Fun Product Photography

[Ricochetrider]

Leafing thru an October 2022 copy of Wallpaper magazine last night, I was struck by this photo advert.

which is whimsical, fun & seems to be presented as something besides a regular digital image… 

 

 In peering at it I discovered the photographer’s name in the “framing”- Andrea Ferrari. Dug around some, looking for him without success, so I went to the Baxter website and found a series of shots by him. Turns out the pix were shot on a LF camera on instant film! 

Fun stuff! 
 

 

Andrea Ferrari for Baxter, Made In Italy

 

EDIT: found his website, at a casual glance there’s some interesting stuff here

Andrea Ferrari Studio Website

Edited February 10, 2023 by Ricochetrider
add 2nd link

[samstevens]

And the curves of your left hand page add substantially! 😊

[Ricochetrider]

15 hours ago, samstevens said:

And the curves of your left hand page add substantially! 😊

😄

[rodeo_joe1]

On 2/10/2023 at 3:29 PM, Ricochetrider said:

Turns out the pix were shot on a LF camera on instant film! 

But you're still viewing a digitised scan, and with the added filter of a half-tone screen and a CMYK ink colour space added. 

How does that vary from a T/S lens on a digital camera, with the colour slightly messed up and a pretentious black border added in post?

Shot on instant film they claim? 

Since when did you get the border shading of a standard cut-film holder on instant film? 

[Ricochetrider]

3 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

But you're still viewing a digitised scan, and with the added filter of a half-tone screen and a CMYK ink colour space added. 

How does that vary from a T/S lens on a digital camera, with the colour slightly messed up and a pretentious black border added in post?

Shot on instant film they claim? 

Since when did you get the border shading of a standard cut-film holder on instant film? 

Just curious, Joe, do you ever look at something and think, “now that’s a ton of fun right there” ? 
 

 

[rodeo_joe1]

Taking pictures is fun. The problem solving/setting up/lighting of a picture is fun. Setting up an LF camera and still life - hard work but fun. Even getting the best out of a picture in PS or another editor is (sometimes) fun.

Looking at product catalogues full of commercial photographers' work, each desperately trying to gain clients through inventing a USP and formulaic 'style'. Not so much. Because in the end most commercial and fashion work is entirely false, devoid of realism or soul and historically irrelevant.

I'm not saying there's nothing to be learned from such work technically or aesthetically, but I find most of it mechanistic and often quite self-indulgent. 

Like, what's fun about using instant film? A bit lazy if you ask me. So why not just use digital? - which is going to be the end product anyway. 

Edited February 20, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[samstevens]

LOL. Tell it to Irving Penn and Richard Avedon.

[rodeo_joe1]

Richard who? 

[Ricochetrider]

On 2/20/2023 at 5:24 PM, rodeo_joe1 said:

Richard who? 

Richard The Third 😄 

[Ricochetrider]

On 2/20/2023 at 2:25 PM, rodeo_joe1 said:

Taking pictures is fun. The problem solving/setting up/lighting of a picture is fun. Setting up an LF camera and still life - hard work but fun. Even getting the best out of a picture in PS or another editor is (sometimes) fun.

Looking at product catalogues full of commercial photographers' work, each desperately trying to gain clients through inventing a USP and formulaic 'style'. Not so much. Because in the end most commercial and fashion work is entirely false, devoid of realism or soul and historically irrelevant.

I'm not saying there's nothing to be learned from such work technically or aesthetically, but I find most of it mechanistic and often quite self-indulgent. 

Like, what's fun about using instant film? A bit lazy if you ask me. So why not just use digital? - which is going to be the end product anyway. 

I tend to find something redeemable in pretty much every type of photograph. I'm trying my best to fully inform myself as to what is possible -and/or acceptable- in the realm of "photography". Maybe at some point I'll seek some formal education on the subject but so far, I've learned to create photographs almost completely through what I've seen done by others. To my way of thinking, nothing is off limits, everything is up for grabs. I want to see & absorb it all, so I can shoot what I want to shoot and do it in a way that feels good to me.

