What is a Fashion shot

[Dave Gardner]

When doing photo critiques...lets say Fashion...I ask my self "just

what factors make a fashion shot" I could never put my finger on

it. Sometimes i see a shot under Fashion and think...is this really

fashion.

 

So i pose the question...what factors or elements make a shot

a "Fashion Shot"...?

 

Dave

[yadayadanoonecares]

Youll propably get various answers, but to me a fashion shot is 'a fashion shot' where the intention is to attract the viewer's eye more to the clothing / atire then to the model or its surroundings. It's to portray the fashion, not the model (this is also why runway models use such a neutral look most of the time: not to distract from the product their are showing).

 

Of course, depending on the target of the shot, this can vary (advertising for example, often uses overwhelming beautifull surroundings and models to associate that beauty with having the product).

[mr.wind-upbird]

Some on this site seem to think that it's anything that involves an exposed nipple.

[gary evans]

Don't forget a good pout!

[twmeyer]

It's a photograph that evokes the feeling a person will experience when they use the featured product. As a vehicle, face and mouthpiece for adverstising, it should provoke envy, desire and/or an unhappiness in the viewer's present (lacking) condition, and imply that only the experience of having and using the product can assuage that sad condition.<p>In a slightly less cynical take, it sells the sizzle of couture, not the steak. It's about what it does for you, and not so much about what it's made of...<p>Catalog photography sells the steak (clothes), fashion (as in editorial work) is all about the emotional state...the sizzle... created by the experience of expressing one's self through the visual and physical enhancement of your external condition. <p>So it's not just clothes, it's perfume, jewelry, physical fitness, hair style, skin color/tone, automobiles, shoes, iPods, food, homes and vacation destinations...anything that makes you feel good when you have it. <p>A good fashion photograph shows how <i>you</i> will feel when you have it, and implies how other people will think about you, when you have it... t

[dave_nelson___atlanta__ga]

<p>"just what factors make a fashion shot"</p>

 

<p>As opposed to an "art shot," "landscape shot," "portraiture," etc...</p>

 

<p>I think that the defining part of a fashion photo is that its purpose is to highlight, showcase, or bring a fashion to light. Like most photos, a "fashion shot" may fit into many categories. In fact it may not begin in the fashion category, but in the future may be considered a fashion shot based on content.</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.answers.com/fashion&r=67"><u>Definition of Fashion</u></a></p>

[guk]

go to

www.duroi.com/fashionforum and ask the question there or check the archives

[Dave Gardner]

I have to agree with most of you that it is about the product....not the model....not the nipple.

I don't think that it would be as simple as the opposite of a landscape or portrate.

Sometimes it's hard to seperate...but i think when i critique photos(fashion)...i'll have to ask

myself.....what stands out in the photo. Thanks to all for your replys.

 

Dave

[jpbarilguerard]

George, thank you for the link. I just signed up to that forum, I definitely like the place. I feel belittled by all the talent there... heh!

[johnny_tergo]

I beleive that a great fashion shot is a little bit of art and a little bit of commerce... therefore www.artandcommerce.com

[david_m]

A fashion shot is a shot whose main purpose is to sell clothes. The model is secondary, the model is in fact just a clothes hanger for the garment. A fashion shot can be just of a glove or shoes, it does not have to be the whole body. To see good fashion shots.... look in a good fashion magazine .... like Elle

[twmeyer]

<i>"To see good fashion shots.... look in a good fashion magazine .... like Elle"</i><p>where they use clothes hangers in damn near every shot (why waste money on models?)... t

[nello]

Good Fashion photography is NOT about selling the clothes. Rather, its about selling the "Fantasy". This is the essential difference between Catalog work and Art. But there is a difference!

