Transcending stereotype . . .

[studio460]

<p>As I've already mentioned in other threads, I've recently re-started my photographic avocation in just the last year. Next week, I've set-up a shoot with a model in an exchange-for-files deal, in order to build both our portfolios. Hopefully, some of those frames will be among the first inclusions in a new personal portfolio. My immediate objectives are to emulate popular style. One of the set-ups will include a "Jim Matusik" image. I was so enamored with his 1981 <em>American Photographer</em> cover photo, that I've always wanted to replicate it. I've known the technique for decades (fill-flash at magic hour), but never actually got around to shooting it. Again, the initial session will have the explicit goal of emulating popular style. This is in service to both the "client," my model, and to my personal fascination with Jim's images. Should things go well, and we end up working together again, the next session's goal will be to do something more "creative." So, at that point, my challenge will be to elevate my photo concepts beyond both mere mimicry of popular style, and the dozen or so most-common, stereotypical image constructions. How one moves beyond stereotype and obvious derivation is open for discussion . . .</p>

[jonathancharlesphoto]

<p>It's good to have a plan when starting a shoot but even better not to stick to it! The "flash with sunset" light set-up <em>is</em> a popular stereotype in fashion photography so you won't be getting any points for originality there but that's not necessarily bad if it's what you and your model want.</p>

<p>I think a useful start, rather than trying to be amazingly original straight away, is to go for variety in stereotypes: look through some quality fashion mags or photo books with your model and choose a selection of 10 or so images you both like to use as prototypes for your pics. Once your shoot is progressing nicely you can feel more comfortable to improvise - and this is where originality starts to come in naturally.</p>

<p>Best of luck with your shoot: try to make sure you both enjoy it.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>I think a useful start, rather than trying to be amazingly original straight away, is to go for variety in stereotypes . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jonathan: Thank you for your reply. Yes, an excellent suggestion, and that is hopefully my plan. For some reason I always litter my posts with personal backstory, presumably, to give them context, but likely more often, simply because I tend to be so self-centered in forum musings. Anywho, I could have just as easily titled this thread, "moving away from derivative work," or, "how to avoid near-verbatim copying of concepts and stylistic cues of your favorite artists." But the original reason I started the thread was to discuss the dozen or so most-common photographic stereotypes. I've been specifically thinking about the, "model in front of the background, location, or set," visual paradigm, and how to make it less obvious, that all I did in the photo was to place a model, in a compositionally pleasing portion of the frame, on a given background. I thought of a couple of "devices." 1.) Create more "designed" light and shadow forms on the background. 2.) Light in "layers." 3.) Don't always necessarily try to flatten my perspective with a "portrait" lens (e.g., try shooting more wide-angle, full-length "portraits"). 4.) Lower or raise my lens height from the traditional eye-level "portrait" height. 5.) Direct the model's pose to extend more into the 'Z' axis (e.g., arms thrust toward camera).</p>

[studio460]

<p></p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . look through some quality fashion mags or photo books with your model and choose a selection of 10 or so images you both . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, another excellent suggestion. In my youth, I used to spend all my money on imported fashion magazines (French and Italian versions of <em>Vogue</em>, <em>Elle</em>, etc.). When I lived with my previous girlfriend, I had source material plastered all over my office wall (now, the domestic situation is a bit <em>different</em>). My favorite tear-out was a full-length, profile shot of a nude girl in a photo booth from the French magazine, <em>Photo</em>. I've only just started to collect new source material for this upcoming shoot, but I need to get more.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Oh, I thought of one more . . . 6.) Literally, and physically integrate the model (or portions of the model), into the set, set-piece, prop, or natural-environment/background. The objective of these tactics is to try to reduce the amount by which I tend to compress 3D scenes into 2D representations, both optically (i.e., long lenses), or compositionally (e.g., leveled horizons, vertical verticals, etc.). My framing always tends to be flat-fieldish (deliberately), rectilinear, and inorganic (i.e., "formal"). Maybe abating these tendencies somewhat will lead to "different" photographs.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>What works for me is concentrating on expressiveness, gesture, pose, and mostly the individuality of each subject I share the photographic stage with. The stylistics, set ups, and compositions are the supporting players (most of the time). If a derived style is going to work for me, it will work because it makes sense with the subject I'm working with and with their expression, demeanor, and carriage. Then, even the most derived style can transcend itself because it gets personalized. Rather than the stylization dictating the tone of the shoot, if the subject dictates both tone and style, even if I am keeping in mind a specifically derived style, then that style can be transformed into something new. It can be molded. It can become ours. And, it's also a way that "new" styles can be developed. </p>

