A couple of real "fashion" shots

Not by me of course, but when the new issue of Harper's Bazaar came

today, I thought I'd check to see how "real" fashion photographers do

it. I found two right away that were quite interesting.

 

The first shot is the lead shot for the entire section on summer

fashion. The second is the lead shot for a layout on "sexy" dresses.

The text accompanying the first one details the following products

(in order): jacket, bikini bottom, tote, sunglasses, and sandals. The

second shot details fishnet stockings, platform shoes, a "racy"

dress, and tights.

 

Take a look and see just how the products are displayed. I'll let you

take a stroll down to the newstand to see who the photographers were.

<i>I'll let you take a stroll down to the newstand to see who the photographers were. </i><P>

 

Or you could give proper credit to the images' copyright holders. I understand how this could easily be considered "fair use" (if, in fact, there is some point for discussion you have in mind), but I don't understand how withholding the names of the photographers furthers the discussion.

I figured I'd let things roll around in my head for an hour to see where the ball stoppped before posting, but I've decided that, no, I definately do not understand what you're getting at here.

 

I'm assuming that this relates to the recent fashion layout threads you started. What I don't understand is what you're trying to get across by posting these photos. They don't refute the negative comments made in the other threads (if anything, both of these images are a pretty good fit with Harvey P.'s conventional and limited definition of fashion). They have no relationship to some of the comments. If they're meant to show that sex is used in fashion, well, that was never in dispute.

 

What are you trying to tell us?

No, merely how products are presented - or not.

 

And I doubt anyone on this board will be hiring either of these photographers in the near future, so they can remain temporarily anonymous.

So you're drawing our attention to how clearly the clothes are presented in these

shots?

 

I think we can see that.

 

But what's this 'or not'?

Well, I'll leave that comment to stand on its own.

 

The only relevent topic in the last thread was the discussion on product vs brand marketing vs content.

 

And I hope you don't think these are particularly sexy fashion shots. If so, you need to get out more! :)

 

Another interesting point is that one other person gets credit besides the photographer in each of these layouts. Who is it? (I'll give you a hint - it's not the model.)

<I>Well, I'll leave that comment to stand on its own.</i><P>

If you're interested in engaging in rational discussion, addressing questions in a substantive manner would be a better tactic. Making a point of ignoring a reasonable question smacks of condescension.<P>

<i>The only relevent topic in the last thread was the discussion on product vs brand marketing vs content.</i><P>

I thought that a relevant topic in the other threads was whether or not the images actually communicated the "story" that they were supposed to. So if you've got the theory worked out slick enough the execution doesn't matter?<P>

<i>And I hope you don't think these are particularly sexy fashion shots. If so, you need to get out more! :)</i><P>

Nothing I said would imply that. But thanks for implying that I'm ignorant (again).<P>

<i>Another interesting point is that one other person gets credit besides the photographer in each of these layouts. Who is it? (I'll give you a hint - it's not the model.)</i><p>

In a fashion mag, the other credit would probably go to the fashion editor for that story.

John, these are good fashion shots, but maybe you should get out more, with your camera, if you are reduced to posting other photographer's work.

> Making a point of ignoring a reasonable question smacks of condescension.

 

True - but then again it wasn't reasonable - at least for a rational person. When is the last time you bought a pair of shoes based on how the soles looked? Or a jacket based on how it looks from behind? Then again, the tote was pretty well covered.

 

> I thought that a relevant topic in the other threads was whether or not the

> images actually communicated the "story" that they were supposed to.

 

I meant relevent to this post. But while several people in the other thread mentioned their reactions to the pics - no one bothered to ask who the market was or addressed it even after I described it. If you are a photographer, no one hires you to photograph your fantasies (unless you're lucky enough to be Helmut Newton or Terry Richardson). (Of course, in this case, you'll just have to take my word for it that these pictures don't represent mine.) And even if you are a marketing director or fashion editor, what you like is irrelevent; the only thing that matters is if you know what the market will respond to.

 

> Nothing I said would imply that [i thought these were sexy fashion shots]

 

...except you said that's why you thought I posted them (unless you were joking - like I was).

 

> But thanks for implying that I'm ignorant (again)

 

I have been very careful in my comments not to attack anyone - only their obvious and selective blindness. But you're really reaching if you actually think that's why I posted them. (I have both a larger collection of shots than just those two to choose from if I wanted to illustrate "sexy"- as well as slightly more exotic tastes.) And though I wasn't referring to you in the other thread, the point stands that many people look at fashion mags, but few take the time to observe what's actually going on in them.

 

> In a fashion mag, the other credit would probably go to the fashion editor for that story.

 

Correct. The question for the viewers at home to answer is why would that be?

