jonasv
has no mustache
I thought this was interesting:
The Decline of Fashion Photography: an argument in pictures
I think the author makes some valid points, albeit in a rather simplistic way. I for one have thought about this before; none of the current fashion photographers seem to live up to Helmut Newton, Irving Penn, William Klein or the likes when it comes to inspiration or creativity. And they weren't even fashion photographers pur sang. I don't mean all current fashion photography is bad, not at all, but it does seem to lack something that existed before.
Would you agree/disagree? Who are your favorite fashion photographers, or what are your favorite fashion photos?
The Decline of Fashion Photography: an argument in pictures
I think the author makes some valid points, albeit in a rather simplistic way. I for one have thought about this before; none of the current fashion photographers seem to live up to Helmut Newton, Irving Penn, William Klein or the likes when it comes to inspiration or creativity. And they weren't even fashion photographers pur sang. I don't mean all current fashion photography is bad, not at all, but it does seem to lack something that existed before.
Would you agree/disagree? Who are your favorite fashion photographers, or what are your favorite fashion photos?
Ororaro
Well-known
There are so many great fashion photographers these days. Never been better, IMHO.
One must be careful with that kind of info. It's so easy to criticize. It's also way too easy to name names like Helmut Newton or Ansel Adams in a conversation. If you ask me, those 2 guys are long gone and they'Ve been surpassed since then.
One must be careful with that kind of info. It's so easy to criticize. It's also way too easy to name names like Helmut Newton or Ansel Adams in a conversation. If you ask me, those 2 guys are long gone and they'Ve been surpassed since then.
sf
Veteran
I'd agree with that. Most of what I see these days on the covers of Vogue and other major fashion publications is horrid photography, editing, and production. The stuff is clumsy, poorly prepared for print, and the photography itself looks as though the photographer had only 10 minutes for the shoot.
As you say, the creativity is lacking. I add that the preparation and production of the images is also lacking.
What really stands out to me these days are the digital artifacts in the images - even on covershots - that just scream "low budget".
As you say, the creativity is lacking. I add that the preparation and production of the images is also lacking.
What really stands out to me these days are the digital artifacts in the images - even on covershots - that just scream "low budget".
S
Socke
Guest
A lot of fashion photography is made for mail order/internet shops. Big name photographers are not allways interested in stuff like this, either because it's to restricted or not payed well enough.
Even the big names in fashion don't want too creative photographers, they want to promote their products not the guy taking the pictures.
That leaves us with the magazins which are under great monetary preasure since a lot of advertising goes everywhere but not into printmedia.
They not only compete with the internet, they compete with modern soap operas like Sex & the City.
Even the big names in fashion don't want too creative photographers, they want to promote their products not the guy taking the pictures.
That leaves us with the magazins which are under great monetary preasure since a lot of advertising goes everywhere but not into printmedia.
They not only compete with the internet, they compete with modern soap operas like Sex & the City.
sf
Veteran
NB23 said:
I'd say the best photography was maybe 10 years ago (IMO), but that the major decline is the post processing and the failure to reach for new ideas.
I am a fan of Sante D'Orazio and notice that his style is common these days - but the new photographers have really only latched onto the gritty look of some of his shots, and totally miss the creative boat. Most of the cover work, most of the color work, just looks mass produced to me now. Might be that shooting is so much more cost effective than it once was, without the film editing steps that take so much time and money. Easier now for a photographer to shoot and print 5 sets in a week than it was back in the days when film ruled the pro world.
sf
Veteran
One thing is for sure. No way anyone could get a commercial contract to shoot fashion if they were only going to do things the old way. The execs would all scream about how slow you would be, how expensive, and how they can get many times more sales with a digital photographer than not.
Cheap is now the way to go. ANd it shows.
Cheap is now the way to go. ANd it shows.
jonasv
has no mustache
NB23 said:
I wouldn't call it "info" - it's just one person's opinion, don't take it for more than that! I just happen to agree, partially, but everyone is of course entitled to an opinion of his own.