<p>It's one of the reasons, though I tend to work with men of a similar age group, I try not to work with types. I find many different kinds of men, even many you wouldn't expect, photogenic (in the human sense of that word, not the pretty picture sense).</p>

<p>Some of my more significant photos are ones where I <em>expose</em> myself and my subject to something emotionally or visually new (or my subject exposes us to something new), where he, I, or both of us <em>learn</em> something about himself, myself, our relationship (even if just a fleeting, hours-long one), or making a photograph.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[Addition] I find style <em>per se</em> can be a harsh filter. Concentrating on subject, not bogged down in style, may yield a style over time but it may be a more personal one, one not so derivative. My style seems just to develop at the same time as I may consciously develop it. And, though there are some very exciting photographic uses of self consciousness, self consciousness about style can also be a real drag.</p>

[jonathancharlesphoto]

<blockquote>

<p>Literally, and physically integrate the model (or portions of the model), into the set, set-piece, prop, or natural-environment/background.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, this the key requirement, as I hope you can see from my work. But more: a pictorial concept that includes the model in the process - a scenario which, in reality or invention, explains <em>why</em> the model is there and dressed (or not!) in the way shown.</p>

<p>Most of my photos were taken in spontaneous situations so they actually are real, but set-up photos can still be made to look quite convincing as natural scenes if you think them through carefully.</p>

[frank_mcconnaughey1]

<p>Oh yes, I have a real creative block about shooting models. I'm talking about the portfolios on sites like modelmayhem. They seem all the same to me. It's like looking at histrionics. They're so hyped and over determined. What am I missing and not seeing in that type of photography? Is it just the desire to be associated with the glamour, the eroticism, etc. of the modeling industry?<br /><br />I see originality in nudes lets say by Harry Callahan. They seem like real portraits. They're about caring and love. The eroticism of Helmut Newton. Bill Brand. Imogen Cunningham.<br /><br />I have a model that wants to work with me, but I can't find an idea that seems interesting, along the lines of model portfolios, that's why I ask. Maybe it is indeed work that is best generally done with a prosaic mindset and by rote, in spite of all the seeming surface glitter?</p>

[jonathancharlesphoto]

<p>Hi Frank, have a look at my stuff - hardly any of the photos are conventionally glamorous and there is a wide variety of styles and settings. There is no need to stick to a well worn formula.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Then, even the most derived style can transcend itself because it gets personalized. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred: Thank you for that sage insight into your working discipline. It's like my short films. They're perhaps competently shot, but often lack story. That begs another question: do good photographs always tell a story? Or, is "mood" enough? The subtext of my subject is typically the last thing I concern myself with mainly because craft and technique can become such distractions. I just need to shoot more, I think. Very helpful post; thank you!</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>For me, this the key requirement, as I hope you can see from my work. But more: a pictorial concept that includes the model in the process - a scenario which, in reality or invention, explains <em>why</em> the model is there and dressed (or not!) in the way shown.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brilliant! Jonathan, thank you for that key bit of advice! I think that may be <em>the</em> essential component in accomplishing some kind of "authentic" (either real, or staged) connection with your model to the "world." Bravo!</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Oh yes, I have a real creative block about shooting models. I'm talking about the portfolios on sites like modelmayhem. They seem all the same to me. It's like looking at histrionics. They're so hyped and over determined. What am I missing and not seeing in that type of photography? Is it just the desire to be associated with the glamour, the eroticism, etc. of the modeling industry?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My goodness, Frank! That is the <em>precise</em> dilemma which I'm describing! It's the exact challenge I'm about to face next weekend. Thank you for posting that! I hope to reply in more detail to your response a bit later when I have more time. Post more!</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>99% of my portraits are "casual" or "documentary" in that I shot the person in a situation where they were not posing or expecting to be photographed. Hence, the backgrounds and lighting are natural and as found. This is my "style." When I am asked to do a portrait I try to do something as close to the spontaneous as possible, using natural settings, etc. Check out my folders here or my website.</p>

[frank_mcconnaughey1]