>John, these are good fashion shots, but maybe you should get out

>more, with your camera, if you are reduced to posting other >photographer's work

 

If you'll check out the archives, you'll notice I almost never post pictures. And when I do, it's because I have a perspective to share - not merely something just to show off. That's what a discussion forum (should be) about.

 

And all in all, I think these discussions have probably been very helpful for the majority of people reading them (if not the actual participants).

I'm almost too bored to bother, (sorry everyone )

but for those interested in sharing John's learning curve step by step :

If you are interested in Fashion photography you should know a bit more about clothes....the sole of the shoe is very important, as are the proportions and shapes of the garments, even the back view of a jacket.

I would also prefer to see people posting their own work.

I find it unethical to post these images at all, and most especially without the photographer's name.

<i>When is the last time you bought a pair of shoes based on how the soles looked? Or a jacket based on how it looks from behind?</i><P>

When was the last time you went shopping with a fashion-conscious woman??<P>

Do you honestly not see how carefully the clothes and accessories were selected, coordinated, and styled in the <i>Harper's</i> shots? While the point of the images wasn't to display the clothes as plainly as possible, and there's a definite sexual component to each image, it's obvious that the shots are <b>about fashion</B>. In your layout, however, the styling, posing, lighting, etc. were such that several people did not perceive them to be about fashion--the message received was SEX. If that's what will effectively sell the club and the lingerie to the market you're aiming for, great! But insisting that it's fashion, and insisting that anyone who disagrees knows nothing about fashion, is bullshit. Do you consider the main shooters for <I>Maxim</i> magazine to be fashion photographers? Or the ones for <i>FHM</i>? <i>Stuff</i>? The shots from your layout have far more in common with the kinds of images in those magazines than they do with images in <i>Harper's</i> or <i>Vogue</i> or <i>W</i>. If anything, the examples you posted illustrate the difference between your shots and fashion photography.<P>

Frankly, you can tell everyone who'll listen that you're a fashion photographer, and it won't make any difference to me. But words do have meanings (though they're sometimes imprecise). If you walked into the office of <i>Harper's</i> with a book of images like the ones in your layout, I kind of doubt they'd look at them as fashion photos.

I understand what your trying to say, but fashion photography is 'only' a tool to sell clothes, it is not art. This means anything distracting from its purpose should be taken out of the final edit(for example harsh highlights).

Im not saying there are no artists indulging in fashion photography BTW. Other then capturing an audiences attention, sex in photography serves no purpose....

 

While im at it, these examples you put in this post are very well illuminating your point(i could think of some better examples though). A good fashion photographer must be able to let the viewer think the person in the photograph is sexy because of the clothes he/she wears(quite successfull in the first pic), NOT because its a sexy pose. Otherwise the whole point to fashion photography is gone.

 

And John, if you answer every question you might find the discussion getting really confusing...... ;)

 

Greetings,

John, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your main point in posting these pictures

was to demonstrate that in good fashion photography the emphasis is more on the

mood than on a literal description of the clothes (you point out that we only see the

back of the girl's top and the soles of her shoes).

 

And yet, the design of the back of that top is fantastic. And the heels (not soles) of

those shoes are awesome. It seems to me that the photographer and stylist have

conspired to show these products in the best possible light. And there's plenty of

mood.

 

Good fashion photography is about creating mood AND showing the product.

 

Looking at the pictures in your fashion layout thread, I think that you were successful

in meeting these two objectives.

 

Unfortunately, however, the lingerie and jewellery you were working with was so

cheap, dull and nasty - so photographically uninspiring compared to the clothing

used in the shots you've posted here - that some of your detractors barely saw the

garments and accused you of shooting nothing but soft porn.

 

How would I have done it? Firstly I would have asked the stylist to bring some better,

more exciting clothes - fur coats, leather jackets, sequins. And I would have gone for

a more playful, party atmosphere, with the girls interacting with each other more,

rather than pouting for the camera (I like the idea of your make-up shot).

 

But tits'n'ass is probably what your client wanted - and that's what they got. Fair

enough.

 

(p.s. I hope your client doesn't have an internet connection, as I imagine that they

would be well pissed to see their work (the work they have commissioned) dissected

on a public forum before it has even been published. It's a bit out of order really. But

interesting nevertheless!)

"I think your main point in posting these pictures was to demonstrate that in good fashion photography the emphasis is more on the mood than on a literal description of the clothes (you point out that we only see the back of the girl's top and the soles of her shoes)."

 

Close. The point is that it's counterproductive to talk about any kind of advertising without a consideration of the audience and the goal. There's a place for photography that concentrates solely on products and that concentrates on solely on mood or on sex (and I'd also say on lifestyle) and on all combinations in between. But the point is you can't take it out of context and say anything meaningful about it except "nice (or bad) exposure and composition." The term "fashion photography" is worse than vague; it confuses the purpose of the layout (which usually consists of more than photography by the way) with an element of the shot.

