Crap snapshots by pros in glance magazines?! Let's discuss Chiara Romagnoly

<p>how would you describe and rate this photo? I just cant realize how does she...have boldness to publish this? Is this cheap snapshot or a "good" fashion photograph? Where is quality, dynamic range, composition? (A photo is from her official site)</p>

<p>No image, but she doesn't publish the photo, the magazine does. If they like it and feel that it appeals to their readers they will publish it. Maybe you just aren't the target audience.</p>

<p>Rusian, there is no such thing a good photographic technique nor is there such a thing a bad photographic technique. There is only photographic technique applied appropriately or inappropriately. Technique is merely the means to an end not the reason a photograph is good or bad.</p>

<p>Well I just looked at Chiara Romagnoli's <a href="http://www.chiararomagnoli.com/">website</a>, and I thank Ruslan for pointing it out, though perhaps not for the reason he thinks. There's some really interesting and thought-provoking photo style work there.</p>

<p>It would be worth noting that perhaps for performance or distribution reasons those images are quite low JPEG quality, but it should I think be obvious which aspects are low JPEG quality and which are style.</p>

<p>The color work is more about mood, and not at all to my liking. Her b&w pictures are much stronger, and include some excellent original work. I can see what you mean by crappy, though overall I disagree. Good photographer!</p>

<p>Thank you, I mean this:</p>

<p>I mean <em>this.</em> :)</p>

<p>Professional fashion photography is a tough business. Thousands of people out there have the basic chops. They can set up a shot, light it, shoot it. To succeed, you need to do two things (among others). You have to develop an individual style, something to set you apart from the herd. In fashion these days, that means you need edge--your images have to say 'now, today, new'--and you need a recognizable look that comes from your style. You also have to deliver <em>what the client wants.</em> They are also looking to set their brand apart; to give it an image that goes beyond looking good.</p>

<p>Ms. Romagnoli is good, period. Yeah, some of the shots aren't to my taste, but the style and look are evident the moment you see the images. Wish like hell I could do that.</p>

<p>I guess photography, like art, is subjective. The more people you ask, the more opinions you will get. If by her style you mean strange, dark, blurry and puzzling, yes she has her own style! Eeeek! I thought the same thing when I got Annie Lebowitz's book. I returned it the next day--I thought the pictures were seriously horrid. I don't get what people like about work like that, but they're successful. ?!</p>

<p>I am assuming you mean things on the website form the OP...?</p>

<p>I dont like them either. Just my HO.</p>

<p>Thanx for comprehensive answers! (Lex). I could not upload any by her shots to discuss them (by some reasons concerned with the PN site). But, of course she's got the style, no doubt, but many pros are using "film imitation" these days, - grain, flare, overexposed areas, blur, - 70's look... Is THIS SO MUCH ORIGINAL? Where is technical quality? Where is thirds rule?! May be, personal connections is the name of the game and talent to convince and to make bucks. Tell me, how well would her works have been rated here had they been uploaded to our cririque forum?<br>

P.S. What I like.... I do love what Justin Grant does here in commercial photography or John Peri (what is the big talent means) and I applose to them! (...and to many others)</p>

<p>Thanx for comprehensive answers! (Lex). I could not upload any by her shots to discuss them (by some reasons concerned with the PN site). But, of course she's got the style, no doubt, but many pros are using "film imitation" these days, - grain, flare, overexposed areas, blur, - 70's look... Is THIS SO MUCH ORIGINAL? Where is technical quality? Where is thirds rule?! May be, personal connections is the name of the game and talent to convince and to make bucks. Tell me, how well would her works have been rated here had they been uploaded to our cririque forum?<br>

P.S. What I like.... I do love what Justin Grant does here in commercial photography or John Peri (what is the big talent means) and I applose to them! (...and to many others)</p>

<p>With no particular image presented I went to the link provided by MH and was pleasantly surprised. To start with, I have to shift gears, or perhaps drop some baggage in the form of rigid expectations of what 'good' photography is.</p>

<p>I have seen incredible shots of the iconic Half Dome in Yosemite, rich in color, sharpness, and etc, that where just boring in the sense of any real visual enjoyment. Technique pushed to the point where the technique becomes the subject of the image is really not very interesting.</p>

<p>Fashion deals with something else entirely. Unless your shooting hip waders for LL Bean, factual representation is a non-starter in what is becoming an increasingly fantasy filled world of over dressed beauties who are tossed around like rag dolls.</p>

<p>How often these rag dolls find themselves posed in the most contradictory settings. Abandoned industrial sites, back alleys, sleaze rooms, bars and such. Or the complete opposite, rigidly formal settings, with the icons of higher reasoning, Roman columns, machine like architecture, cathedrals of commerce, hard and cold, chrome and steel and glass.</p>

<p>Are these dolls the trophy wives, drained of emotion, frozen in disuse and boredom, of those mighty in production or finance, who need them to fill the family picture frame?</p>

<p>While the beautiful dolls lay slumped in their respective toy boxes, their hero's plot while playing another round of golf.</p>

<p>The dolls with their chins on their chest, as if the contest is lost. The dolls that let some 'girl' out in playful pose. The dolls whos beauty bearly hides a fearful rage. I think the dolls are trying to tell us something.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>With no particular image presented I went to the link provided by MH and was pleasantly surprised. To start with, I have to shift gears, or perhaps drop some baggage in the form of rigid expectations of what 'good' photography is.</p>

<p>I have seen incredible shots of the iconic Half Dome in Yosemite, rich in color, sharpness, and etc, that where just boring in the sense of any real visual enjoyment. Technique pushed to the point where the technique becomes the subject of the image is really not very interesting.</p>

<p>Fashion deals with something else entirely. Unless your shooting hip waders for LL Bean, factual representation is a non-starter in what is becoming an increasingly fantasy filled world of over dressed beauties who are tossed around like rag dolls.</p>

<p>How often these rag dolls find themselves posed in the most contradictory settings. Abandoned industrial sites, back alleys, sleaze rooms, bars and such. Or the complete opposite, rigidly formal settings, with the icons of higher reasoning, Roman columns, machine like architecture, cathedrals of commerce, hard and cold, chrome and steel and glass.</p>

<p>Are these dolls the trophy wives, drained of emotion, frozen in disuse and boredom, of those mighty in production or finance, who need them to fill the family picture frame?</p>

<p>While the beautiful dolls lay slumped in their respective toy boxes, their hero's plot while playing another round of golf.</p>

<p>The dolls with their chins on their chest, as if the contest is lost. The dolls that let some 'girl' out in playful pose. The dolls whos beauty bearly hides a fearful rage. I think the dolls are trying to tell us something.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Sometimes a 3 mega pixel image sets the viewer up to except snapshot quality. I know that there are many that would not leave the house with anything less than $5000 in gear. My trusty old (a few years) Kodak, well what can I say, its the camera I had with me. I doubt a 24 Meg sensor would have made it any better. There is more to the equation than just sharpness, dead on exposure, rules that were made to be broken.</p>