A couple of real "fashion" shots

Mike,

 

The feedback loop means you make a statement(or post a pic with a statement), people react to that statement, you explain/defend the statement and eventually adjust it to such abstract lvl you can pass any crap as being really great... Anything unclear?

There are a lot of dilettantes engaged in endeavors like this, and while many are happy to stay that way a few actually want to learn how to make it as professionals. To do that they can either engage in mindless trial and error and hope for the best or they can try to understand the fundamental principles of the discipline. (That's just my academic side coming out - and it should be fun, Harvey. The purpose of discussions like this is to start thinking in new ways. Don't you get tired of the same old "nice picture, but I'd crop it this way" type of posts?)

 

Whether they like my pictures - or think they are effective - is irrelevent to the point (of this thread at least), which is that maybe now they are thinking about the purpose of "fashion photography" rather than some vague conception made up of fantasies of pretty pictures, pretty clothes, and pretty models. So I'd say if it helps one person understand just what "fashion photography" really entails, this has been a productive exercise. (Of course, those of you who are already being published in Vogue, et. al., have already learned this - albeit probably the hard way.)

 

To answer Mike's point - if you take a picture (like one of these) out of its context you can't make any intelligent comments about it other than the composition and exposure (and that includes whether you'd buy the products - that is unless you have a lot more dollars than sense). When I say you have to study other people's work, I'm saying you have to study published work and do so in relation to its context. Even if you can mimic the style, quality, and artistry of these two photographers perfectly, you won't be successful unless you understand why and when to do so.

 

Finally, I believe in (at least some of the benefits of) capitalism. If you want to know who the photographers are, go out and buy the June issue of Harpers. That will do more to help them than by listing their names here. And if you look at all the pictures in the issue and think about the context and purpose of each one, it will help you too if you are an aspiring fashion photographer, fashion editor, art director, marketing director, etc.

"...you make a statement(or post a pic with a statement), people react to that statement, you explain/defend the statement and eventually adjust it to such abstract lvl you can pass any crap as being really great..."

 

Henk, you must have a lot of experience in academia too!

Nah just have this dictionary...... ;)P

John,<p>

Your method sounds like a fine and sensible way to become a proficient fashion critic, but it doesn't sound like an approach that will get you very far along the road to being a fashion photographer. The only photographer I know personally who has several <i>Harper's</i> and <i>Vogue</i> covers to his credit never even alludes to any formalized theory of fashion photographry--he's simply passionate about what he does. Ironically, the photographers I know who have published fashion work are far more likely to wax poetic about the heel of a shoe or cut of a jacket (things you mocked earlier in this thread) than to philosophize about product placement.<P>

Sure, you can learn some things about fashion using the approach you describe, but you're not going to learn most of what you need to know (or even the most important things you need to know). Consider an imperfect analogy: If someone studied every book on racing theory, chassis dynamics, aerodynamics, etc., and watched and discussed every Formula 1 auto race on tape and discussed each move that every driver made, would that prepare him to go out on the track and race a Formula 1 car? How would the importance of all that study compare to the importance of years of racing in karts or less-powerful cars?<P>

You've described the problem exactly: most people only learn through trial and error (which we charitably call experience) and never learn to quantify their experiences or knowledge. For every 1,000 that try it that way, 999 are going to fail - and it's only a combination of perseverance and luck that leads to that single success. Wouldn't you like to improve your odds?

But will it improve my odds? Answer the question: do you think the driver who has spent 100 hours examining tapes is really more likely to win a race than the driver who has spent 100 hours on the track? You're operating from the assumption that intellectualizing the photographic process will lead to better photos--I'm saying that I've never seen any evidence to support that.

Dogma time..

 

Mike, if you dont mind me responding to your question to John. You should know that no good can come from theory without practice, or from driving without an understanding of the technique involved, or taking pictures without being able to print them, or doing an IQ test without being able to read.

 

I get your point though, but trust me it ALL depends on the person. Some will benefit most from studying and other learn most from working with their hands. Its just like that i guess.

I agree different approaches work better for different people. But

I'm not willing to withhold comment about absurd assertions that

"the only way to learn" is discussing other people's work or

claims that a lot of talk and theorizing is a better method than

trial and error for improving ones images. How in the hell is a

method supposed to be "better" when it completely ignores

skills like networking, developing rapport, etc.--people skills that

are absolutely essential to producing the level of work that

consistently gets published!?

Improving oneself and being successfull at what you do are not the same. Allthough in a free trade(i hope thats also the correct term in english) profession if often seems to be that way.

 

Qualifying terms should be used referring to oneself i agree. John would have made a stronger arguement if he said it is 'better' for himself, however this thread is full of dogmas.

 

I think your both know theory and practice are evenly valuable, and i dont think John meant it that way....

Mike, you are oversimplifying my point. I agree that those skills are extremely important, but each of those skills - developing rapport, networking - even improving your "artistic" interpretation or style - can be improved through analysis and feedback.

 

Racecar drivers don't merely drive around in circles on the track hoping to go faster each time without crashing. They track and analyze data from each run and try to apply the knowledge they gain to many areas: from tuning the suspension, to what rpms they run at, to when they break for a turn, to how high of a line they take. (And I would expect to their frame of mind too.)

 

I said that analysis is part of the feedback loop - that means feedback into the actual process. People who learn by trial and error on the job are actually doing it too, just much less efficiently. (At least aspiring photographers who do so are only wasting time; racecar drivers are endangering their lives.)

 

The shortcoming of boards like this is that the feedback is often overly simplistic (e.g., "it's nice," or "crop it differently") because it's provided without consideration of the context of a real-world assignment.