I do think it's too easy to write off people like Newton just because of their age. I'm just 19, it's not nostalgia that makes me look back, I happen didn't live in the heydays of Vogue and Harper's Bazaar avant-garde fashion photography. It's a lot more simple: when I see the fashion photographs of Klein or Penn (Newton to a lesser degree), these pictures have a bigger impact on me than the current fashion photos.
But that's just me...
40oz
...
that was good, thanks for the link.
To be fair, however, it's fashion photography. It documents the disposable. I can think of fool's errands, and one might be, "find meaning in an issue of Vogue."
If you tear out every third page, you can create a fascinating narrative lol.
To be fair, however, it's fashion photography. It documents the disposable. I can think of fool's errands, and one might be, "find meaning in an issue of Vogue."
If you tear out every third page, you can create a fascinating narrative lol.
dmr
Registered Abuser
40oz said:I can think of fool's errands, and one might be, "find meaning in an issue of Vogue."
LOL, why do you think one nickname for it is "Vague"?
In my not so humble opinion, there's not much fashion in fashion photography lately.
Some of the spreads are enjoyable to peruse, but they really don't feature things that the normal person would wear. Creative, yes, sometimes, but not always.
Commercial, yes, often. Demeaning, yes, sometimes, maybe too much. Tacky, often.
Art, sometimes.
R
RML
Guest
Most photos in Vogue are just as crap now as they were 10-20-50 years ago. A Newton is an exception.
Bottom line for a company is to make money, and as much as possible for the lowest cost. Share holders insist on it. Paying a Newton for a shoot is no longer ideal; the photog is too expensive and the return on investment (the sales resulting from the ad) is not in the order share holders now expect (15-25% growth per quarter).
If there's one photog I like it must be David LaChapelle.
Bottom line for a company is to make money, and as much as possible for the lowest cost. Share holders insist on it. Paying a Newton for a shoot is no longer ideal; the photog is too expensive and the return on investment (the sales resulting from the ad) is not in the order share holders now expect (15-25% growth per quarter).
If there's one photog I like it must be David LaChapelle.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Herr Socke got it. It's all about the money. It's the satisfaction of the "who cares" and "it's good enough" attitude of the many. And the many pay the bills, the beancounters will tell you.Socke said:
dmr
Registered Abuser
Socke said:
There's quite a bit of difference between a catalog (or web) shoot and a Vogue or Harpers spread.
The catalog shoot is to feature and sell the product, kind of like that "serving suggestion" you see on canned goods.
The fashion mag shoot is to, well, to feature and sell the product. LOL!
These can get a bit artsy, and a bit controversial too. The Italian edition of Vogue has been constantly criticized lately for, among other things, the cigarette as a fashion accessory (tres tacky, imao) and featuring models who incredibly underweight (weight control is still a major issue for teenage girls, not the image they should be promoting). Lately I've been most impressed with the photography in some of the bridal magazines, such as Modern Bride. I don't read these that often, but the photography, both in the ads and in the features tends to be very good. Yes, blatantly commercial, feature and sell the product, but for good tasteful fashion photography, I think this is one of the best examples.
einolu
Well-known
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
Disagree.
Disagree.
Although i was far more interested in fashion photography ten years ago, i believe there is far more good>excellent work being done now than at any time in the past. I say this with staunch admiration of the classic masters, Irving Penn and Richard Avedon. But, today's photographers not only have far greater technical skills and resources, but the digital age has democratized it all, and there are MORE photographers to serve the greater number of media outlets.
In the past, through the 90s, the number of great photographers was relatively few. Nowadays, you can browse the photo rep agencies and see incredible work from a slew of photogs you've never heard of.
Is "creativity" lacking? I don't think so. Personally, i didn't find any of the 'classic' photographers to be so extraordinarily 'creative.' Helmut Newton was great. Chris von Waggenheim was great. Bert Stern, Scavullo, Bill King, Bruce Weber, Toni Frissell, Sarah Moon, Sheila Metzner.... They all had highly individual, recognizable styles. But, "creative?" Helmut Newton had a few 'series' - Mannequins. Big Nudes, etc. But, that's over a long career. Today's guns are far more versatile and prolific. Yes, technology enables it, but we're discussing results.
