W.G. Rowland wrote:
Some people like having their balls stomped on by paid strangers.

I am guessing you do not.

Elitist.

You know what, Am does that in her PT job. You're right, I don't get that, but there has to be a more definitive answer than that when it comes to Steven Meisel versus Scott Schuman.

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:
It comes down in large part to this: you're looking at one thing. They're communicating another. Part of what you're looking for and pointing out and bothered by is often irrelevant and occasionally harmful. In other words, different priorities.

Fashion photos should NOT look like commercial photos. It tends to do them harm. That is my own personal opinion, heavily reinforced. The first two sentences are not simply opinion, however.

But none of this surprises you, I'd wager. I wonder why you'd asked.

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.

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
I don't claim to understand fashion, and I don't 'get' the images in the blog. Maybe only those who claim to understand it are in on the secret?

Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

There is no secret, save understanding the priorities. They're really not that complicated, but how do you, as say an American, explain your basic philosophical differences from a Russian to a Russian? Not only would you need a very sharp and very easily-understandable vocabulary (and a lot of energy and patience to communicate clearly), but you'd need to be able to clearly see the forest from the trees. And that's difficult.

Plus, frankly, most fashion people don't really care what the rest think. They're having fun (or torturing themselves and each other while having fun) and are frankly happy that the rest of the world isn't in on their private little playground. It's theirs. Outsiders aren't particularly welcomed. Like surfers and their favorite little surf spots.

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:

There is no secret, save understanding the priorities. They're really not that complicated, but how do you, as say an American, explain your basic philosophical differences from a Russian to a Russian? Not only would you need a very sharp and very easily-understandable vocabulary (and a lot of energy and patience to communicate clearly), but you'd need to be able to clearly see the forest from the trees. And that's difficult.

Plus, frankly, most fashion people don't really care what the rest think. They're having fun (or torturing themselves and each other while having fun) and are frankly happy that the rest of the world isn't in on their private little playground. It's theirs. Outsiders aren't particularly welcomed. Like surfers and their favorite little surf spots.

To me what you've just done smacks of deflection. It would appear you don't have an answer so you concoct a scenario in which you can escape by having said nothing. Lets assume for sake of argument that we are both American and living in NYC, now tell me the priorities I want to know about.

silverystars wrote:
i always liked helmut newton's fashion work.  they never seemed to be anything close to sterile, there was always some drama, emotion, or other-worldly-ness to them that was somehow grounded in concrete locations.  it always made me think, "people don't actually live like that, or do they?"

this, at least to me made them cross over from fashion into an artistic realm.

I never liked any of his stuff until I tried to copy it one time. I learned an awful lot about crews and casting from that exercise. But also, I view what he did in the same light as I view current masters such as Meisel, he knew what he was doing. I at least have learned that much.

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.

It cheapens it. It places it in the realm of the mundane. (This goes equally for a really fabulous and fabulously-produced, high-end commercial image.) Plus, the emphasis is in the wrong place. Style doesn't need much gloss. Style comes alive through mood and moment. You light fabulously; everybody knows this. But your lighting technique would be at cross-purposes with creating a mood and a moment dynamic that would work in this sense. If you were to light a shoot for me, I'd have the best-lit pictures I'd ever shot, most likely. But I can virtually guarantee you that they'd be nothing I'd be particularly proud of. That sort of lighting involves constraints that are unacceptable for my purposes. Of course, there are degrees. Beauty lighting OBLITERATES the mood I need, whereas lighting a room in the style of a Hollywood cinematographer merely handcuffs it a bit, and bouncing a hot light off a reflector or throwing in some on-camera fill with a softbox outdoors just kinda inhibits rather than truly constrains.

silverystars wrote:
i always liked helmut newton's fashion work.  they never seemed to be anything close to sterile, there was always some drama, emotion, or other-worldly-ness to them that was somehow grounded in concrete locations.  it always made me think, "people don't actually live like that, or do they?"

this, at least to me made them cross over from fashion into an artistic realm.

I think Helmut Newton once said something like "Personally I think that a fashion photograph should look like anything BUT a fashion photograph."

Robert Randall wrote:
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.

As you seem to have taken up the sword on behalf of the fashionistas, I'd be interested to know whether you regard your own work as 'fashion' photography. Looking at your website I see little similarity between your work and Schuman's. For a start, your stuff is interesting to took at!

Robert Randall wrote:
To me what you've just done smacks of deflection. It would appear you don't have an answer so you concoct a scenario in which you can escape by having said nothing. Lets assume for sake of argument that we are both American and living in NYC, now tell me the priorities I want to know about.

