonymous with 'models.'  What I mean by this is that their muses are better suited for them; it's all obviously relative and preference based.  Style seems to evolve.  Constantly developing are aspects such as mood and feeling throughout their imagery.  These transitions seem to have little, if anything at all, to do with equipment upgrades, new shooting spaces and locations or anything of the like.

I would agree with this statement only if a photographer has an ongoing working relationship with a model, then yes - as a photographer improves, the type of talent s/he brings in will improve as well.

As for style, I'm not sure I agree. I've been seeing a resurgence of Guy Bourdin type imagery in the magazines recently. I like that and the only people that do it well are Mert & Marcus - everyone else is just biting their style. I also believe that mood is attributed to color...

Ummm... I also don't think it's fair to say that -

crappy models / shitty people = bad portraits (not just cause you suck)
solid models / interesting people = good portraits (not just cause they rule)

...you could have top level talent and the shoot could end up poorly because everyone's just super uptight and weird. I think of photography not as being a button pusher, but more of a cheerleader... developing a connection and just having fun... then the images should come naturally. Just make it up as you go along... unless it's a comm. job w/ a shot list.

Ehhhhh.... I'm tired and rambling. Probably making zero sense so take what you can get from it. :-/

instagram wrote:
Ummm... I also don't think it's fair to say that -

Again: crappy/shitty or solid/interesting by means of personal preference.

JESUS Photography wrote:
I think that it's all a matter of motivation. Motivation could be greatly affected by your autonomy in the project (by this I mean, are you shooting for your own needs or someone else's?) as well as mastery (are you shooting to practice / experiment with something new, equipment or technique) as well as purpose (do you have that feeling of contributing in something bigger?)

All the above reasons I would not comprehend fully if it wasn't for failing though. I have failed delivering a result that I would regard as an improvement some times due to lack of one or more of the above motivational values.

Love could fall in the "purpose" motivational aspect. When I started portrait photography I mostly did it with someone I loved very much and was IN love with. I exploited my feelings in order to be as creative as possible and generally BE and co exist with that person in order to build some more love. From that point onward, It pretty much felt, in every new portrait, that in order to perform well I had to superficially feel like falling in love with my model. What is falling in love either than looking and getting the strongest memory possible out of a person. Noticing even the tiniest detail on them and fitting it in the bigger picture in that perfect way that suits them. By falling in love you create better portraits either it's for real or just a temporary state of mind that only you know about.

This is a great post.  Thanks for contributing it. 

Motivation.  This is surely key.  Personally, I find that my favorite photos that I create are the ones that are done for myself and without any kind of outside influence or constraint.  And they just so happen to be the products of a connection and chemistry with another person, whether they're an agency model or someone I'm photographing in my backyard. 

It's rad that you understood the compilation of words above enough to write this up and thoughtfully so.  Your explanations have given me even deeper insight into this whole thing.

B R U N O wrote:
crappy models / shitty people = bad portraits (not just cause you suck)

Some of my best portraits are of some really nasty people.
More of a commentary than a beauty shot.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Some of my best portraits are of some really nasty people.
More of a commentary than a beauty shot.

I was waiting for someone to make this remark.  However, I'm pretty sure that these nasty folks that have made for some of your best work would go more into my "interesting people" category rather than the one seemingly more appealing to you here.

B R U N O wrote:
It's not all about clothes.  However, industry standards for the girls being photographed remain: measurements at 34-24-34, 5'8"+, clean skin, uniqueness in the face, etc.

I can assure you that Fashion Photography is all about the cloths, style, accessories and the "life". Beautiful pictures of models does not make you a fashion photographer.
They can make you a busy model's portfolio photographer... and there is nothing wrong with that.

Now I am not saying that the cloths should be in the readers face, but they have benefit from the image.

That said my focus is on the subject and but the cloths get just the right amount of attention. Often hiding the cloths a bit helps ina crooked sort of way.

B R U N O wrote:

I was waiting for someone to make this remark.  However, I'm pretty sure that these nasty folks that have made for some of your best work would go more into my "interesting people" category rather than the one seemingly more appealing to you here.

Actually some of my better portraits (including ones that get me hired for big budget work) are of really unintresting people..... rather empty souls with a bitch of a manager to go with it.  There really arn't any rules to this game.

Neil Snape wrote:
Since I see the world I like to play in unrealistically and irresponsibly, fashion and the trens are part of my daily being.