One photographer, to me, sort of bridges the old and new. Steven Meisel has been my favorite (other than Penn and Avedon) since i first saw a spread of his in the New York Times magazine, around 1983-84. He is easily the most versatile and prolific of all of them. He has been at the forefront of the industry for nearly 20 years, which is an eternity for modern photographers in that sector. He uses every type of camera, every type of light, any technology... and in any style.
Check these agency links for portfolios:
http://www.jedroot.com/photo-main.php
http://www.artpartner.com/
http://www.clmus.com/
http://www.ba-reps.com/artist/308/as/photographer
http://www.art-dept.com/photo/
http://creativeexchangeagency.com/
Maybe one of the factors at play here is that people making this assessment simply don't LIKE the type of photography being published currently. But, i believe it's important to be able to respect and appreciate work that one may not particularly 'like.' I'm not such a fan, for example, of some of the heavy digital work being done these days, but i do appreciate that there is artistry in it.
Disagree.
Although i was far more interested in fashion photography ten years ago, i believe there is far more good>excellent work being done now than at any time in the past. I say this with staunch admiration of the classic masters, Irving Penn and Richard Avedon. But, today's photographers not only have far greater technical skills and resources, but the digital age has democratized it all, and there are MORE photographers to serve the greater number of media outlets.
In the past, through the 90s, the number of great photographers was relatively few. Nowadays, you can browse the photo rep agencies and see incredible work from a slew of photogs you've never heard of.
Is "creativity" lacking? I don't think so. Personally, i didn't find any of the 'classic' photographers to be so extraordinarily 'creative.' Helmut Newton was great. Chris von Waggenheim was great. Bert Stern, Scavullo, Bill King, Bruce Weber, Toni Frissell, Sarah Moon, Sheila Metzner.... They all had highly individual, recognizable styles. But, "creative?" Helmut Newton had a few 'series' - Mannequins. Big Nudes, etc. But, that's over a long career. Today's guns are far more versatile and prolific. Yes, technology enables it, but we're discussing results.
One photographer, to me, sort of bridges the old and new. Steven Meisel has been my favorite (other than Penn and Avedon) since i first saw a spread of his in the New York Times magazine, around 1983-84. He is easily the most versatile and prolific of all of them. He has been at the forefront of the industry for nearly 20 years, which is an eternity for modern photographers in that sector. He uses every type of camera, every type of light, any technology... and in any style.
Check these agency links for portfolios:
http://www.jedroot.com/photo-main.php
http://www.artpartner.com/
http://www.clmus.com/
http://www.ba-reps.com/artist/308/as/photographer
http://www.art-dept.com/photo/
http://creativeexchangeagency.com/
Maybe one of the factors at play here is that people making this assessment simply don't LIKE the type of photography being published currently. But, i believe it's important to be able to respect and appreciate work that one may not particularly 'like.' I'm not such a fan, for example, of some of the heavy digital work being done these days, but i do appreciate that there is artistry in it.
IGMeanwell
Well-known
I suppose today's fashion photography might be sterile, maybe a little bland, or possibly repetitive ... ask someone who is completely uninterested in photography whether or not they think the pages in those magazines still sell clothes?
Actually some of the best fashion photography i have seen was from Sarah Moon, who was a pioneer in fashion photography, also a former model, and also Avedon. That being said alot of times in the early days of fashion mags they had to be creative they could only shoot in black and white, your forced to present the clothing in a way that would basically make their color irrelevant and then once the mags could print in color then you could see a different approach to the spreads.
Also yes I believe there is a different "business" approach to today's fashion photography, budget in mind, speed, and what makes the most sense for the magazine not the photographer.