Take a look at Helmut Newton's "White Women." Yes, the clothes are a part of the process. But what Newton does is that he builds a world of fantasy. He captures an aesthetic and a mood. He was NOT doing product shots. Guy Bourdin, Melvin Sokolsky, these guys created images full of fantasy. Their work was about chic idealism, style, and posture. It was about Attitude! Sometimes you couldn't even see the clothes, but it didn't matter -just so long as you realized that St. Laurent, La croix, and Chanel made clothes for the elite and the beautiful. Heck, Abercrombie & Fitch loves to put naked young models in its ads (and yet there are plenty of people buying their clothes)... Pick up W magazine and look at the Dior, Hermes and Vuitton campaigns. Look at the Marc Jacobs campaign that Jeurgen Teller did. Look at the Gucci campaign with a topless Paris Hilton with a python. The Sicily Campaigns of a pink poodle with redeye... In all, there isn't one single answer to your question, but the heart of Fashion photography is selling an Aesthetic and an Attitude. And the greatest fashion photographers were the ones that could deliver it.

[nello]

Also, if you want to see cutting edge fashion photography, try these magazines:

 

Flaunt, W, Surface, Pop, Nylon, Numero, V, and Italian Vogue.

 

Elle is great, and I worship Gilles Bensimon but American Elle can sometimes be a little too vanilla icecream. That goes for most American fashion mags available at walmart.

[twmeyer]

right... t

[igord]

In my opinion no factors, good fashion photo doesn't look like fashion photo.

[james_mullineaux]

The biggest difference between fashion and glamour/portrait photos is where the model is looking. In portraits and glamour the model is almost always looking at the camera. This is to make the viewer connect with the subject. We always look to the eyes first. In fashion the subject is the clothes and you specifically don't want the viewer to connect with the model so the model looks away from the camera. To learn more about the person in the fashion image your next clues are the what they're wearing which is always well in focus with lighting that emphasizes the texture, color, or some other feature or the wardrobe. This isn't a hard fast rule, it's broken creatively like any other rule. When looking at an image in question ask yourself: "Is my focus being drawn towards the model or what (s)he is wearing?"

[paul_k1664875007]

IMO a fashion shot is not about the model, the selling of the clothes nor

(athough close) about the selling of a phantasy.

 

I think, based on having worked in the field a number of years before

problems with my eyesight forced me to an early retirement in that line of

work, it's all aimed at seduction.

 

By showing a certain image or presentation the spectator is lured into thinking

that by buying it some of the image, standing, beauty, power or whatever the

spectator thinks he sees will rubb of on him and thus give him that as well,

and thus is seduced to buy it.

 

I have seen it on a very basic level, where a high price society-orientated

designer eventually, on insistence of his clientele, had to use young beautiful

models for both his presentation and his fashion shows, despite the major

part of his clients being middle-aged matron who would have to buy the

clothes several sizes larger then the ones the models wore.

 

A catalog shot is simply made to sell the dress, and thus emphasis is much

more on correct color representation, correct reproduction and lighting. I once

was told that the perfect catalog shot was the one that sold the dress and the

full stock of it, no less (as obviously unsold ones were a loss) but also no

more (as that would mean production lines would have to be turned around to

make extra ones, jeapordizing production plans for the next collection which

would at that moment would already have been set in motion)

 

The same goes for the models that are used, a fashion shot will need a model

with a certain look, image and appeal (the supermodel, as created by

Versace in the eighties), where as for a catalog shot, the model should not

overshadow the product (the girl next door 'special'' model) thus not shying

away ordinary people from buying the product.

 

Of course, with the nowadays celebrity culture, consumers no longer are

satisfied with a run of the mill presentation or image, so e,g, H&M uses

topmodels for the presentation of their low price clothes and get high profile

deisgners like Karl Lagerfeld and Stella McCartney to design limited (if that

can be the case with H&M) collections for them.

 

My two cents

 

http://www.itisphoto.com/html/galeries/galerie2.cfm?nomgal=koster

[david_m]

The fashion photography in <i>Nylon</i> is horrendously bad. I'm surprised anyone would recommend it. Also, Helmut Newton's private work had nothing to do with fashion photography. He admitted that himself, its ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

[mike dixon]

I agree with Nello D.