Is a good photo JUST in a name/or reputation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natatbeach

http://www.magazineagent.com/cover_v...16308520&sid=2

Technically speaking this photo is overexposed, the contrast is low and the facial features washed out...

I take this pic and it would be crap...someone with a contract and well known name takes the shot it's artistic and grazes the front cover of a magazine...

Any thoughts? :rolleyes: :D

---

You are right. It's whacked!

Once you get established, then you can sell crap like that and make a real good living at it. In the meantime, you're stuck striving to take good photo's and sharing them with us!

:-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkman

What makes this less arty than high art? Yes, I am trying to knock over this barrier. It comes off as pretentious and snobby IMO. The only difference I can summize is how they are trying to make money.

---

Intent.
Meaning.
Social Relevance.
Expression.

The intent of a commercial/fashion shot is to sell the clothing/jewelry/scent/celebrity/lifestyle. The intent of an artist creating a work of art is to express themselves. To show the world what is inside of them. I don't think it's snobby at all, its just two different goals. IMHO, I think the barrier should stay. Of course, boundaries have been blurred - look at Avadon. It's possible for commercial artists to create fine art, and vice-versa. But it is my pretientious and snobby opinion that art and commercial advertising are best... kept separate and appreciated for what they are. Two different animals.

Megan

Megan,

I can't say I completely disagree with anything you said, but I feel the need to point out that commercial photography, whatever form it takes, sometimes requires only a nudge to make it pop art. When that happens, any ties to selling or glamour or lifestyle gets lost, and the image can be appreciated for its asthetics alone...

Likewise, take a "fine art" image, put it on a poster, a note card, a CD cover (or a jigsaw puzzle, heh heh), and it is instantly made into a commercial work. I don't feel you can cleanly catagorize art like that anymore...

In it's purest essence, fashion photography is portrait photography (in fact when I work, my mentality is that I'm taking a model's portrait). Yes, the images often attempt to sell something, but just as often they don't.

Styling can be more or less than a "non-model" portrait image, too...

Avadon is a perfect example. In retrospect, his fashion work is in fact portrait work of the highest magnitude. IMO, the distinction between gallery and fashion magazine or billboard blurs completely over time. Moreover, at the risk of ruffling some feathers, I find his commercial images (to me) much more dynamic and exciting in a fine art way than, say an Ansel Adams.

Sadly (from my bank account's point of view, anyway) I have done very little ad work up to this point, so for most of my shoots, the artistic apsect of the work is the most important, not the selling bit.

I am attempting "expression" in exactly the same way that I do with my "fine art". I'm using lighting, composition, location, time of day, and subject emotion and expression to paint an image that has impact.

How someone use the image is up to them, but my mentality is the same whatever type of work I create...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megan

Intent.
Meaning.
Social Relevance.
Expression.

The intent of a commercial/fashion shot is to sell the clothing/jewelry/scent/celebrity/lifestyle. The intent of an artist creating a work of art is to express themselves. To show the world what is inside of them. I don't think it's snobby at all, its just two different goals. IMHO, I think the barrier should stay. Of course, boundaries have been blurred - look at Avadon. It's possible for commercial artists to create fine art, and vice-versa. But it is my pretientious and snobby opinion that art and commercial advertising are best... kept separate and appreciated for what they are. Two different animals.

Megan

---

Megan,

The snobbery is discrediting one over the other because of it's intent. I don't like that people will put down one form of any art or craft because of this. It's like saying, "I'm more talented than you because I make fine art and you make advertisments." That's utter nonsense.

In general, there's as much creativity and expression going into advertising photography as there is in fine art photography and dito in reverse. Of course, in advertising you often aren't allowed the freedom, especially if your just starting.

As I pointed out, more often than not I could turn a fine art photo into an advertisement (and vice-versa). The point being the creativity and expression that goes into either isn't different each other. Both are putting out their ideas and leaving themselves vulnarable to others.

But, as I've pointed out several times, I see art in furniture (or buildings, or just about anything that's done with a style added). Irregardless that the person who made it may be trying to make buck. Don't we often look back at old furniture (antiques) and see meaning, social relevence, and expression? I do, but I don't need to look at just antiques to see this.

What about movies? I'm often very impressed with some of even the mainstream commercial stuff (not necessarilly the movie though). Are they not being artisitc (or creating art) because they want to make lots of money? Surely you don't believe that?

I could add music to this too....

The only difference is intent. IMO, that doesn't detract from each persons creative, and artistic, endeavor.

Mike

Steve, you got to stop submitting your posts before I do :D

I you, (or I, hopefully) echo my sentiments.

Mike

...is that American fashion mags, especially their covers, are know for being extremely boring and mainstream (not to mention uptight when it comes to things like sex and eroticism).

The great irony of the fashion industry is that the most exciting and inovative fashion photography is almost always done abroad, yet almost all foreign shooters dream of being able to shoot boring covers (and the money it leads to) for AMERICAN MAGAZINES...

And the standard protocol for rising or beginning American models and shooters is to first work in Europe, then when they're good enough come back here and star in the US mags.