Analysing what we do for our own results is going to let us criticise and evaluate every shoot. So while we are building on this in a more clinical; way, I don't think the top players in the editorial and ad world would have the time.

While many of us struggle to have a team of competent players the pictures you see in current issues of magazines , are all results of more team players than we will have.

IF each part adds their trends to the picture, it will be a progressive trending that we will see . 

Styles will be sometimes closer to one side or another . I don't know how much a photographer has to say in this, or if it's just a non verbal solution.

I've seen so many trends go by, yet I think we are actually in a good one now.

I cringed the Kinoflo period, and the too many bare hard lights. Not a fan of heroin chic neither so most of what I see is pretty good porn chic!

Bringing trends into the discussion is something I wasn't really expecting - at least not so soon.  It might just be me not being able to process this information correctly (since it's so late) but how do you suggest they impact our imagery in relation to our preferences in models and muses?  Obviously there can be many answers but I'd love to know yours.

Fred Greissing wrote:
I can assure you that Fashion Photography is all about the cloths, style, accessories and the "life". Beautiful pictures of models does not make you a fashion photographer.
They can make you a busy model's portfolio photographer... and there is nothing wrong with that.

Now I am not saying that the cloths should be in the readers face, but they have benefit from the image.

That said my focus is on the subject and but the cloths get just the right amount of attention. Often hiding the cloths a bit helps ina crooked sort of way.

K.  So if style, accessories and the "life" are fashion, then it's not all about clothes.

Fred Greissing wrote:

Actually some of my better portraits (including ones that get me hired for big budget work) are of really unintresting people..... rather empty souls with a bitch of a manager to go with it.  There really arn't any rules to this game.

You win, Fred.  I can't be right.

B R U N O wrote:

You win, Fred.  I can't be right.

No neither of us are "right"... there really are not any real rules in this game.

Fred Greissing wrote:

No neither of us are "right"... there really are not any real rules in this game.

That's my only hope.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Anyway back to the main subject you are getting at.

It is about inspiration. I personally do not restrict myself to "industry standard models"
I find that they are far from unique. While they are unique individuals that have to fit into such a narrow standard that they are visually far from individual.

For example just think about how many absolutely gorgeous actresses don't fit the fashion modelling standard and look really out of place when shot by certain fashion photographers or really don't look like themselves.

Now that said there are models that really can stand out and inspire you despite the very narrow standards. That is why a select few earn the big bucks.

The subject you photograph can be very inspiring or vica versa.
The way I take it is to consider the perfect and inspiring model a treat (easy day on the job) and the so so model/subject a good exercise.

I disagree totally that equipment has nothing to do with it.
A good artist should be inspired by great tools, but a good artist can also make
marginal tools shine.

For a photographer shooting with a so so entry level crop sensor with low dynamic range it is a great excecise to shoot with medium format film, especially if the images are simple and beautiful images of models. Film or high end digital captures nuances that entry level digital cannot. While entry level digital may be low noise, clean looking etc etc there is a lot to be said about medium and large format lenses, film types etc etc. Less important if the images are concept heavy and drowning in lighting 101. Simple images really thrive with better gear.

one golden rule... don't let how adorable or how unique a model may apear to you get in the way of your photography in your book. I find photographers sometime put images in their book because of how they enjoyed the model and associate more to the image than a client or casual viewer would. Same thing goes for images where you have excelled technically... don't let the technical perfection get in the way of what really counts. I find that every now and then something will sneak into my book just because the tones are amazing or something technical hit it right on the nail.  It's always important to see the reaction viewers have of your work. listen to the reaction.. the ooos and aaahs more than what they have to say.

Now that was a serious case of rambling....

First of all, the only reason this thread started the way it did was because I wanted to attract guys and girls aspiring to shoot fashion or those who are doing it already.  There's really nothing beyond that.  I think everyone, for the most part, is well aware that great portraits can be made of anyone, anywhere, anytime and for whatever reason. 

You disagree about equipment and so what?  That doesn't make what I'm proposing any different.  All I stated about it was that I hold something else in higher regard and I still feel that way.  And I'd really rather not get into the extents of the relevance of a photographer's tools.  Besides, I'm pretty sure that we all know that you've got me beat up on that topic any day of the week.  You know your stuff. 

As for the concluding bit of your post, I agree.  I'm with you entirely!  Many people make the mistakes you've outlined here.  And it's great if they can be acknowledged as such and learned from.  Admittedly, I have committed such acts in the past but feel that I have gained and am still gaining from them all the time.

B R U N O wrote:

K.  So if style, accessories and the "life" are fashion, then it's not all about clothes.

It is all about the cloths, but often in a very indirect way.

However one very important thing to keep in mind is that the cloths 99% of the time are nothing without the woman in them. They form the right shapes only when on a woman (or a very pretty guy;)).

Lets put it this way. There could be 30 photos on a roll where the dress looks great
, but then there is that magic moment shot where the instant tells a sort of story or the model has something special..... and the dress isn't perfect... but it would still be the shot to choose as the combination of the moment and mood just adds more to the image than the dress alone would. This is particularly important when you consider that the reader flicks through fashion mags. It's the imediate impact that is more important, not the analytical critique of a nit picking judge.
This is one of the reasons why many really good magazine directors, fashion editors etc will flick through a photographers book in what may apear to be almost disrespectful speed.

Fred Greissing wrote:
This is one of the reasons why many really good magazine directors, fashion editors etc will flick through a photographers book in what may apear to be almost disrespectful speed.

... or if you're a n00b like me, it's someone in scouting and development at a local agency flicking through your book at what may seem to be a disrespectful speed. 

All in all, though, I enjoyed that post.  It will give many people good insight.

B R U N O wrote:
I just got to thinking about a few hows and whys in relation to the world of model photography mostly as pertains to fashion.  Mind you, just for this thread, we're gonna characterize that term loosely.  It's not all about clothes.  However, industry standards for the girls being photographed remain: measurements at 34-24-34, 5'8"+, clean skin, uniqueness in the face, etc.  The same applies to male models (and whatever their requirements are) in case that's more your cup of tea. 

It seems to me that photographers who are somehow shooting within the genre improve as their resources do.  In this particular case, 'resources' is synonymous with 'models.'  What I mean by this is that their muses are better suited for them; it's all obviously relative and preference based.  Style seems to evolve.  Constantly developing are aspects such as mood and feeling throughout their imagery.  These transitions seem to have little, if anything at all, to do with equipment upgrades, new shooting spaces and locations or anything of the like. 

I guess what I'm suggesting goes back to something I read a while ago.  It is an article written for Scientific American.  It's about how being in love may or may not make us more creative.  Interpret it however you wish.  My perception of love, in this case, goes beyond what we may think of in a largely general sense.  Depending on your relationship with photography, you may feel a sense of fulfillment (similar to that of love) during the processes of making and finalizing your work. 

It's my notion that my own portfolio improves with every great new girl that I capture.  And as much as it may have to do with content being king and photographic subjects having a large portion of the spotlight, I know there's something more to it. 

crappy models / shitty people = bad portraits (not just cause you suck)
solid models / interesting people = good portraits (not just cause they rule)

This whole thought process is very disorganized. 

Does anyone have something to add or contribute?

It sounds like you're saying that the more you like or are attracted to your subject, the better you make the photo.

I think that there could be some truth to that, but it's more an issue of your ability to see what to photograph in them.

I had a recent experience where I didn't think the model looked that great until I saw her from a certain angle and I thought she looked amazing. Once I saw that I had a much easer time finding it from other directions.

Maybe that's what you're getting at with models "better suited for them", meaning models who are more their taste allowing them to see what to photograph easier.

B R U N O wrote:

I was waiting for someone to make this remark.  However, I'm pretty sure that these nasty folks that have made for some of your best work would go more into my "interesting people" category rather than the one seemingly more appealing to you here.

Or people that the photographer more effectively understands.

MC Grain wrote:
It sounds like you're saying that the more you like or are attracted to your subject, the better you make the photo.

I think that there could be some truth to that, but it's more an issue of your ability to see what to photograph in them.

I had a recent experience where I didn't think the model looked that great until I saw her from a certain angle and I thought she looked amazing. Once I saw that I had a much easer time finding it from other directions.

Maybe that's what you're getting at with models "better suited for them", meaning models who are more their taste allowing them to see what to photograph easier.

Yeah, basically.  And I don't really find an issue in having the ability to see what to photograph in a subject.  I get where you're going with that but I think I'd have phrased it differently.  It's something to think about. 

I've also had experiences such as the one you've outlined.  However, these don't usually turn out to be my best photo shoots.  The results are nothing more than halfway interesting images at best - unless, of course, you are able to get something beyond that, provided the relatively limiting circumstances.

Fred Greissing wrote:
[Fashion photography] is all about the cloths, but often in a very indirect way.