I honestly don't mean to deflect. I gave you an answer, and I think it's a good one. (And read my post above and see if that doesn't help.) But it's possible that I won't give you an answer that you'd accept. If so, that wouldn't surprise me. You're a damn accomplished commercial shooter who has done this for a long time. It seems to me like you think like one, like you've really become one; that's what's honest to you and that's the way your mind works. At least that's what seems to me to be the case, and that's often the case when one has gone about achieving a certain level accomplishment that takes a certain amount of time to do so. But unfortunately, that just might mean that what seems like a complete axiom to me does not to you, and vice versa.

Meisel, for example, I think of as an excellent craftsman, and a deservedly acclaimed, highly accomplished photographer (who is paid VERY well for his services, obviously, though that's not the end-all proof of his accomplishment). But he's certainly not the first photographer I'd think of when I think of great fashion photographers by a long shot. His one true talent in my eyes is the ability to make EVERYTHING (any look, any styling, any model he'd shoot) look like they belong in Vogue. He's "Mr. Vogue" (something which many, many attempt and perhaps he alone in the world can truly claim at this point in time, which of course definitely says something). Which only means so much to me. Not particularly inspiring. Not particularly stylish. Unless suitability for Vogue is your only criterion, which would strike me as a highly "commercial" way of viewing the world.

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.

I agree with you, suddenly snapshotism triumphs over thinking and working.. I think the great problem overall is that many people think that the artistic side of photography can't coexist with the technical side of photography and I really disagree with this, I mean just look at the really successful fashion photographers -the ones that get jobs regardless of their time in the industry, the ones that aren't a fad- their technical skill is matched by their creative flow. But many people on the net have a bad habit of thinking that their utopic point of view is translated into reality, and all I can say is: let's see where mr. blurry photo is in 2 years when the fad washes off.

There have been snapshotists who landed 1(one) campaign with a big fashion house, there have been photographers called over and over again from a big fashion house, you just draw your conclusions.

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:

It cheapens it. It places it in the realm of the mundane. (This goes equally for a really fabulous and fabulously-produced, high-end commercial image.) Plus, the emphasis is in the wrong place. Style doesn't need much gloss. Style comes alive through mood and moment. You light fabulously; everybody knows this. But your lighting technique would be at cross-purposes with creating a mood and a moment dynamic that would work in this sense. If you were to light a shoot for me, I'd have the best-lit pictures I'd ever shot, most likely. But I can virtually guarantee you that they'd be nothing I'd be particularly proud of. That sort of lighting involves constraints that are unacceptable for my purposes. Of course, there are degrees. Beauty lighting OBLITERATES the mood I need, whereas lighting a room in the style of a Hollywood cinematographer merely handcuffs it a bit, and bouncing a hot light off a reflector or throwing in some on-camera fill with a softbox outdoors just kinda inhibits rather than truly constrains.

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:

It cheapens it. It places it in the realm of the mundane. (This goes equally for a really fabulous and fabulously-produced, high-end commercial image.) Plus, the emphasis is in the wrong place. Style doesn't need much gloss. Style comes alive through mood and moment. You light fabulously; everybody knows this. But your lighting technique would be at cross-purposes with creating a mood and a moment dynamic that would work in this sense. If you were to light a shoot for me, I'd have the best-lit pictures I'd ever shot, most likely. But I can virtually guarantee you that they'd be nothing I'd be particularly proud of. That sort of lighting involves constraints that are unacceptable for my purposes. Of course, there are degrees. Beauty lighting OBLITERATES the mood I need, whereas lighting a room in the style of a Hollywood cinematographer merely handcuffs it a bit, and bouncing a hot light off a reflector or throwing in some on-camera fill with a softbox outdoors just kinda inhibits rather than truly constrains.

This really explains a lot. I have an assistant that will also be receiving it.

Stefano Brunesci wrote:

As you seem to have taken up the sword on behalf of the fashionistas, I'd be interested to know whether you regard your own work as 'fashion' photography. Looking at your website I see little similarity between your work and Schuman's. For a start, your stuff is interesting to took at!

I believe fashion photography should be. I think that what too many people think of when they think of "fashion" is really the 2009 (or 2004 or 1999 or 1987...) version of Edward Steichen's work. His work looked that way for certain reasons which pertained not only to the attitudes involving style and lifestyle and such at the time, but also due to the technical constraints of the period. If you have to shoot everything with slow film, view cameras, and hot lights, and the dresses at the time are these poofy things that look horrible on a model that's standing still, you have to invent a way to create a sense of motion that portrays those garments (and the mindset of the time was that fashion was essentially catelog taken into the world of the elite, not dissimilar to the space that the Robb Report would occupy today, and that is definitely NOT fashion). Hence the silly exaggerated poses that people to this day emulate for the primary purpose of contextualizing an image as "fashion," as well as a heavy influence from the Hurrell Hollywood glamour school of lighting and aesthetic which at the time was contemporary.

hobson fotografie wrote:
ooh a fun topic....

well first you really can't compare Steven Meisel to Scott Schuman....Meisel is a master of fashion photography, which ideally revolves around both concept and clothing....Schuman is a sartorialist, meaning he is more concerned with the shapes, patterns, and details in the tailoring of clothing. if anything, Schuman inspires what Meisel shoots.

and Schuman was a Fashion and Apparel Merchandising major at my college (Indiana University), so he shoots based on the tailoring and shaping in the clothing he admires in everyday people, which in turns inspires fashion...THAT'S WHY he is highly regarded....

