Fashion shoot

[mmcduffie1]

i'm no expert but i don't like number 2. I do like the B&W and i like #1 i just don't like her expression. Overall nice shots though.

 

[sfaust]

In my first post, I considered each image separately, but had a gripe with the fact that each one's context or storyline wasn't clearly or well executed enough.

So you responded by saying that the concept isn't important w/o accompanying text, graphics, or placement. This I mistakenly took to mean spread.

Understood, and that was misleading when I re-read it as well, and I apologized for that.

The comment was referring to your comment on image 3, in that it doesn't work as a stand alone image. I agree, but stated many images used in advertising and marketing are not whole, and many do rely on text, graphics, or placement to bring the concept to light. Just because someone can't make sense of an image, doesn't mean it's not commercial viable.

Some people won't be able to see anything but a question in their head about what he may be doing. Others will be able to take a creative approach and mentally come up with various uses for it. If a contest was setup just for fun to see who could put the best spin on that image, I would bet we would have a couple good lines that would fit the image perfectly. I never dismiss an image because I can't put it into a context, since I've found there are others who do a great job of it. I think they are called creative and art directors So I just leave that to the viewer since everyones take will be quite different.

I.e., a creative could easily take the color version of that image, drop in some dollar signs falling from the sky into his hands, add some context around the gloomy house market, mortgages, empty land, home building, etc, and have an image and idea that works for that concept. I might never consider it, nor you, but a good creative might. It never ceases to amaze me what works in the commercial world when teamed up with a god creative person.

That was my point regarding that image.

I also posted the car shot to show a conceptual image taken during the same shoot, just to show I do indeed understand the concept of an image as a standalone story. It wasn't meant to somehow justify and tie together the other images.

But to the real point. These images are not wholly commercial. You're clearly trying to step into editorial fashion territory here. And if you'll get out your editorial fashion handbook, .....

And this is the real issue at hand IMO. I am "clearly trying to step into editorial fashion....". Really? Clearly? Even after you read the previously posts you still believe that? Sign.. oh well....

Stated again, and hopefully very clearly this time, I had very simple goals for this shoot;

1. Produce the concept image of the guy and girl in the convertible for my portfolio.
2. Create example lighting examples & techniques for my lighting workshops and technical reference on my blog.
3. Take some behind the scenes images showing the lighting setup, again for the workshops/blog.
4. Create some images suitable for the models portfolios.
5. Last and most important, have fun while shooting.

IMO, I meet all these goals during this shoot, especially the last

You are trying to put this shoot into a context that it was not intended for. I understand how you got misled in that direction, but I don't understand why you are still on that track even after I explained the motivation behind the images in the previous posts more than once, and stated there was never an intent to make this even close an editorial fashion spread.

So of course I agree the images posted are not viable as an editorial fashion story. But then it was never meant to be. No surprise there. You stated you know what I was going for, yet in fact have absolutely no idea based on your comments, and I can't understand how you still stick with that. I stated my goals in multiple posts, yet you seemed to dismiss it and again jump on the editorial storyboard.

But the real pisser (can I say that here) is when you suggest I get out my 'editorial fashion handbook', and follow it up with then the 'bruised ego' comment.... What can I do but chuckle, shake my head, and move on.

Just noticed this is my 13th post here. How fitting, is Halloween just around the corner

 

[Alpha]

Ok. I didn't mean to sound like a prick. I'll explain my methodology.

Perhaps I'm apt to over-categorize. But generally speaking, the style of a shot involving people generally falls into either fashion, beauty, or glamour, and sometimes commercial. Sort of an a e i o u and sometimes y sort of thing. As you know, in many instances, commercial can be it's own category, when it comes to, say, product or architectural work. But when people are involved, I don't really see commercial as an independent genre of the other three, even when it comes to stock work. A catalog shot, for example, I'd probably call commercial editorial fashion. An ad for something like Victoria's Secret isn't strictly glamour...after all isn't isn't just about the sexiness. It's also about the lingerie itself, but it's more pinup than editorial, so I might say it's something like commercial glamour. Beauty is a little harder to nail down. I'd probably refrain from concocting a "commercial beauty" label.

I say "a commercial photographer shooting editorial fashion" because, for a variety of reasons, these shot's can't neatly be categorized. And perhaps that's not such a bad thing. But let me run you through what I'm thinking when I'm looking at the first one. The same sort of logic I'd apply to the others.

The suitcase, trench coat, boots, and sunglasses, are all screaming editorial fashion. But it's not really editorial fashion, for reasons I have a hard time explaining and don't really need to be explained because, as you noted, it is in fact, not an editorial fashion shot. It's definitely not beauty, and it's definitely not glamour, and it's definitely not studio fashion, and it's definitely not catalog work. So that puts it somewhere in limbo. It's got some commercial feel, and it's got some editorial fashion feel but it's not really either. If it were editorial fashion the pose would be more plain or more austere. And if it were strictly commercial it probably wouldn't be shot at that angle or feature that outfit. On another note, the vignetting, I feel, rules it out of either. It's an effect that appears more in commercial than fashion but is largely relegated to wedding photographers and hobbyists shooting internet models. So what do I conclude? That it looks like a commercial photographer shooting editorial fashion. I can't look at it and say, "this is a great commercial shot" like I might something out of a catalog. But by the same token, I can't say, "this is a great editorial fashion shot." But if I combine the two, in theory, it just doesn't quite work out. I can't look at it and say, "this is a great hybrid of the two." Which is why I don't like it that much, because it doesn't fully accomplish either or succinctly meld the two.