 

I'd like to hear more from people who are published about the parameters of their assignments and how they succesfully operated within them to meet their client's needs.

My lack of acadmic photographic training is showing. I didn't realize that your latest comments were what you meant when you said:<P>

<i>We should be posting a lot more images of other photographers (of all types) on this board (along with a discussion of the context, of course). That's the only way to learn.</i><P>

I apologize for all the fuss. In the future, I'll simply assume that any statements that seem extreme to the point of absurdity actually mean something much more moderate and sensible.

I think John is still not entirely clear. He is saying something like, if you want to become good fashion photographer, you need to study professional fashion photography(the photographers and their work) to improve your OWN work. Compared to the trial and error method this is a much more efficient way to learn. Its a dualistic approach i guess, but viable IMO. Pretty much boils down to the teacher/student role.

 

How you would actually USE what you have learned is actually where it all begins, talent and people skills etc. are the tools you actually need to perform.

 

It actually would be very interesting to discuss great photographers'(not only famous ones) work within photo-net.

Everything is important.

Mostly a photographer needs to be able to take

pictures. This is what is expected of you.

There is no substitute for getting out there

with your camera.....there are no short cuts, although granted there are many levels

It is more useful to study your own work than other people`s,

and get feedback on it.

What upsets me most is John`s constant lack of respect for photographers

and the stated intention of posting other people`s work without their consent is worrying to me.

Fair use or infringement?

Copyright issues are about the biggest concerns published photographers have. Not only are you paid for your time,

but usage rights are agreed upon too. Photo.net has decided to allow this thread to stand.

I repeat that I find it unethical, but then maybe I`m just a dreamer.

I am very disappointed. These threads are not encouraging personal growth, or passion for photography.

Just the opposite.

Just a photographer`s point of view.

Feel free to disregard me.

Again, this is simply my point of view

as a photographer : I posted my work

on Photo.net of my own free will.

Magazines sell because of their content

and where would photo.net be without the contributions

made by the photographers ?

I mean their photographic contributions,

not boring threads like these.

I seriously query fair use in this situation.

For the record, I have now removed my images from Photo.net.

This is classic "fair use." I just removed another image from this forum yesterday because it was posted without permission in a "No Words" thread where there is no possible interpretation of fair use. However, in this thread, the photos were posted for discussion of a specific point.

 

I do agree with Mike that the photographers (and probably any one else that the magazine credits) should be referenced, but that doesn't affect the issue of whether or not this should be here.

 

Copyright infringement is a serious issue, but that doesn't eliminate fair use. If it does, education is in trouble.

I don't think this qualifies as "fair use". I don't know US laws, but in general copying is limited to a limited number of samples in a closed environment, such as a class.

 

This post can be read (and the images viewed) by anyone with an internet connection, so the potential audience is about as large as it could be. Personally I'd be very uncomfortable with retaining this thread.

My, but John's opened a nice can of worms this time...

Fair Use law in the US does not generally reference the number of copies. There are four general criteria for determining fair use and these are easy to find on the Internet.

'copying is limited to a limited number of samples in a closed environment, such as a

class'

 

I don't know US law either, but 'fair use' surely goes beyond the classroom. It is, for

example, the basis on which mass media can reproduce extracts of copyrighted

material (literature, film, photography etc) for the purpose of review.

 

I agree with Jeff that this is a classic 'fair use' scenario. The images have been posted

in the context of an educational debate.

 

And whilst this particular discussion has been rather unfocused, I would like to see

further threads of this nature (i.e. where someone slaps a current magazine on a

flatbed, and poses a question about the construction of the magazine's imagery)

 

It would be a shame if Photo.net outlawed such postings.

Of course, that begs the question of why I didn't post the names of the photographers when it would have been easier (at least in retrospect) to do so.

 

"I think you both know theory and practice are evenly valuable, and i don't think John meant it that way."

 

Actually, that's pretty close to what I meant. Primarily I meant that if you don't have both - and treat them as being equally important - you taking a long and difficult route and one with no assurance of success. Theory and analysis should provide the feedback that guides practice. (Without practice, as Mike points out, you are positioning yourself as a critic.) Unfortunately, I rarely see either attempts to formulate theory or to analyze real-world examples any boards like this. For those with dictionaries, that's pretty much the definition of being a dilettante. (And that's not necessarily a bad thing - unless you want someone to pay you for what you do.)

 

Also, the point was raised about "waxing poetic" about these kinds of endeavors as opposed to rationally theorizing about them. Having a degree in creative writing, I can do that with the best of them. However, I use that mindset to provide my inspiration - not to guide my hand.

Easily found on the internet?

 

http://www.adec.edu/admin/papers/fair10-17.html

 

states restrictions on the availability of multimedia material

and also that only a limited number of copies may be made of it.

 

Also, in numerous instances it is stated that even in "Fair Use", the copyright must be stated with the work. And in the guidelines for fair use in education (not law but the spirit of the law is in them), it says basically that the distributed copies should be limited.

 

So whether this post would win a trial is not certain, but it's clearly against the spirit of the fair use idea.

That paper specifically states that it is only an interpretation of the '"fair use" concept

within the context of an academic instititution. There are many other contexts, such

as the review of copyrighted material in the mass media, or, in this case, the

discussion of copyrighted material on the internet.

 

Anyway, what's your problem? Do you really think someone's rights are being abused

here?

 

Lighten up!

Actually there are much better scans available on the internet. I did these myself, but if you want to build a library of fashion images for your own edification, check out alt.binaries.pictures.supermodels.

 

They often post shots from all the major fashion mags as soon as they are published.