However one very important thing to keep in mind is that the cloths 99% of the time are nothing without the woman in them. They form the right shapes only when on a woman (or a very pretty guy;)).

Lets put it this way. There could be 30 photos on a roll where the dress looks great
, but then there is that magic moment shot where the instant tells a sort of story or the model has something special..... and the dress isn't perfect... but it would still be the shot to choose as the combination of the moment and mood just adds more to the image than the dress alone would.

+1

ChiMo wrote:
Interesting post, my zany Bosnian friend!

I think about what you're talking about as well. I read an article (I'll look for it) where a big time fashion guy was saying you have to "find your woman". Meaning the type of woman and face that speaks to you; that you connect with.

There's been reams written about the way our brains are wired with the hows and whys of responding to certain face types and a lot of it goes waaaaaaaaay back deep in out subconscious. Back to when we first opened our eyes as babies and (generally) the first thing we see is our parents face. Complicated stuff for a plebeian like me.

I find that stuff fascinating . . . You know how some people can photograph a homeless person and they just do it so damn well. Beautiful and dignified . . . that's not easy but that photographer connects well. Why is that? I don't know.
Same with women and different types.

Let me try to find that article and think more.

I was about to say that I think I'm drawn to people who look like my first girlfriend, not either of my parents, but it just occurred to me that I think my first girlfriend may have looked a lot like one of my first nursery school teachers.

ChiMo wrote:
Interesting post, my zany Bosnian friend!

I think about what you're talking about as well. I read an article (I'll look for it) where a big time fashion guy was saying you have to "find your woman". Meaning the type of woman and face that speaks to you; that you connect with.

There's been reams written about the way our brains are wired with the hows and whys of responding to certain face types and a lot of it goes waaaaaaaaay back deep in out subconscious. Back to when we first opened our eyes as babies and (generally) the first thing we see is our parents face. Complicated stuff for a plebeian like me.

I find that stuff fascinating . . . You know how some people can photograph a homeless person and they just do it so damn well. Beautiful and dignified . . . that's not easy but that photographer connects well. Why is that? I don't know.
Same with women and different types.

Let me try to find that article and think more.

You just made me recall something very cool.  A known and very active fashion photographer within industry corresponded with me via e-mail (right before shooting Bianca Balti, mind you) and he had something similar to communicate.  It was him that let me know that it's all about the woman rather than all about the clothes.  I'm not gonna uncover this guy's identity - and clearly most people in this forum don't agree with his outlook anyway.  He went on to elaborate and even got into the topic of women from the past and their influences.  I respect him much more than most people who do (or aspire to do) this. 

I can only imagine how much research and analysis has gone into that.  However, I'd almost rather not delve that deep into it.  The cool thing about having that skill as a photographer might just be it's simplicity and how it comes to you effortlessly.  Maybe it's developed - who knows?  I'm not one to say just yet.

It'd still be cool to check the article out if you can get a hold of it.

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
Better models, better stylists, better locations... rinse and repeat!

I don't subscribe to the view that a more expensive camera is necessrily better - any camera that lets you capture all that excites you is probably good enough. The essence of a good photo is not in the technical details but in the subject, the moment of capture and what you as an artist decide to do with the image in post.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I don't necessarily subscribe to better locations but I can see stylists being a huge factor as well.  Being in a non-market (for fashion, obviously), I am far from even the slightest consideration of bringing one in.  However, once I'm able to relocate, stylists will heavily be on my mind.  And yes, better models work! 

About the essence of photos: I agree.

DennisRoliffPhotography wrote:
In my opinion. The way to improve at your craft is to continue shooting on a regular basis, regardless of subject matter. For me, the craft of creating imagery (still or motion) is about 'seeing'. Creative 'seeing' or 'noticing' seems to be intuitive in many artists. For instance, as one walks through a neighborhood, noticing how early morning light falls on a scene or how a wrought iron fence makes interesting shadow patterns on the sidewalk, etc. These kinds of things often go unnoticed by 'non creatives', which I find rather a shame because they can enhance ones daily life experience. Also, these 'noticings' can translate into the creative process when shooting people. When making images of people there is not only the visual aspect/skill of lighting and composition but a 'people' skill as well. How well one relates with people and is able to bring them into the process is a key element in creating powerful images. I think that inspiration can be self generated and need not only come from the subject (i.e. how beautiful and/or engaging the model might be).

