Is a good photo JUST in a name/or reputation

[almo]

I think this shot is more about how to find the find the right barbie doll and know to dress her up the proper way than photography.

And I think that this one is even ten times worse:

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

Yeah ok, call it art, guess what... art is pesonal and I think both images are crap, serious.

Aren't you being just a little overly critical here. These images are perfectly good for what they are. This isn't high art. They are meant to be eye catching. They want to grab your attention from amongst a sea of played out glam rags filling the racks. Personaly I think they are doing a pretty good job of it.


almo

[Asylum Steve]

Like I said, W's covers are about as inovative as anything in mainstream US publishing (note I said mainstream). Eye catching, yes...

Still, Elysian is right on the money. Fashion work is often more about the model and styling than any technical aspects of the photo. And the trend now in US mags is using attractive celebrities on their covers. WHO it is modeling is as important (or more so) than anything else...

I work hard on the technical side of my photography, but I'd say I spend at least ten times that on casting talent and styling my shots. Great styling will save a technically weak shot much more often than the other way around...

THAT'S the word that's been missing form this discussion. STYLE. Fashion photography is all about style, and often in achieving that style, we go against the grain of conventional photography.

In a successful fashion shot, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It captures something that often cannot be explained with technical terms.

W's covers have great style, and they're legitimate as fashion art because you can't fool an entire industry over and over again.

If someone doesn't "get it", well, that's it. They just don't get it...

[Irakly Shanidze]

Steve, I think you've just hit the G-spot It is not only in fashion, but in any type of phoography that whole is greater than just mere sum of the cunstituents. In science and engineering it is called synergy

[natatbeach]

If someone doesn't "get it", well, that's it. They just don't get it...

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.

[Asylum Steve]

...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 ... ;)

[natatbeach]

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. ;)

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

[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...

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...

[racingpinarello]

...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...

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

[walterick]

Now that's photography!

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

[Sebastian]

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

[darkman]

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

[darkman]

Aren't you being just a little overly critical here. These images are perfectly good for what they are. This isn't high art. They are meant to be eye catching. They want to grab your attention from amongst a sea of played out glam rags filling the racks. Personaly I think they are doing a pretty good job of it.


almo

I think your statement is also a little critical and/or over simplified. Go look at a lot of fine art photography. Much of it is eye catching. Much is played out, and much can also easily be converted into advertising. Often by just adding clothes or an accessory. I'm sure the fine art photographer spends as much time screening models as the fashion photographer. Good looks sell irregardless of whether it's a glamour/fashion shot or fine art. 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.

This, and Steve's responce about screening models, begs the question would someone be considered a better photographer if they used proffesional and good looking models/actors/actresses and a good stylist? Based on what I see, I would say yes. Assuming a decent level of competency.

Mike

BTW, there was a recent show on the history channel discussing advertising. They pointed out that celebrities are being used more for covers now than in the past because of the easy ability to touch up photos in PS.








.

[Trevor Ash]

The thing about innovation is that to get it you usually have to go through an enormous amount experimentation and failure.

Any photographer willing to try and innovate earns my respect....even if I don't like the photographs.

I think with any discipline there is always going to be someone who is respected or "overly valued" based on past rather than current results. And this seems perfectly normal and appropriate to me. It's not unreasonable to expect more results in the future. But then I think there are people that are so blinded by the past results that they accept the current results (of lesser artistic merit) as being genius just because the photographer at one point in the past had a stroke of genius. And I don't see anything wrong with people thinking that way either. Heck, it's probably just differences in personality types.

Note: I know NOTHING about the photographer and photographs being mentioned in this thread. I'm speaking generally.

[darkman]

I think with any discipline there is always going to be someone who is respected or "overly valued" based on past rather than current results. And this seems perfectly normal and appropriate to me. It's not unreasonable to expect more results in the future. But then I think there are people that are so blinded by the past results that they accept the current results (of lesser artistic merit) as being genius just because the photographer at one point in the past had a stroke of genius. And I don't see anything wrong with people thinking that way either. Heck, it's probably just differences in personality types.
.

Bringing this one step further, often I'll see a photographer that just does outstanding work at one style of photography. Then that person will do something else, a completely different facet of photography, and because he's outstanding at one style people will automatically like the other.

Mike

[Trevor Ash]

This, and Steve's responce about screening models, begs the question would someone be considered a better photographer if they used proffesional and good looking models/actors/actresses and a good stylist? Based on what I see, I would say yes. Assuming a decent level of competency.

I'm in complete agreement. There are always exceptions here and there but I completely agree.

[megan]

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

[Asylum Steve]

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...

[darkman]

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

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

Mike

[Asylum Steve]

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

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...

[darkman]

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