Another very good point that I'd completely ignored in my posts, but nevertheless valid. Again, going back to what I'd said before. Made with differing priorities than what some other non-intended audience is looking for.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I used to think like Bob then it was pointed out to me. If every image in a fashion mag was of S. Meisel style, perfect in exposure and tones ect. ect. then it would look all the same.

Fashion needs to stand out be it radical. Bailey when he shot with ring flash or bleached out the skin tones was radical and may have been looked upon by the purists as badly executed.

Images in fashion are as varied as the clothes.
It's very much about image and getting noticed and style.

I've seen images that look like they were taken by a 1st year photo student but they were done like that for a reason.
Be it the vision/idea of the client or art dir.

Do you think that Schuman's work is radical though?  Or something you wouldn't see elsewhere?  The execution, approaching people on the street is interesting, but I wouldn't call it radical.

La Seine by the Hudson wrote:

I honestly don't mean to deflect. I gave you an answer, and I think it's a good one. (And read my post above and see if that doesn't help.) But it's possible that I won't give you an answer that you'd accept. If so, that wouldn't surprise me. You're a damn accomplished commercial shooter who has done this for a long time. It seems to me like you think like one, like you've really become one; that's what's honest to you and that's the way your mind works. At least that's what seems to me to be the case, and that's often the case when one has gone about achieving a certain level accomplishment that takes a certain amount of time to do so. But unfortunately, that just might mean that what seems like a complete axiom to me does not to you, and vice versa.

Meisel, for example, I think of as an excellent craftsman, and a deservedly acclaimed, highly accomplished photographer (who is paid VERY well for his services, obviously, though that's not the end-all proof of his accomplishment). But he's certainly not the first photographer I'd think of when I think of great fashion photographers by a long shot. His one true talent in my eyes is the ability to make EVERYTHING (any look, any styling, any model he'd shoot) look like they belong in Vogue. He's "Mr. Vogue" (something which many, many attempt and perhaps he alone in the world can truly claim at this point in time, which of course definitely says something). Which only means so much to me. Not particularly inspiring. Not particularly stylish. Unless suitability for Vogue is your only criterion, which would strike me as a highly "commercial" way of viewing the world.

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).

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I used to think like Bob then it was pointed out to me. If every image in a fashion mag was of S. Meisel style, perfect in exposure and tones ect. ect. then it would look all the same.

Fashion needs to stand out be it radical. Bailey when he shot with ring flash or bleached out the skin tones was radical and may have been looked upon by the purists as badly executed.

Images in fashion are as varied as the clothes.
It's very much about image and getting noticed and style.

I've seen images that look like they were taken by a 1st year photo student but they were done like that for a reason.
Be it the vision/idea of the client or art dir.

while I agree that fashion shouldn't be shot in the same style by everyone that doesn't means that  you will loose the focus on what should be the most important part of the photo: the clothing, if you can't show texture, patterns, parts of the photo will be lost in shadows, etc, etc. Would you expect it to sale well? Remember that while there must be an artistic element to make the image appealing to the public it also has to be in accord to what fashion photography is about: selling clothes.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I used to think like Bob then it was pointed out to me. If every image in a fashion mag was of S. Meisel style, perfect in exposure and tones ect. ect. then it would look all the same.

Fashion needs to stand out be it radical. Bailey when he shot with ring flash or bleached out the skin tones was radical and may have been looked upon by the purists as badly executed.

Images in fashion are as varied as the clothes.
It's very much about image and getting noticed and style.

I've seen images that look like they were taken by a 1st year photo student but they were done like that for a reason.
Be it the vision/idea of the client or art dir.

I have no problem with different, but when it gets to the point that I have to guess at what I'm looking at because all discernible detail is lost, or hidden behind some out of control background element, and then someone comes along and gives kudos to the photographer that made me guess what it was I was looking at... well, it just seems like the Emperors New Clothes, or bullshit if you prefer.

Robert Randall wrote:
well, it just seems like the Emperors New Clothes, or bullshit if you prefer.

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

Photograph Danbury wrote:
Hope my ramblings make at least a little sense, but I certainly don't think that my statements completely sum-up the fashion world.

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.

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.
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.

I hardly see many of the big brands hiring photographers like the one the OP mentions when I open W, Harper's Bazaar, Vogue, and when I see one the next campaign is shot in full detail. Remember that trendy isn't translated into commercial success over time -again fads wash off really quick-.