Your thoughts on this?

L

LKeithR

Improving daily--I think.
Local time
1:02 PM
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
342
Location
Langley, B.C.
View My Gallery
When I first started visiting photo forums a few years ago my favourite site was Fred Miranda. I don't go there too often any more; DPReview and this site occupy most of my online time and I really find myself more in tune with the latter two sites anyway. There are some really great photographers at Fred Miranda but I often find that the PP is way over the top for my tastes. I realize that glamour/fashion/advertising photography needs to be a bit more "edgy" to be noticed but a lot of this stuff just doesn't appeal to me anymore. Am I alone in feeling this? Or am I out to lunch? An example here...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/994730
 
I've deliberately tried to avoid any "PP look"in my photography. If it looks like it's processed I don't keep the shot. I do process my images for dust, setting black - white points and very, very small crops.

My personal belief is the entire "HDR" and heavy "PP" look will eventually be as dated as a pair of 'blue suede shoes" or "moussed hair". Then all your work will become quaint and dated. I seriously attempt to avoid these pitfalls.

I think the link you posted falls into the future "dated" category like an old couture and fashion magazine.
 
I figure it's fun to shoot, process and hang out with a pretty girl for a few hours. I don't see much being said by these pictures though. Other than "look at me."

That's good for advertising, but I don't get it as art.
 
These are quite well lit as beauty shots. I'm not sure what you guys are saying about PP being overdone - they probably don't have much past contrast masks and a bit of cloning on the skin - really pretty basic. These images get their look from the lighting used - the second half being probably a whole bunch of gold reflectors which makes it look over-the-top yellow/gold, and the makeup which has most likely been done by a very good makeup artist. These techniques have been used in beauty photography for probably 40 years - film and digital.

Either way, if you don't "get" beauty or fashion photography shots, I guess it comes down to personal preferences. I don't personally get into beauty photography (like these examples) at all, but for me fashion photography is one of the ultimate expressions of the art (along with proper photojournalism).
 
Last edited:
Repulsive and an insult to real women ... I can't put it any other way!

About as appealing as lunch at MacDonalds!
 
fdigital said:
Out of curiosity, what about these would make them insulting to women?
Click to expand...


Don't get me started! 😀

OK ... what is this need that fashion photography seems to have to make women (and men in some instances) look like mannequins ... seriously?

Young females are fed a diet of this dross to the point where every wrinkle and extra kilo they develop becomes a major emotional issue for them because they don't look like something that lives in a fashion mag ... it's real and it happens! They probably aren't aware that every blemish has been photo shopped out!

It happens to mangos too you know! 😛
 
Just checked out those photos - I do not think that PP has the main contribution to the look. It is the make-up at first place.

I would not go so far to call it repulsive or offending, but it is definitely not natural (though not THAT bad in this case - some expressions are actually interesting).

To me the true problem of these kind of work is that we (mostly men) produce "beauty idols" that are very far from true life and many women consider them selves as unattractive or even ugly when they try to compare to these "idols" - what often leads them to troubles. But the true problem is that our society is way too much oriented how people or things look instead of how they really are. That is what we learn our children. It is no wonder that women are most strongly influenced - sexuality is the strongest instinct of person (ok, a man) that is not starving or life threatened.

So - you guys who keep shooting the better half of this world - you do them a large favor when you manage to capture as most of their natural and inner beauty as possible - even if it is not "perfect".
 
Matus said:
Just checked out those photos - I do not think that PP has the main contribution to the look. It is the make-up at first place.

I would not go so far to call it repulsive or offending, but it is definitely not natural (though not THAT bad in this case - some expressions are actually interesting).

To me the true problem of these kind of work is that we (mostly men) produce "beauty idols" that are very far from true life and many women consider them selves as unattractive or even ugly when they try to compare to these "idols" - what often leads them to troubles. But the true problem is that our society is way too much oriented how people or things look instead of how they really are. That is what we learn our children. It is no wonder that women are most strongly influenced - sexuality is the strongest instinct of person (ok, a man) that is not starving or life threatened.

So - you guys who keep shooting the better half of this world - you do them a large favor when you manage to capture as most of their natural and inner beauty as possible - even if it is not "perfect".
Click to expand...


When I used the term 'repulsive' this is what I was refering to ... not the photos themselves but the false values they reperesent!
 
fdigital said:
... fashion photography is one of the ultimate expressions of the art ...
Click to expand...

Sure for Avedon, Newton, et. al., but for every digi-shooter with a 24-70 zoom and a couple of alien-bees? It's useful commercially, but hobbyists shooting this skin-smoothed, eye-sharpened, it's not art, it's practice.

And if it's fashion, what is she presenting, the make-up? Cause that's all she's (apparently) wearing. Isn't fashion about a product?
 
Keith said:
When I used the term 'repulsive' this is what I was refering to ... not the photos themselves but the false values they reperesent!
Click to expand...

I think Keith has a very valid point here.

I think its scary what kind of image values our kids are being taught through media.
 
Last edited:
Chris101 said:
I dunno about that. Kids (ages 10-25) seem to be more critical and suspicious of media images that us old farts.
Click to expand...

That may apply to doctored content, but I don't think it applies to ideals of beauty, at least as long as the kids have the same ideal thrown at them in every music video clip, in every makeup ad and in every fashion magazine.

Those pictures have nothing to do with "natural beauty", of course, but if you think those are bad, I'll try and scan some of the Russian fashion magazines for girls that they sell over here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
A recent day trip in Bali
Replies
13
Views
1K
DownUnder
D
J
  • Article Article
How Long Will Your Pictures Last?It all depends on you, your successors, and whether anyone else cares.
8 9 10
Replies
180
Views
10K
Freakscene
Freakscene
G
A new book find
Replies
6
Views
1K
Guth
G
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, part 1, 1919 to 1973: From the founding of Asahi Optical Co. to the last screw-mount Pentax
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Jason Schneider
J
MP Guy
Your thoughts on Nikkor 50/1.8 AI-S Japanese pancake version
40 41 42
Replies
832
Views
73K
dourbalistar
dourbalistar
Back
Top Bottom