The Decline of Fashion Photography

[wlewisiii]

The clumsiest oaf on the planet can get "the shot" when she/he has a 8GB card to shoot with.

Only to a certain extent. After all, part of the cost conciousness that drives this biz is speed. If you know what you are doing and can get "the" shot in two or three takes rather than two or three hundred, you can still save the buyer money (ie be what is currently considered to be productive).

A couple of years ago I gave a young gal, who babysits my son, a Pentax K1000 and lenses for christmas. That forced her to learn the basics but did limit her due to thier inability to afford much film developement. I mumbled "very nice" to more than a few bad shots of her cats to keep her going... :bang:

This year I gave a cheap (and, really, quite cr*ppy) digitial to her that is, in many ways, much more useful. But she actually turns out a decent shot with it due to learning the hard way about exposure, focus & composition with the rather unforgiving format called film...

So now she can get the right look in an instant rather than needing all day to get and look for that "lucky" shot in the hundreds (or more!) of shots that can be on a multi-gigabyte card. That is where she wins.

William

 

[George Bonanno]

Instant Lucky Shot...

Instant Lucky Shot...

William,

Please... show us where she wins.

Best,
George

 

[wlewisiii]

Hopefully, someday, I'll be able to literally. In the meantime, however, I'll hold a metaphorical torch for her to follow...

William

 

[IGMeanwell]

I think this is a rather simplistic generalization of professional photography at this stage in time.

Far I have seen with many fashion photographers whether shooting medium format, a DSLR, or a tethered H2/3D ... most of the time is spent on the lighting and the shots are pretty selective

I mean call it hollywood but for a more stereotypical example, watch an episode of America's Top Model or turn to E and watch The Girls Next Door ... not exactly 5 FPS shooting going on ... rather one shot, reset posing, shot, maybe adjust some exposure, and shot ... go to the monitor to review example ... so on and so forth

Granted there are the ton of D2Hs or whatever are sitting on their shutters filling up 8 or even sometimes 16 gb cards. I wouldn't lump everyone in that boat.

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!

 

[Athena]

Only to a certain extent. After all, part of the cost conciousness that drives this biz is speed. If you know what you are doing and can get "the" shot in two or three takes rather than two or three hundred, you can still save the buyer money (ie be what is currently considered to be productive).

A couple of years ago I gave a young gal, who babysits my son, a Pentax K1000 and lenses for christmas. That forced her to learn the basics but did limit her due to thier inability to afford much film developement. I mumbled "very nice" to more than a few bad shots of her cats to keep her going... :bang:

This year I gave a cheap (and, really, quite cr*ppy) digitial to her that is, in many ways, much more useful. But she actually turns out a decent shot with it due to learning the hard way about exposure, focus & composition with the rather unforgiving format called film...

So now she can get the right look in an instant rather than needing all day to get and look for that "lucky" shot in the hundreds (or more!) of shots that can be on a multi-gigabyte card. That is where she wins.

William

William,

Our hearts are not in disagreementt. Our heads are.

Whilst there has been period of transition within the professional realm that is now ending. Future fashion photogs (or other "working pros") will have never been exposed to film photography.

Here in NYC, a modest center of fashion and advertsing, the pace is such that the niceties of finely composed film shooting has given way to the mass produced digital image. And the professional programs offered by the schools pay scant, if any, interest anymore in teaching film fundamentals.

One fellow above lamented how to be an editor for all these images.

Simple, be young and be quick.

Fashion photogs and all other kinds of images go out on multiple media channels including all kinds of web-oritented modes. Volume and timeliness of image distribution is much more important than "artistry".

The OP is absolutely correct, there will be almost no future fashion photogs that will assume an identity based on their particular "vision" anymore.

 

[rvaubel]

The digital vs film argument is a bunch of horsepucky.

Art never changes, only the tools do. And tools never "ruin" art.

Rex

 

[IGMeanwell]

The digital vs film argument is a bunch of horsepucky.

Art never changes, only the tools do. And tools never "ruin" art.

Rex

Just ask Alfred Stieglitz and his defense of photography as art.... remember during his time is was fashionable for pictorialists to make their photos almost painting like in order for it to be more acceptable

So I agree, film vs. digital has very limited bearing on the argument as to whether or not fashion photography has declined. Especially if one argues the styles are what have declined with trends such as "heroin chic" which was way before the days of digital.

