Is a good photo JUST in a name/or reputation

[Asylum Steve]

This is a wonderfully beautiful photo. I have the actual magazine and I can tell you the web image doesn't do it justice...

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

Hmmm. Well, I can tell you this pic is shot in classic High Key style. And the defintion of this technique is exactly what you observe: slight overexposure, low overall contrast, high overall brightness, slightly washed out tones, usually with strong backlight.

What I find funny is that that is the 100% CORRECT way to shoot it, and the results are outstanding, but the way you say it Nat sounds like you think the shot is a mistake.

It most definitely is no mistake. This type of shot takes a great deal of planning and styling, and the result has an amazing delicacy to it that is next to impossible to achieve any other way.

"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..."

Have to disagree. This pic would be considered a great fashion image regardless of who shot it. W is arguably the number one fashion mag in the world, and they would never run a cover simply because of a photographer's name. Bottom line is the shot rocks...

I guess I'm a bit baffled why you would think the shot is crap if you took it simply at face value. Heck, I'd die a happy man if I could have a shot like this in my book...

[natatbeach]

This is a wonderfully beautiful photo. I have the actual magazine and I can tell you the web image doesn't do it justice...
I subscribed for two years because I love how creative some of the lighting and make -up are---almost to the point of salivating...And I presumed the web didn't do it justice...


What I find funny is that that is the 100% CORRECT way to shoot it, and the results are outstanding, but the way you say it Nat sounds like you think the shot is a mistake.
It most definitely is no mistake. This type of shot takes a great deal of planning and styling, and the result has an amazing delicacy to it that is next to impossible to achieve any other way.
I think if regular on here took a similar shot posted on critique...everyone might be less than applauding. I think BECAUSE it is a celebrity/or well known face that it makes the shot more acceptable as artistic...I don't doubt that it took one heck of a set up to get every aspect just right but in the non professional world I live in---a shot like this would be viewed as flawed. even if I took a great deal of time planning just the right exposure, just the right look, lighting etc. I still think it would be viewed as flawed.

W is arguably the number one fashion mag in the world, and they would never run a cover simply because of a photographer's name. I presume so...since they wouldn't be in business by accepting mediocrity...again I say that if joe schmo took this shot it wouldn't have the same artistic weight or reception as if it appeared in an internationally recognized publication...

I guess I'm a bit baffled why you would think the shot is crap if you took it simply at face value. Heck, I'd die a happy man if I could have a shot like this in my book...

I'd die a happy woman if I took a shot like that...I never said I thought it was crap...I said that I think viewers(regular photgraphers-with non fashion/glamour experience) would have it percieved it as a foul up of sorts...

Just my opinion and wanted to see what people's take was on it...I never knew this magazine existed because glamour and fashion are NOT my world...but I got it because I want to understand it a bit better/pour myself in it to see what they see...just like I would be willing to sign up for any workshops (HINT HINT) that you ever wanted to put together to help those of us less experienced with that side of photography...

Photography can be like a religion of sorts...hard to discuss it intelligently without doing your research first. Just trying to understand that shot of Nicole Kidman with the whacked hair and pink shadow(which I loved) and how someone like me can have that be great instead of a scray misunderstanding...do you get what I'm getting at?

glad to give you something to talk about--not as good as Irakly at stirring up trouble but it was my subtle attempt to get the boards moving a bit....

[opus]

Nat, just so ya know, I'm hearin' ya, sista...

[natatbeach]

Nat, just so ya know, I'm hearin' ya, sista...

Power to the people...oh ahem... I mean thanks glad you get me...and you've got my back
;)

[adina]

and all the other covers on that page. In fact, I may subscribe.

And I remember someone posting a similar thread when that one with Giselle was current. Something about how she looked too masculine, so on...I think someone replied with the fact that as she is a very successfull and well known model, no one is going to mistake her for being to masculine.

And, like Steve, I'd die a happy camper if I could shoot like this. Love the Nicole Kidman one too.

adina

[Asylum Steve]

Sorry about the mixup, nat. Yeah, I reread your original post, and now I understand that you meant some might "call it crap" if YOU presented the shot, not being a big name shooter and all. It's a valid point...

Oh, and yes, I forgot to thank you for starting the discussion in the first place. It's fun to talk about.

I think an issue you bring front and center is that many people have to be educated about art, whether it's photography or any other media. I realize now that you DO appreciate how good a shot this is, but as you mention, many might not if the pic was taken out of context (in this case off the cover of the mag).

I guess one reason I relate so much to this image is that I'm trying to concentrate on indirect lighting for much of my commercial work now, too. I find it much more facinating and challenging than more conventional lighting styles.

I think when a shooter starts to think of photography as truely painting with light, "creating" an atmosphere and world (not capturing it), they can begin to appreciate this style of lighting.

This image is simply an example of "bathing" a subject with light, and the intent is to wash away much of the detail, leaving what's left fairly soft and subtle.

You may be right. Some might crticize this technique on a site like this. But if they did, they'd be showing their ignorance... ;)

[natatbeach]

when I sw the shot the first thing I thought is that it was reminiscent(sp?) of that look and feel they go for in movies when a a beautiful girl---girl your dreams-- walks thru an open door and she's washed over in light---all you see is the silhouette of the figure and you just start to realize that she's beautiful but you could'n t see it until she's fully in the light...

the fact that you have been working so closely with different lighting styles (which would make a great workshop HINT HINT) explains your more than usually passionate response
he he ;)

[walterick]

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 - take away the pretty model and the shot goes to pieces. 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 how they show the look. 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 don't like this shot. Not trying to lose any friends here, but I think this style appeals only to a certain elite.

Rick

[Asylum Steve]

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...

[megan]

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