I agree 100% with certain parts of this and disagree 100% with the rest.  Yeah, creative consistency is imperative.  We need to be active.  Yeah, it's of huge value to be able to recognize beauty and intrigue in things and people that we normally would not.  That said, I think a lot weighs on what a model is able to do for you.  I'll even go as far as to make the call that it's about what a model can do for you at first sight.  I guess that's why I initially mentioned that article from Scientific American.  Somehow it makes sense.  Maybe it's just me!  Some can relate, others can't.  And that's just fine.

MC Grain wrote:
I was about to say that I think I'm drawn to people who look like my first girlfriend, not either of my parents, but it just occurred to me that I think my first girlfriend may have looked a lot like one of my first nursery school teachers.

Interesting, McGrain!!! What kid has NOT had a teacher crush? I think it could make a lasting impression.

M_M_P wrote:
A muse will always step one's game up a bit. It can also be that things, other than the models, muse you and that can also step your game up a bit. Being mused vs. uninterested on the level of the soul will always change the outcome, no matter who the subject is.

I think that the trick to being a professional is to find something to muse you in each shoot you do. I occasionally find a quality of light to be musing, or textures or whatever. Sometimes it is the model him/herself. Doesn't matter to me much what it is, but that it is there. The rest of the time I do feel somewhat like I'm treading water. I think that once I have mastered the ability to find a muse in every shoot, I'll feel that I've achieved what is needed to move forward.

As you already know, I always welcome your insight with open arms, Mike.  I'm glad that you're able to sift through and understand my original post without getting off topic in your response. 

My question for you is: why and how, in your mind's eye, is a muse (a person, place or thing) able to so dramatically change art for the better?  I think my own reason is stated somewhere in all this correspondence. 

About finding something to be mused by in everyone and everything: I can understand your stance.  I was just thinking about how I may not have a chemistry with every girl I photograph, whether or not she's attractive and whatever else.  However, as I edit and retouch my results, I always seem to have that photo or two that I enjoy enough to be proud of.  For instance, I had a model that I worked with recently that makes for a good example in cases like this.  She's a good looking girl but she was a little stiff and reserved.  With that in mind, we finished up our test with me having made about 500 photos.  I ended up really liking a couple and coming to somewhat of a universal conclusion at this point.  If the girls that I photograph are attractive to me and we have a chemistry, that's great and easy.  If the girls that I photograph are attractive me and we don't have a chemistry, I make them the girl I want them to be.  It's really hard to explain.  I want the realness regardless.  However, it seems to me when I have to work just that much harder, I may as well try to uncover layers in this person.  The point is to get to something hidden and discrete, a side of them that many people might not see very often that I will like and therefore it will make her that girl that I look for in my photos.

B R U N O wrote:
It'd still be cool to check the article out if you can get a hold of it.

Damnit . . . I've looked through all my mags and I can't find it. Maybe I tossed it out. But that was the gist of the paragraph . . . that you have to find the faces you connect with.

I've always wondered about that old saying that every photograph is a little bit of a self portrait. And that our point of view as it relates to photography, is shaped by our life experiences. So does it follow that there is something in the faces we are drawn to shoot that reflects our life experiences?

ChiMo wrote:
Oh shit! Found it!!!

PDN, September 2010
Article on Nathaniel Goldburg
page 22

Testino also gave him a tip for setting himself apart. "I remember Mario telling me you have to find your woman-meaning the [the kind of] woman you really love- and show how you make her look different from other photographers." So, he says, "I love women who look feminine , but I'm really interested when a woman is very feminine but she's in touch with her masculinity. . . . ."

Props.  This seems to have taken some effort in seeking out. 

The thing that sucks about this is that I feel that Mario Testino has actually lost his touch majorly since then, haha.  I got Mario De Janeiro (the book) at one point and I think that it contains some of his better work.  It oozed what he talks about here.  His photos of Giselle and all those other gorgeous Brazilian models were the essence of his work and that's what it's all about. 

Great quote though for sure.  Thanks for posting it.

ChiMo wrote:
^^^^
Yeah, I'd imagine it'd be hard to hope that the same type of woman that one finds inspiring remains socially and culturally relevant for decades. Sure, there's certain things that are timeless but various flavors go in and out of favor. Ah, the never ending quest for youth.

Firstly, I just love how me and you are keeping this going! 

And yeah, man - it's seriously such a total bummer to me sometimes.  Thoughts of youth culture and these timeless seeming places from back in the day.  Check out that book if you haven't looked through it already.  It's such feel good shit.  I feel like none of that is around anymore today.  People are such conservative asswipes.