Some of us having photographed models don't consider it important, difficult or interesting.
Sharing a technical opinion on that subject is not for everyone, certainly...
Cheers,
Juan
Well, i have photographed models.* I was actually prepared to say that people who HAVEN'T photographed fashion usually think it's very easy.... But, it's very, very difficult, especially with film. 'Back in the day,' pre-digital, film used to weed out the pretenders. You'd shoot Polaroid tests with your second MF camera body, then expose film with the main.... Then, after the shoot, you'd have to do Clip Tests on each lighting setup. You'd tell the lab to take a roll, clip off a few frames and develop only that small piece. They send it back to you, and you'd evaluate it for exposure. You'd tell them to increase/decrease development of the rest of the roll/s by increments as small as a third of a stop. It was that precise with chrome film. Then, invariably, you'd get all the film back and nothing on all those rolls was as good as the Pola test shot.... And you'd cry.
That's why i think it's very doubtful that a photographer shooting a high-end catalog, with this huge budget, and a huge crew would be shooting expired film. Firstly, with film, traditionally commercial photographers would buy BATCHES of film, so that the emulsions were all made in the same manufacturing batch. You'd shoot 50-100 rolls in a day and you'd need consistency across the board. Expired film, one is lucky to be able to acquire only small amounts from the same source, and who knows from which batches and which dates. So, it's too unpredictable - you may have gotten great results at one time with one particular roll of expired film, but the next roll may be altogether different, and you just don't risk a project like this on something you can't predict.
And, the point of this 'exercise' isn't that the execution of these particular photographs was "difficult" for THAT photographer. It's that recreating this look, with any measure of exactitude, requires specific components. The photographs themselves are not super remarkable. But, they are well-executed for what they are. If you ARE Paola Kudacki or Mei Tao or whoever they hired, and you're on that pier with your 6x7 and Portra and the girl is there, styled and made up, it's practically a done deal. But, one of us, in the same location, with a different girl, trying to emulate this with a D60 and a 50/1.8 and photoshop is not going to give you the same results.
What IS "interesting" to me is how many different pieces of advice are offered. It's also interesting (and quite sad) that JCrew is so tightlipped about the talent that works for them. It's also interesting to me that they went with an aesthetic that is a bit retro, a bit 'soft' and a bit 'imperfect.' I appreciate that.
On the matter of which lens.... The shots look 'normal' to even a bit wide because of the matter that is captured behind the model. A tele is almost definitely going to isolate the subject more, depending on how far back the stuff in the background is, and the rest of the pier and the boat aren't that far behind. If it's a Pentax or Mamiya, i'd think maybe a 90mm for the second shot. 105 or 110 for the first.
Did i post the Paola Kudacki blog thing?
http://pepperandpikey.blogspot.com/2010/04/jcrew-shoot.html
I think she's the one in the photoshoot videos, but i'm not certain.
*___________________
www.derekstanton.com