 

[Athena]

The digital vs film argument is a bunch of horsepucky.

Art never changes, only the tools do. And tools never "ruin" art.

Rex

Rex,

While your statement is, on its face, profound - I seriously doubt if fashion photography, given the demands of multi-media consumption, can any longer rise to the level of art.

More ofthen than not, the "fashion" such photographer's are asked to shoot has the life span of an ephemera - and so does the photography that shows it.

Perhaps the real question is whether there is any "fashion" that is art any longer - such that a photographer can use her skills to render and enhance it?

It certaily seems as if every few months another tent is being erected in Bryant Park for another Fashion Week and all become clutter upon clutter!

Good night.

 

[wlewisiii]

I seriously doubt if fashion photography, given the demands of multi-media consumption, can any longer rise to the level of art.

Hmm. I can find similar statements at the bridge of every major format change. Egg tempera to oil is an exquisite historical example. No, the art will remain the same so long as the artists are trained appropriately. That's what I was really getting at. My friend served a "sort of" & "abreveiated" apprenticeship but odds are that none of her rivals will have done even 1/2 of that. This, more than anything else, is why I think she has already "won".

Still, we live at a cusp. Yet there will always be people who continue to practice in outdated traditions - for us it is film, for Andrew Wyeth it is tempera. I would argue that given it is 600 years, roughly, since oil took over from tempera that those of us who practice in silver salts do not have all that much to worry about.

William

 

[Toby]

I wasn't making a film vs. digital argument, I was saying that the effects of digital imaging have in general affected the level of photography.

I think that in general digital raises the average level of photography and the inherent homogenaity of the digital sensor makes it harder for the truly talented to stand out

 

[schaubild]

I think that in general digital raises the average level of photography and the inherent homogenaity of the digital sensor makes it harder for the truly talented to stand out

That is to some degrees true. Today even amateurs have access to the necessary tools and the ability to raise the technical quality of their images.

But: outstanding quality will always set itself apart from the masses. I once learned always to use the best tools available (that was in software development but seems valuable for photography as well), as with a mediocre base you can be as good as you like, but won't be able to cope with the best.

 

[IGMeanwell]

You guys make it sound like that every tom, dick, and harry are shooting for Vogue and Harpers with their Rebel XTi's

There is still an elite among fashion photographers who do and will continue to get the majority of the spreads.

Not to mention that by worrying about the type of equipment they use (most fashion photographers still use medium format or if digital are renting 35,000 dollars worth of imaging equipment alone, not including lighting for these jobs), still requires a certain amount of know-how and their equipment does not determine the results in the magazines, rather its the editors .... remember who ultimately has the say in what photography goes in these magazines

If a fashion editor wants their girls, their clothes, and their magazine to have a certain look or certain photography trend (for instance the emergence of using strictly ring flashes for lighting), then thats what is going to appear in the magazine.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Youngsters of course shoot everything digitally. I often think it would be fun to give these guys a camera loaded with film and se how bad the images would end up being. Basically my point is that the craft and knowledge of photography is gradually getting drowned out by the computer.

I agree with you. I don't see this as a "digital vs. film" argument because, well, it isn't. Your argument is founded, although you didn't say it (oh, how must one 'splain evrytin when thoughts veer to easy reflexes flared by relative buzzwords) in the fact that this "I-want-it-easy know with fries, please, for $2.99" leaves many looking for fast results available at the touch of a button, and none of it is more evident than the flood of images afforded by not only digital cameras, but by Photoshop-aided virtual realities.

Digital cameras and Photoshop creations aren't bad themselves. It's just that they have been used as the most prolific outlet for those who haven't or can't master the skills to create the same work any other way. It is no coincidence that also the rise of the Internet has seen the demise of the use of language, because of the "lack of rules", and now the pervasive use due to "lack of rules" has become so common, that they themselves are becoming the rules.

It unleashed a wave of people that didn't need qualifications for anything. That's great for bringing down barriers for those who had the talent and not the means to express it. But as with all "Cause-and-Effect" laws, the result had other consequences.

We must live with it. But recognizing it isn't being "negative". Ignoring it, certainly, isn't being "positive". Being well-informed and knowing your environment helps you understand your position in it.

And that's how the cookie crumbles.