Recent fashion session.

[amolitor]

You don't have a problem with what I said, just with me? Oh yeah, I *definitely* remember you, now.

 

[DanOstergren]

I'm never quite sure if you're THAT guy or THAT OTHER guy, but let's assume I have correctly remembered who ghache is!

I assumed that everything in these was a conscious choice, you're good enough and in control of the process enough to make that happen. That's why I described them as experiments. I *do* recognize some fashion tropes in here, but I feel that you're pushing them quite a bit further than contemporary shooters are doing. More importantly, though, the overall feel of the shots is much more ad hoc than the fashion I look at. When a model is placed into an industrial background (which we see a lot of) there's the sense that the background was very very carefully selected and managed -- or that 10,000 frames were shot, and the 4 that felt the most "studied" were pulled out.

Your photos here don't feel studied, they feel very loose and thrown together. The half-dead trees are probably the clearest example -- rather than the carefully cut and placed tree branches from the high end florist, lovingly arranged in the studio, we see an actual half-dead tree and the model sort of.. stood up next to it, and partly behind it, and so on.

Perhaps this is the experiment, though? What happens if we combine fashion tropes with a guerilla/hit-and-run feel to the shoot? I dunno. It could be a thing, or become a thing. Fashion is nothing if not fickle.

It's pretty definitely NOT what I seeing in contemporary fashion photography, though.

You assume so much stuff, it become incoherent.

You see a half dead tree because we where shooting outdoor in the middle of half dead trees, where do you come out with the florist crap?

Please, stop

If you see a half dead tree that does nothing to make the model or the clothing look good, then you could be making a mistake by posing your model next to it. Just because it's outdoor and that time of the season doesn't mean that you have no choice but to use the dead tree for a setting. Perhaps if the styling was more relevant to death or dying it would work, but in my personal opinion it does not work here and you should have made the decision to find a better setting for her. amolitor has a good point when he makes reference to the florist or prop/set designer taking a lot of care into choosing a good prop or set (in this case the closest reference is the ugly dead tree). Even you as the photographer could be contributing to a better photo by choosing to put her in a more flattering setting, and in all honesty you should be paying attention to these details, especially in fashion photography. Making the clothing and the model look as best you can is essential, and that tree does nothing but distract from both the clothes and the beauty of the model. The same can be said about the blown out highlights whether it was intentional or not. Perhaps there is a concept that you see that just doesn't translate to us and that is perfectly fine if this were a conceptual art piece, but you said it was fashion and that is how it is being critiqued.

 

[alexzobi]

And Parker, I generalized because the few who post fashion oriented images tend to get the same critiques by individuals who just posted "look at my cute kitty" or "what do you think of this bottle cap".

It's not poor critiquing that takes away from these forums. It's comments like that. Some people here are hobbyists. Many are experts. None deserve to be spoken about like that. As the mod said, it's up to the OP to take the critiques in their own way. I doubt Van Gogh took cracks at Da Vinci's work. Just a different style. To each, their own.

 

[gsgary]

The problem i see is the dresses are not very fashonable they look like something you would get off the market