 

 

Edited February 22, 2023 by Ricochetrider

[samstevens]

31 minutes ago, Ricochetrider said:

I tend to find something redeemable in pretty much every type of photograph. I'm trying my best to fully inform myself as to what is possible -and/or acceptable- in the realm of "photography". Maybe at some point I'll seek some formal education on the subject but so far, I've learned to create photographs almost completely through what I've seen done by others. To my way of thinking, nothing is off limits, everything is up for grabs. I want to see & absorb it all, so I can shoot what I want to shoot and do it in a way that feels good to me.

 

 

Whether in my photographic life, musical life, or academic life, I’ve run across those who seek to exclude swaths of each in an effort to show they’re above them, outside the mainstream, or for some other ego-driven reason. Early on, I learned to ignore them and widen my scope which has helped me learn and, ironically, focus. Though I never plan to do product or fashion photography, I’ve become interested and adaptable enough to use certain things I’ve seen in both in creating the photos I do create. Certainly, both Penn and Avedon have taught and inspired me with their fashion work. Both inspiration and ideas can come from the least likely places. The classical musician who refuses to listen to jazz, or even jingles, may impress himself but limits his ability to hear the world which is, after all, what folks like Mozart and Beethoven did, even when the latter could literally hear no longer. Mozart was moved to write these variations based on a popular children’s folk song of the time. I doubt he was ashamed of or felt himself above doing so …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezvj-De6bxY

[rodeo_joe1]

Let me explain my dismissal of fashion and celebrity photography: In my older years, I've come to appreciate the historical value of photography much more. In, say 100 years time, hardly anyone will care about or remember who Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe, 'Twiggy', David Beckham or the Kardashian family were. Let alone what daft styles of clothing were on offer to a privileged few people.

IMO the world just doesn't need yet another staged portrait of Donald Trump, Madonna or Beyonce - no matter how well-lit, composed or 'revealing' it might be.

How much does anyone care about Marie Lloyd, Caruso or even John Wayne these days? Or look on their portraits as of major importance in the great scheme of things?

A major part of history, I believe, should be about showing us what we've lost and what we've (possibly) gained, and photography has an important role to play in that.

The pictures of working tall-ships and everyday life in and around Whitby Harbour, taken by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe about a century ago, are more poignant to me than anything shot by David Hamilton or Richard Avedon. As are more recent pictures of now lost coal mining communities taken by the likes of Bill Brandt.

Fame and celebrity are as transient and fickle as fashion. They have no long term importance. Although I would love to see candid photographs of the likes of Alexander the Great, Confucius, Buddha, Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe. 

FWIW, I think the only pictures of any longterm importance taken by David Bailey are those of the Kray twins - and he only took those at their unrefusable 'invitation'. Whereas, perhaps less famous, Don McCullin, IMO, has a far more historically important body of work, both war-related and away from the battlefield. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[samstevens]

4 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

Caruso or even John Wayne

During the pandemic, I watched most of the good John Wayne westerns (there are a lot) and loved them. 

I still listen to Caruso when I find something of his.

You may be confusing "what the world needs" with what you need. You seem also to be ignorant wants in favor of needs. Elementary mistakes.

[samstevens]

52 minutes ago, samstevens said:

You seem also to be ignorant wants in favor of needs.

Should be: “You seem also to be ignoring wants in favor of needs. 

_____________

In terms of photos of Wayne or Caruso, they can act as introductions to important characters of the past. When I see an interesting portrait of a past figure I don’t know, I’m often moved to do a little sleuthing about them. So, if a kid a hundred years from now finds Karsh’s great portrait of Casals or a great studio promo still of Wayne and discovers the talent behind the face, good for that kid. 

[Ricochetrider]

On 2/23/2023 at 8:28 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

Let me explain my dismissal of fashion and celebrity photography: In my older years, I've come to appreciate the historical value of photography much more. In, say 100 years time, hardly anyone will care about or remember who Marlon Brando, Marilyn Monroe, 'Twiggy', David Beckham or the Kardashian family were. Let alone what daft styles of clothing were on offer to a privileged few people.