You want something that knocks your socks off? Don't subscribe to W. Instead try Italian or French Vogue ... ;)

I'm a very ambiguous guy. At least when it comes to my career... :D

I shoot an art project, have it hang in a gallery, and an Investment Management Firm contacts me about using one of the images for their yearly corporate report. Instant commercial work...

I shoot a pop art fashion series, and a local night club calls me about framing some pieces and showing them for a month in their exhibiton space. Instant gallery work...

I guess what bothers me is the need for some (or many actually) to continually catagorize art, and then catagorize the motivation behind creating it.

If only life were that simple... :D

You want something that knocks your socks off? Don't subscribe to W. Instead try Italian or French Vogue ...

if I could crap away...$308.45 for 12 issues of each...LOL

maybe next year---yeah...maybe next year. :rolleyes: ;)

I'll try and be content to look at these...http://www.temple.edu/photo/photogra...eisel/SMIV.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natatbeach

I'm one of THOSE people...i really don't get most of the attempts in the fashion industry that are like that cover of Nicole kidman with her whacked hair and bad make up...but I enjoy the vision and the energy that goes into it and frankly they are so absurd in their styling efforts that I continue to look and learn in the off chance I will somehow in some way "get it"

I guess I am more interested in the psychology behind the efforts than the actual end result.

---

I feel the same about many forms of photography. For example, some of the fine art that appears to me like a shot you and I would take on a vacation. It's not that the shots are bad. In fact, they're great shots! It's more like why is this considered fine art?

I don't get that!

Mike

...pick up a copy at a good magazine stand. A single issue of Italian, British, or French Vogue should go for the bargain basement price of about $10-$15... :D

BTW, I don't include Spanish Vogue in this group. It's not bad, but for some reason not up to par with the other three...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

...pick up a copy at a good magazine stand. A single issue of Italian, British, or French Vogue should go for the bargain basement price of about $10-$15... :D

BTW, I don't include Spanish Vogue in this group. It's not bad, but for some reason not up to par with the other three...

---

I agree, and it just takes some time at Barnes and Noble to get a free look at the magazines. Vogue is a great visual aid, and the European mags have a much wider visual range to them, as Steve mentioned.

I probably spend two-three hours a week at bookstore looking at magazines for ideals.

Loren

think it's crap. Nat, if you poseted this I would say "Wow pretty model but ooh, damn, just missed the shot!" I'd say - in all seriousness - <i>take away the pretty model and the shot goes to pieces.</i> Innovative? Yes! Good? No!

There's more to the models than owning nice facial features. Someone here (Trevor?) said that a good-looking model can help make any photographer look better. Well, I agree, with the added note that it's not just what the model looks like it's <i>how they show the look.</i> I'm no fashion photographer but in looking at fashion stuff sometimes I think the model did all the work by giving that pose, having that look, and holding it for seconds while the photog tripped the button. How much work did the photographer do on this shot? Put the key light in a really annoying place?

Yes, perhaps I'm showing my ignorance here. But, speaking as a layperson, <i>I don't like this shot.</i> Not trying to lose any friends here, but I think this style appeals only to a certain elite.

Rick

Now <i>that's</i> photography!

(all of them - speachless! I suck...)

I just don't get it, I think it's an excellent shot, and would have said so, no matter who took it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walterick

I'm no fashion photographer but in looking at fashion stuff sometimes I think the model did all the work by giving that pose, having that look, and holding it for seconds while the photog tripped the button. How much work did the photographer do on this shot?

---

While I will admit sometimes "famous" photogs simply go through the motions (see my Scavullo comments), more often than not it's the PHOTOGRAPHER that GETS the model to pose or evoke an attitude or feeling or emotion. Trust me, the world is full of ugly shots of beautiful people...

Very few of all but the top models automatically assume the perfect pose and look great in a shot on their own. They need direction and provocation.

A fashion photographer must have equal parts photo/lighting skills, styling sensibilities, and PEOPLE skills. And in any given shot, if one of these is incredibly strong, the other two do not need to be...

Not to thump my chest, but I've photographed quite a few very attractive models that have told me I was the first shooter to really make them look good. The model was the same, so what caused the difference in the images? ;)

So, whenever you see a model (or celebrity) look good in a fashion photo, you should give equal (if not most of the) credit to the shooter. The chances of it happening by accident are highly unlikely...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asylum Steve

While I will admit sometimes "famous" photogs simply go through the motions (see my Scavullo comments

---

I TOTALLY agree about Scavullo.

I agree that a good model can help make the shot - but ultimately, it's the photographer snapping the shutter at the perfect moment in time. A good model working with the photographer certainly enhances the amount of moments, though. I've photographed some people that are SO stiff, and it was so hard to manage to get a good shot - but eventually, I got them to loosen up an feel more comfortable, at least enough to get the shots I needed to make them happy.

Megan

A fashion photographer must have equal parts photo/lighting skills, styling sensibilities, and PEOPLE skills. And in any given shot, if one of these is incredibly strong, the other two do not need to be...