 

And, of course, that's what the fashion editor (in an example like this) does - makes sure that the products, styling, and approach all meet the marketing requirements. The photographer's job is to execute (and hopefully help interpret) the concept. But I would bet that even if you show up with a portfolio of images like this, if it's clear you don't understand the point of what you are doing - or of the limitations on your input - then you won't get hired either.

 

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.

 

(If you want to support the two photographers of these shots, go out and buy the June issue of Harpers Bazaar - though they really don't need your help.)

Something I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned yet: editorial fashion photography isn't supposed to sell clothes--it's supposed to sell magazines.

 

Sure, if it consistently shows the clothing in a bad light, the fashion folks will stop contributing samples to the magazines, but those spreads are BY the magazine, to sell copies of the magazine. Not the clothes.

 

The same applies to the cover shot.

 

Look at the advertising if you want to see a different view of 'fashion photography'.

The boundaries between advertising and editorial fashion photography have become

increasingly blurred.

 

Much of the styling in editorial shoots is done to please the magazine's

advertisers. Fashion editors have little real independence - they have to ensure that

there's a Gucci piece in one story, a Prada in another, and so on...

 

Sure, the editorial has to sell the magazine - but it's being bought by readers who are

interested in fashion and want to look at the latest clothes.

 

As photographers, we may look at just the photos - but the average reader is as

interested in the captions as the images themselves. In fact, I think that clear

depiction of the garments is more important in editorial than in advertising.

Advertising can focus more on the brand than the clothes themselves...

<i>The term "fashion photography" is worse than vague; it confuses the purpose of the layout (which usually consists of more than photography by the way) with an element of the shot.</i><P>

So why the repeated insistence that your layout was an example of fashion photography? Others were happy to consider how the images functioned in the appropriate context--you're the one who keeps bringing it back to "fashion."<P>

<i>The photographer's job is to execute (and hopefully help interpret) the concept. But I would bet that even if you show up with a portfolio of images like this </i>[photo from Harper's]<i>, if it's clear you don't understand the point of what you are doing - or of the limitations on your input - then you won't get hired either.</i><p>

I would bet that a portfolio of images like these would make it clear that you <i>do</i> understand the photographer's role (and are competent to play it). Do you think ones personal philosophy of fashion photography would make any difference if it's not clearly reflected in the photos?<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 think intelligent discussion is a component of learning, but it's absurd to assert that it's the only way to learn. You don't develop mastery of your equipment, excellent rapport with models, networks with skilled makeup artists and stylists, etc. without <i>doing</I> photography. And you don't identify your own weaknesses by only talking about other people's work.

The way I'd explain the types of advertising is this: you have sales which promotes products, marketing which promotes brands, and editorial which promotes a lifestyle that you want your market to identify with. They all work together.

>I would bet that a portfolio of images like these would make it clear that you do understand the photographer's role (and are competent to play it).

 

Anyone can learn to take pretty (and technically excellent) pictures, but if you can't understand and interpret the job you've been hired for you are wasting your client's time. Out of the context of the assignment, these are just pretty pictures.

 

>Do you think ones' personal philosophy of fashion photography would make any difference if it's not clearly reflected in the photos?

 

It obviously depends on how much input the client wants you to have.

 

 

>I think intelligent discussion is a component of learning, but it's absurd to assert that it's the only way to learn.

 

It's the real-world part of the feedback loop without which everything else is pointless.

Although I pointed out that editorial is often contaminated by the imperatives of

advertisers (and should perhaps be flagged as 'advertorial'), I think it is pushing it to

describe editorial as a 'type of advertising'.

<i>It's the real-world part of the feedback loop without which everything else is pointless.</i><P>

What?? Please explain how this statement supports the essential importance of discussing other people's work.

Coming into this thread late, I'd say John served no purpose in scanning & posting

the published work of other photographers, particularly given that he did not give

attributions. There are basic copyright laws against exactly this activity. And Jhn

broke them.

 

Leanne's comments are quite telling & accurate. Mike Dixon, as always, is being

overly tactful while trying to be direct on a topic that John doesn't grasp.

 

And John is once again on the defensive, off into the usual misunderstandings &

spending far more time arguing than shooting.

 

Making constant comments on photo.net forums requires tremendous idle time.

Seems a few self-directed projects would pay higher dividends than these endless

threads that instruct no one.

You're right, Patrick, but it's so much FUN watching John trying to justify himself...

Please ppl, read a dictionary for once, offcourse its 'fashion' allthough some ppl will think otherwise.

 

Fashion: style in clothes, cosmetics, behaviour, etc., esp. the latest or most admired style.

 

John, STOP responding to stupid remarks, they are just pulling your legg. So... there... i said it....