IMO the world just doesn't need yet another staged portrait of Donald Trump, Madonna or Beyonce - no matter how well-lit, composed or 'revealing' it might be.

How much does anyone care about Marie Lloyd, Caruso or even John Wayne these days? Or look on their portraits as of major importance in the great scheme of things?

A major part of history, I believe, should be about showing us what we've lost and what we've (possibly) gained, and photography has an important role to play in that.

The pictures of working tall-ships and everyday life in and around Whitby Harbour, taken by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe about a century ago, are more poignant to me than anything shot by David Hamilton or Richard Avedon. As are more recent pictures of now lost coal mining communities taken by the likes of Bill Brandt.

Fame and celebrity are as transient and fickle as fashion. They have no long term importance. Although I would love to see candid photographs of the likes of Alexander the Great, Confucius, Buddha, Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe. 

FWIW, I think the only pictures of any longterm importance taken by David Bailey are those of the Kray twins - and he only took those at their unrefusable 'invitation'. Whereas, perhaps less famous, Don McCullin, IMO, has a far more historically important body of work, both war-related and away from the battlefield. 

Thanks for the added perspective Joe 👍🏼
 

I’m not trying to “put lipstick on a pig” here- just taking things at face value with a big dose of subjectivity. I wouldn’t assign anything too heady to any of this kind of thing, but enjoy seeing somebody doing something their way. For me it simply expands the realm of what’s possible, and adds a deeper understanding of what IS being done. 
 

Commercial photography might not have historical significance, per se, but here’s a guy making what appears to be a living (perhaps a good one) shooting couches. I mean among others things. But it feels at a glance, as tho Mr Ferrari’s reputation led the furniture company to him. I’ll call that success! 
 

Will I ever shoot couches? I don’t aspire to. But dang man these shots are kinda cool. I’d absolutely love to have a studio and shoot people, and their vintage bikes and cars in it! 
 

Fashion photography IMO is a whole other realm that reminds me very much of Theater.  Designers, Art Directors, Set Design, Hair & Makeuo, Wardrobe, The Players (models)…

Having worked to build and run big designer shows at Fashion Week in NYC (Marc Jacobs, Tommy Hilfiger among others, if I was gonna name drop) this stuff speaks to me on a more personal level -and it’s just pure eye candy! I think The World might agree there’s at least a sociological and economical basis for following fashion trends across the ages. 
 

Lastly, and I know we differ on this point Joe… sure everything is digital now. Doesn’t matter what one shoots- it’s almost certainly going to end up a file. Digital photography came from film. Digital photography has indeed come into its own and is super strong, without question. All things now came from somewhere. All or most of the “original forms” were simpler and often better. Digital and synthesized and all things transformed for convenience and modernity EMULATE whatever the original form was. 
 

I personally prefer to shoot my older film cameras. You prefer to shoot your digital cameras. There’s room at the proverbial inn for all of us, whatever we shoot- and, subject matter not withstanding, I believe that film photos in magazines, TV news articles about a film revolution shot on film, movies being filmed on vintage cameras etc all tend to lend credence and pay homage to the “historical” aspects of photography. 
 

Here’s my bottom line: I don’t look at this as though we are on opposite sides of the issue here. You and I advocate for our preferred methodology- but at the end of the day, we are all “photographers”. When we come to the table, we bring not only whatever camera but also the entire history of the genre with us. 
 

Have a great weekend! 
Tom 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Ricochetrider

[samstevens]

31 minutes ago, Ricochetrider said:

Will I ever shoot couches? I don’t aspire to.

I prefer well-worn chairs for my historically irrelevant portraits. 😊

george at home

[Ricochetrider]

1 hour ago, samstevens said:

I prefer well-worn chairs for my historically irrelevant portraits. 😊

george at home

I dunno Sam-  looks to me like there’s some historically relevant Mexican Blanket stuff going on here… 😁

George looks like he’s rockin a bit of fashion history here as well !