Now it seems to me that really nailing one particular style is the status quo. And while I appreciate what I believe is an attempt to combine them, or break free of their constraints, I really don't feel that you pulled it off. I don't think it's possible to do half of one and half of another. It's gotta be all of both and really seamless; something I would look at and say, "this is a great commercial shot, and it's also a great editorial fashion shot." And if both aren't all the way there, then at least in my eyes, it looks just like the thousands of photos you see on MM and OMP where a photographer drags a pretty girl out into the desert with a beauty dish and reflector, and ends up with something just looks like a little of this and a little of that.

Now I hope that doesn't come across as condescending, and I'd rather not kick off a bad relationship with a very competent photographer. I suppose my question is just, if these were the only three images in your book, and an art/creative director asked you what style you shoot, how would you answer?

 

[sfaust]

Perhaps I'm apt to over-categorize. But generally speaking, the style of a shot involving people generally falls into either fashion, beauty, or glamour, and sometimes commercial. Sort of an a e i o u and sometimes y sort of thing. As you .....

I think that just over complicates something that really needn't be . I.e. you say that a person in a shot is 'sometimes' commercial, but mostly falls into your other categories. Yet I can open any corporate brochure and see people everywhere, and most people in the industry if asked would tell you it's a commercial image without hesitation. I think where the image is used has as much to do with how it's classified, than what is actually in the image itself. I've seen editorial fashion articles with nothing but products (purses, accessories, high end watches), yet a narrow view not taking into consideration where the images are used would likely classify them as commercial product images.

How to classify the first image I posted? I have no idea, nor do I find it important to do so based on how it is being used. I wanted to demonstrate a lighting technique, the model wanted an interesting shot for her portfolio, and she already had an idea using the luggage, coat, boots, and lingerie and brought those the shoot. The sun was in and out all day, and I wanted to take advantage of the sun while it was out for the lighting example. So we shot it. I got what I wanted, she got an interesting image for her book, so it worked for both the intended purposes. While I wouldn't submit it to a magazine as an example of my editorial fashion skills, I have not qualms about putting it up on a projector in front of a room full of people when discussing how I would light a subject in that given situation. Nor would I hesitate to write a blog article about lighting and use it as an example, and I did just that. So maybe since we can't classify it any other way, we can create a new classification called 'lighting educatorial peoplefolio'. Although, that may be way to specialized and hard to pronounce and spell (needed to inject some humor here).

On another note, the vignetting, I feel, rules it out of either. It's an effect that appears more in commercial than fashion but is largely relegated to wedding photographers and hobbyists shooting internet models.

I think thats another generalization used to categorize an image which really shouldn't be. A walk through any of the high end fashion magazines will show it's still an effect that is used often enough, and not generalized to the wedding/portrait or internet model segments. High end fashion photographers like Karl Dickensen or Ludovk Roy (random examples), both shooting for big names in the fashion industry have used it recently. Using a technique to rule an image out of a given category is very narrow minded in my opinion. It's like saying an image that is black and white is considered fine art, and such removes it from the commercial category. Using a technique will mis-categorize many images based on a narrow view of one parameter, rather than taking the whole 'picture' (pun intended ) into consideration.

Like you I do find categorizing images hard. There is so much crossover between the categories, you can always argue one point against the other to move an image from category to category. I have kind of given up and just go with the flow.

Now it seems to me that really nailing one particular style is the status quo. And while I appreciate what I believe is an attempt to combine them, or break free of their constraints, I really don't feel that you pulled it off. I don't think it's possible to....

While you may have believed I was trying to combine genres, that's merely a coincidence . The only thing I was trying to combine was the models need for an image, and my need or an image that demonstrated a technique. Anything else was happenstance. There wasn't a stylist. There wasn't any wardrobe to speak of. We had very modest needs and goals, and while shooting as such, there will always be things that could be improved upon, and I'd be the first to admit that.

I agree 100% that nailing a style is important when selling ones self to the market. The market likes to categorize photographers, and buyers like to see up front what they will get if they hire you. Someone that's all over the map has a harder time trying to differentiate themselves from the pack, and convince an art buyer that they will get a consistent style.

Now I hope that doesn't come across as condescending, and I'd rather not kick off a bad relationship with a very competent photographer. I suppose my question is just, if these were the only three images in your book, and an art/creative director asked you what style you shoot, how would you answer?

It's a very simple answer. I would say "Commercial, people and products", and show them my 'commercial portfolio' I wouldn't use these images in my portfolio, other than perhaps the car shot that was planned as a portfolio image from the beginning (but I would need to see it edited, then in final print first). I might drop a few in my website, since they are small, but definitely not my printed portfolio for the agencies. I doesn't really answer your question, but its not a question that makes sense to me if I wouldn't put them in that scenario from the start. So I don't know how else to answer it.