PDA

View Full Version : Zombie Fashion



Pages : 1 [2]

Ed Sukach
03-28-2009, 09:59 PM
... Yesterday I was watching a TV show where they were following the work of fashion photographers Leda & St.Jacques (their website (http://www.leda-st-jacques.com/)) ...

An INTERESTING site, to say the least!!

Without commenting on the "digital incursion", it is something of a crash course/ primer/ modern update into the world of Fashion photography.

"Beautiful" work? In my opinion, it IS - given the proper weight to the framework that that evaluation is, and must be - required, A LOT of skill - possibly, "expertise" is more precise - is necessary for minimal success, and I think this work is successful.

BobNewYork
03-29-2009, 05:56 AM
I have to agree with Ed. These are very good images.

I think there's a tendency to confuse fashion shots with portraiture. They're not the same genre. The purpose of a fashion shot is really to arrest the magazine reader for a second....stop them turning the page. I've done my share of head shots for aspiring actors and models and I always worked on the principle that you wanted a photograph that stopped the casting agent for a second. The reality is that a casting agent will go through hundreds of 8x10s very quickly on a first pass. You want your image to be tossed in the "next go round" pile so that it's looked at a little longer. Gives you more of a chance at an audition.

The purpose of these photographs is not as a long-lasting portrait, but rather as a means of grabbing the viewers attention for a few moments. I think these images serve that purpose well.

Bob H

Xylo
03-29-2009, 11:59 AM
In fact, they do make some good images (and also make a very very good living at it...).

I know (though I don't even work in photography) I always thought that photo retouching was a very expensive thing to have done and that it was the photographer's job to make the image the best it can be as to minimize the expenses involved in "photoshopping" an image.

But I feel things are now swinging the other way around in the fashion industry and many would rather spends tons of money doctoring an image like it gave them some bragging rights :confused:

I know there must be something I'm not getting...

wayne naughton
03-29-2009, 03:40 PM
retouching/airbrushing/photoshopping....what's the difference for heavens sake. There's absolutely nothing new going on these days, it's just different technology, that's all.

wayne

BobNewYork
03-30-2009, 04:40 AM
retouching/airbrushing/photoshopping....what's the difference for heavens sake. There's absolutely nothing new going on these days, it's just different technology, that's all.

wayne

Agreed. There's nothing new as far as the end result is concerned, but I think the point is that the versatility of Photoshop retouching lowers the need for expertise on the part of the photographer. Photoshop retouching is much cheaper than airbrushing etc. and it can do things to an image that just weren't possible, (at least not at an affordable cost) in the past. There's no such thing as a "re-shoot" these days.

Bob H

Mark Antony
03-30-2009, 05:20 AM
I saw the recent (March) cover of Cosmopolitan UK, pretty shocked by how poor the cover-shot was. plastic, smooth sharpened with a very high radius setting in un-sharp mask very different from airbrushing or pastel chalks and spray fix of 20 years ago.
I found an online picture of Miss Beyoncé March Plastic:
http://www.beyoncefan.com/2009/02/11/beyonce-cover-cosmo-uk-march-2009/
When are people going to get tired of this %$**?
Mark

wayne naughton
03-30-2009, 05:28 AM
Agreed. There's nothing new as far as the end result is concerned, but I think the point is that the versatility of Photoshop retouching lowers the need for expertise on the part of the photographer. Photoshop retouching is much cheaper than airbrushing etc. and it can do things to an image that just weren't possible, (at least not at an affordable cost) in the past. There's no such thing as a "re-shoot" these days.

Bob H.....You're dead right there, Bob me boy, but i don't think you can blame digitization for the decline of picture standards (which i think are absolutely abysmal these days) Every six months or so i buy an armful of magazines friom the newsagent ranging from high fashion and lifestyle down to the lowest paparazzi/celeb crud and the pictures are just awful, not even competent half the time. No wonder they're all going broke.....shrug.

wayne

Ed Sukach
03-30-2009, 05:56 AM
I saw the recent (March) cover of Cosmopolitan UK, pretty shocked by how poor the cover-shot was. plastic, smooth sharpened...

I can't help but agree. That plastic-ization is most evident in Playboy ... where, at some time, they no longer featured nudes ... these girls are not nude, thanks to the generous application of body make-up. ... pounds and pounds --- or Kgs of it. The standing joke was that their forefronts were so large that balance was hopeless and they kept falling over - it became that they had trouble keeping them stable, in one place in the studio - they had so much body make-up that the were sliding all over the place!
We no longer see bare skin ... somewhere beneath all that there is a girl ...


When are people going to get tired of this %$**?
Mark

I think they already have. Playboy, after all is said and done, was VERY successful in its original form - "meteoric" was an adjective widely applied to the tracking of their rise. Now it is really - and decisively - a collection of artificial images, much like Cosmo or Elle.

This insane quest for perfection has its terrible price - one only has to consider Joan Rivers or Michael Jackson's net plastic surgery results.

Articifiality is in itself, ugly.

BetterSense
03-30-2009, 10:22 AM
I don't understand why people don't embrace completely drawn or animated models, if artificial is what they want. It seems like Hollywood and the fashion scene will do everything to enhance and dehumanize/abstract their models/actors, yet if you draw or animate actors/models then that's like a breach of genre. As a fan of animation I lament that America considers animation for children, even while we have movies that are 100% green-screened--other than the actors, who are themselves often partially animated (Two face from The Dark Night, Dr. Manhatten from Watchmen).

This is reminds me of digitographers whose work revolves not around the camera, but around sitting at the computer compositing images and changing color curves and HDRing and I wonder if they ever considered taking up painting.

archphoto
03-30-2009, 10:46 AM
The natural look has gone, toss out your Imagons and 150SF's, you don't need them anymore !
A wrinkle here and there: just polish it any..............

The other day, a client: "Could you photoshop out those cars, overhead powerlines and poles, and oh, I don't like that shadow either....."
"For free, please, 'cause I am not going to pay for photoshop"

A reshoot on a sunday takes less time.

What has this world become ?????

Peter

BobNewYork
03-30-2009, 11:24 AM
The natural look has gone, toss out your Imagons and 150SF's, you don't need them anymore !
A wrinkle here and there: just polish it any..............

The other day, a client: "Could you photoshop out those cars, overhead powerlines and poles, and oh, I don't like that shadow either....."
"For free, please, 'cause I am not going to pay for photoshop"

A reshoot on a sunday takes less time.

What has this world become ?????

Peter

Yeah - don't you just love that! "What do you mean there's a charge for post production? Why?" Try asking them to do the shoot on a Sunday 'cos it's more convenient for you!! They seem to think that using Photoshop is just pushing a button and it just guesses what you want. Recently a client had specifically asked for a partially open window in a shoot. A week later he wanted me to close the window in Photoshop! Seemed to think it would take no more time than actually closing the window itself!!

Wrong forum I know - but needed to vent:D:D

Bob H

GraemeMitchell
04-08-2009, 06:30 PM
There's tons of really amazing fashion work being done out there. If you don't like the fare you're getting in the mags your reading then switch it up. Cosmo and Playboy, riiiiight. Why not try something like Numero, or S.