<p>I think I'm not really good at conceptualizing something ahead of time. So I would indeed have an affinity for Jonathan or Steve's approach. I know there is a rich tradition of fashion and figure photography to draw from for inspiration.<br /><br />If a model came to me for a comp card, I think I would fall back on standard poses and looks. If I tried to do a conceptualized fashion shoot, it would be a disservice to the model. It's such a dynamic field. Everything would have to be authentic, and if you don't do that professionally, the photos would give themselves away as amateurish right away, no matter how competent I may be in other photographic genres. I would rather just make flattering, well-lighted pictures that would give an agent a good idea of what someone looks like and if they're photogenic.<br /><br />Many times I look at portfolios, and I feel that I can follow someone's thought process as to how they came to make the pictures. As in, "I like to take photographs. It's really fun. And I like to be outdoors, in scenic settings and nature. I like beauty in all its forms, but especially beautiful women (I'm imagining a straight guy's thought process). Wait, I have an idea, what if I combine all those things together, that way I'm outside in scenic settings with beautiful women taking photographs? That could be an enjoyable way to spend time. And it's a great way to approach women, because it's an artistic endeavor. I mean, artists have done figurative paintings for ever."<br /><br />Some portfolios have a variation on this, where women are in grungy industrial buildings doing all kinds of acrobatics. But honestly, they all look the same as anyone else's photo's that had the same set of ideas, and there are <em>a lot</em> of other people that have had the same set of ideas. I'm not trying to put anyone down, it's just what I feel I would come up if I went down the same road. There are worse ways to spend your time for sure. So it's okay. It really is its own reward. Who cares beyond that. But if someone were to take the photos, and cull the ones that were interesting photographically, as a critic or curator would, then it would be a different story, a different set of value judgments. I would say, this has been done before and better. I'm talking generally, or what I feel I would come up with. This just looks like a really pretty girl, but she'd look good no matter who took her picture. What I mean is, it's not an intrinsically interesting picture photographically besides the fact that there's a gorgeous nude woman in it. <br /><br /> </p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Hi Frank, have a look at my stuff - hardly any of the photos are conventionally glamorous and there is a wide variety of styles and settings. There is no need to stick to a well worn formula.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jonathan: I just peeked at your work--gorgeous! Really, really beautiful stuff! Clearly, you know how to work with models (and, know how to get them to take their clothes off!).</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Some portfolios have a variation on this, where women are in grungy industrial buildings doing all kinds of acrobatics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frank, thank you for your additional comments. I think we share many of the same observations. You've just pointed out photo-with-a-model stereotype number 28-B, the, "model posed against a gritty industrial surface" shot. Number 28-A is the same, except the background is an "appropriately" distressed wall in some big city alley.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This just looks like a really pretty girl, but she'd look good no matter who took her picture. What I mean is, it's not an intrinsically interesting picture photographically besides the fact that there's a gorgeous nude woman in it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, again, that's exactly my point, Frank. Today, I went out and spent $100 on source material and found some interesting work samples in the following publications: <em>Elle Spain</em>, <em>Vogue UK</em>, the current issue of <em>Photo</em> (France), <em>Numéro</em> (France), <em>Factory</em>, <em>Zink</em>, plus a few others. The Spanish edition of <em>Vogue</em> has an editorial feature with a lot of model-on-the-street shots (similar to the kinds of shots I have been planning shoot myself). And, indeed, as Jonathan advised, in nearly every shot, the model is somehow "engaged" with her environment.</p>

[studio460]

<p>After looking through my pile of imported fashion magazines, I certainly noticed a lot of deliberately styled, "style." While all of the images are beautiful, a few stunningly so, I feel I'm going to veer in a slightly different direction. Don't get me wrong, I'm still planning to emulate (i.e., "copy") the most popular stylistic techniques for two reasons: 1.) to try to attract the type of clients which tend to be interested in those kinds of looks. 2.) because it will be fun.</p>

<p>Here's what I've been thinking for some months now. I have two genres in mind which I think will result in good work products: documentary and editorial. When I say documentary, I mean the almost cliché-ly grainy, gritty, "stolen moment" shots, which may, or may not be staged, but look like part of a real-life scene. By the editorial part, I mean the type of commercial photography you see in Target in-store displays and in hotel brochures and the like . . . that sort of slice-of-life stuff, without a lot of artifice applied, but made to look "natural" (which can be damned hard to do). I suppose the agenda here, in this revised tack, is to try to avoid trendy motifs, and just try to practice making good "art" (e.g., documentary), and good "commercial" (e.g., slice-of-life) images.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>I have a model that wants to work with me, but I can't find an idea that seems interesting, along the lines of model portfolios, that's why I ask . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ahh . . . and therein lies the crux of the "problem." It's the idea. As a college tutor, I used to tell writing students, "You can't start writing without an idea." A few months ago, I started writing down the components and/or characteristics which can make a particular photo concept "work." It's idea-generation part that's often the "problem."</p>