Actually some of the best fashion photography i have seen was from Sarah Moon, who was a pioneer in fashion photography, also a former model, and also Avedon. That being said alot of times in the early days of fashion mags they had to be creative they could only shoot in black and white, your forced to present the clothing in a way that would basically make their color irrelevant and then once the mags could print in color then you could see a different approach to the spreads.
Also yes I believe there is a different "business" approach to today's fashion photography, budget in mind, speed, and what makes the most sense for the magazine not the photographer.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
George Bonanno
Well-known
Ugly Beauty
Ugly Beauty
Fashion photography is an interesting genre. I don't believe it's art at the time it's made, regardless of the integrity of the image or the photographer, but later, it can morph into art once it's stripped of it's commercial origins.
Ugly Beauty
Fashion photography is an interesting genre. I don't believe it's art at the time it's made, regardless of the integrity of the image or the photographer, but later, it can morph into art once it's stripped of it's commercial origins.
amateriat
We're all light!
I've held an extremely low view of what's generally passed for "fashion" photography, and that has spanned most of my sentient existence. Yes, Penn and Newton (and Avedon) have broken through at one time or another, but this is essentially a trade business, whose dictates come to the fore more often than not. And every generation will have its would-be "mavericks" who get their hoped-for fifteen minutes, then either toe the line or move on to other fields.
I could go on about the "industry's" stratified view of female beauty and such, but the main point is that it's a business like any other, with several tiers, for which photographers fulfill various requirements (as a New Yorker, all I have to do is scan the subway and bus posters for what's considered "really something" on a general level; for anything else, I thumb through a recent copy of "W' or various editions of Vogue or Harper's). On the one hand, this photographic genre has been so far below my general radar that I sort of wish it would just vanish with nary a trace. On the proverbial Other Hand, because of work by Newton et al, I can't totally ignore it, and can't totally trash it, much as I'd like to. Yet, in spite of some briliant exceptions, it's about commerce, all commerce, and nothing but the commerce. "Art" intersects insomuch as it aids and abets the bottom line right now (and likely all along). But when and where it does intersect, interesting things can happen, and this, however rare, is worthy of attention. Otherwise, it's about as vital as rumors of the next contestants on American Idol (at least to a non-TV guy like me).
- Barrett
I could go on about the "industry's" stratified view of female beauty and such, but the main point is that it's a business like any other, with several tiers, for which photographers fulfill various requirements (as a New Yorker, all I have to do is scan the subway and bus posters for what's considered "really something" on a general level; for anything else, I thumb through a recent copy of "W' or various editions of Vogue or Harper's). On the one hand, this photographic genre has been so far below my general radar that I sort of wish it would just vanish with nary a trace. On the proverbial Other Hand, because of work by Newton et al, I can't totally ignore it, and can't totally trash it, much as I'd like to. Yet, in spite of some briliant exceptions, it's about commerce, all commerce, and nothing but the commerce. "Art" intersects insomuch as it aids and abets the bottom line right now (and likely all along). But when and where it does intersect, interesting things can happen, and this, however rare, is worthy of attention. Otherwise, it's about as vital as rumors of the next contestants on American Idol (at least to a non-TV guy like me).
- Barrett
Last edited:
Athena
Well-known
Sad to say, whether it is fashion photography or PJ or whatever - digital has changed the paradigm. All anyone need do now is shoot, shoot and shoot some more!
The clumsiest oaf on the planet can get "the shot" when she/he has a 8GB card to shoot with.
It's like the old monkey analogy - give a roomful of monkeys typewriters to bang on and sooner or later one of them will produce a Shakespearean play!
The clumsiest oaf on the planet can get "the shot" when she/he has a 8GB card to shoot with.
It's like the old monkey analogy - give a roomful of monkeys typewriters to bang on and sooner or later one of them will produce a Shakespearean play!
amateriat
We're all light!
There's a bit of truth to this. Then again, who'd want to be a picture editor to this lot?Athena said:
For what i's worth, I've heard of somthing of a revolt against this photographers' equlvalent to logorrhea, on the part or various editors. I have no idea whether this is real or just the wishful thinking of seasoned pro shooters.
- Barrett
Last edited: