I recently spent some time in my studio with a photographer who was struggling a bit to find his ‘style’. He thought that I could help him find what it is that he was doing wrong, and came by for a long working lunch. His assumption that I could help him find his ‘style’ was a bit misplaced, as he didn’t know why, what, or where his photography was coming from. He had no context within which to place his work.
Gotta know that stuff first.
If you want to shoot “fashion” photography, it may help a lot if you knew what fashion photography was. It would be beneficial to know who the great fashion photographers were when the genre began. It would be even more important to know what is happening in the world of fashion photography now… this month… today.
(I will state that nekkid chicks in stripper heels don’t fit in my definition of ‘fashion’, but then… WTF do I know. Some people think Kanye West has talent. There is no accounting for taste.)
There is a rich legacy in fashion photography, as there is in still life, photojournalism, and fine art. That legacy is something that should be understood, studied, measured, weighed and developed into a foundation for your own work. Even if you cast it aside and become an ‘anti’ legacy stylist, you still have that base to be ‘anti’ against.
The young man had no idea who was currently shooting fashion, or what they were doing. His idea of ‘fashion’ was FHM, and Model Mayhem. In fact, I am not sure he had even looked at a fashion magazine… ever.
No, I didn’t yell at him or even throw him through the front door with the admonition to “Get off my lawn…”
We produced a small list of names, publications and sites was prepared, and an admonition to pay attention to what he sees when he looks at this work. Some of it is old school (Penn, Avedon), some were iconic (Demarchelier, Elgort, Lindbergh), and some were pulled from the wonderful series at A Photo Editor (The Daily Edit).
I sent him on his way to go out and find out about what he wants to do. Not to ‘copy’, although most of us always copied someone at some point in our journey. Whether as a photographer or a musician, I have ‘imitated’ at points in order to understand what they were doing. Or how they did it and how it worked into their method/’chops’. We don’t continue to copy, of course, we move on to our own ways as soon as we can. “Imitate. Assimilate. Innovate” – Clark Terry, jazz trumpet legend.
I will suggest that imitating someone at the beginning will at least create a challenge that must be met. A ‘how-to’ mentality that will propel the photographer to start to push herself to get ‘that light, that look’. It creates an inevitable path to research, trial and error, failure and success.
Having a ‘touchstone’ gives us a base to compare and contrast, a point at which to measure our progress. (And before anyone starts with the “well, that’s copying, and that’s bad” bullshit, I will point out that it is simply how it is done. We learned in music school how to create 12th century counterpoint, and how to orchestrate for early classical style… BASE knowledge that could be measured and structured and used as a challenge to be met. In every medium I know of, the lessons are created based on what has come before.)
A recent post by Rodney Smith, one of our iconic fashion photographers, points out what should be the obvious:
“It distilled down to this. There is no easy answer. There is no pill to take the embodies you with technical and aesthetic wisdom. If you want to be a classics scholar (a.k.a a noble photographer) you must learn all the rudiments. You must learn Latin, Greek, and you must study endlessly. You must spend years with your craft and you must live your life and mingle your craft with your feelings. On occasion someone is so vulnerable that they can skip a few steps but this is a rare gift from the Gods.”
Unfortunately it is not obvious to far too many.
Anything worth doing is hard to do. Anything worth anything at all doesn’t come easy or cheap. Rarely does it come quickly.
Sure, there is that moment where a photographer sees something, grabs the camera, swings it up to the eye and “click” – a masterpiece is captured. I would be willing to bet that there was a hell of a lot that went before that moment that allowed that moment to happen. A hell of a hell of a lot of study, work, practice, involvement, blood, sweat and tears went into that moment being able to happen.
I am concerned that the ease of digital has created a culture that says “that stuff doesn’t matter anymore”. I believe it still does. I think that it is important, no… imperative, that photographers who are in it for the long haul, do the work. The hard work of refining technique and defining style is arduous and sometimes exhausting, but worth it. Worth every minute of it.
Get after it. Every day.
Twitter / Facebook / Workshops / About.Me / My Book, Lighting Essentials on Amazon
And if you like the articles here, LIKE them on FB or click the little G+ thingy. I appreciate your kindness.
Oh, the fashion photography, and how it is misunderstood 🙂
I partially agree with you that it’s helpful to study the old masters of the genre, and to know at least a few names of current successful shooters. All photographic genres go through their own stylistic transitions (such as in food in terms of angle, lighting, whether’s partially eaten, etc.). But fashion photography doesn’t only go through those, but then is also subject to an even faster and somewhat rigid trend cycle in fashion itself. Matter of faction I was just hosting an event here in Seattle where we reviewed the major Spring/Summer fashion trends from around the world for local industry insiders.
But back to my point, and why I only partially agree. I think the most important thing you can do when you shoot people in clothes, is to decide what the purpose of the shot is. Once you clear that up in your head, you’ll know how to approach the shot, and whether it’s a fashion shot, a portrait, a product shot, or a model test.
Actual fashion photography is a combination of product and lifestyle photography that makes the clothes and how they are worn the purpose of the shot. You light for the clothes. You compose for the clothes. You pre-visualize the shot to create the aspiration for someone to spend hundreds of $ to buy those clothes.
And you have to refine that further by the purpose – is it a catalog shot, is it a technical line sheet, is an ad, and editorial, a cover shot? There are reasons why catalog shots always have simple, consistent lighting on plain background. There’s a reason why all covers are either just a face, a 3/4, or a full body shot of a single person. Once you decode that, it’s actually quite straight forward.
Most people equate shooting people in a non-classic portrait setting as fashion photography. Well, unless you’re into art nude, if you shoot a person, they have clothes on. That doesn’t make it fashion photography. That still makes it a portrait, because you shoot the person, not what she’s wearing. Anyone shooting for Model Mayhem is actually mostly a portrait photography – just doesn’t sound that sexy, but that’s what it is.
To make it fashion photography, it has to (a) be about the clothes, (b) be somewhat connected to style and trends in fashion, and (c) be aspirational.
PS: It’s worth checking out Melissa Rodwell’s DVD which was just released a few weeks ago. That’s probably as close as you can get to an online/workshop type explanation of fashion photography from someone who actually shoots for the major magazines and is a recognized fashion photographer.
“But back to my point, and why I only partially agree. I think the most important thing you can do when you shoot people in clothes, is to decide what the purpose of the shot is.”
How do you do that if you don’t have any idea that is what you are supposed to do? How does one approach fashion photography without knowing fashion, or fashion photography, the genre of fashion, the context of fashion and the goals of the client? And you realize the client damn well KNOWS this stuff, right?
I am not talking to fashion photographers who want to get better, I am talking to people who have no idea of what fashion photography is, and wanting to understand how to create fashion photography without taking any time to understand what fashion is.
“Once you clear that up in your head, you’ll know how to approach the shot, and whether it’s a fashion shot, a portrait, a product shot, or a model test.”
How will a photographer who has no idea of how to shoot beer, never drank beer, never associated with beer, never seen another beer shot ever… how is he going to make a good beer shot for his client? How will he build a good beer portfolio? One that is commercial enough to get work?
How do you clear something up in your head, when there is nothing to measure it against?
“And you have to refine that further by the purpose – is it a catalog shot, is it a technical line sheet, is an ad, and editorial, a cover shot? “
Yep. Think of how much more helpful it would be to KNOW what a catalog shot is, what the technical line approach is, how that is viewed and the expectations of the client, what an editorial shoot is, and what a cover looks like, what it is supposed to do and how it is expected to be shot?
Your presuppositions are exactly what I am discussing. You think they KNOW this stuff, and I am saying they need to learn this stuff.
“One genre often misunderstood for fashion photography is the model test. When you shoot a model test, the product you feature is the model, not the clothes she’s wearing.”
Yes.
However when you are shooting creative for the book, the ‘test’ certainly does become about the fashion (and model and stylist). Testing has multiple purposes and multiple expectations. Shooting for the agency is a different animal than shooting for ones self.
Of course, when the model is a celebrity it is hard to distinguish the celeb from the clothes as what is most important.
In addition, I am looking at recent issues of “Details” and “Wallpaper” and convincing me those shots were ‘about the clothes’ would be very difficult. The clothes are not as important as the image/mood/feeling of the shots.
Yep. Photography is a craft, not a skill. Just as carpenters, not hammers, build houses; a photographer makes photographs. Better carpenters, better houses. Better hammers just mean the carpenters sweat less.
I would bet that anyone who builds a house has previously learned how to do simple nailing of wood, how to measure, what wood does, how to ‘true up’ a corner… there is a long list.
Why do photographers not learn what DoF is, and how the ISL works with their lighting, how to create depth in an image, and more.
A concerted effort to learn what what has come before in order to innovate what is to come is extremely important.
Two more extra notes (wish comments were editable):
One genre often misunderstood for fashion photography is the model test. When you shoot a model test, the product you feature is the model, not the clothes she’s wearing. So it’s a combination of product / portrait work, not fashion photography. Yes, she should have somewhat trendy clothes on. But most model tests are shot in simple street clothes. And often there’s a shot with minimal clothes. Not because it looks sexy, but because the agency and the client need to see the body, not the clothes. If the clothes hide the body, it doesn’t help anyone.
The other thing is – there are reasons that runway models and editorial models have certain body proportions. Yes, it’s not easy to find models that meet these proportions on Model Mayhem. But if you shoot models that are less than 5’8″, unless you’re shooting petite or sports or plus size, it doesn’t qualify as fashion photography. Get over it, find the right model to work with.
Don – this definitely strikes a chord here… Style has been something I have been struggling with the past few years as well. I constantly study the photographers that inspire me – trying to dissect the elements of their work that move me without simply ‘aping’ their style mindlessly. I has been a frustrating process. I have sat in front of a pile of prints, trying to put together a portfolio that represented “me” and coming up blank… I have come close to throwing up my hands and tossing everything out…
Then about 6 months ago I had a moment of clarity. I was doing yet another edit of a recent project – and as I looked through the shots, an idea kept bouncing around in my head. It wasn’t directly related to the content of the work, but it just stuck in my mind, like an itch I couldn’t quite get to… Then it hit me – this is what I had been looking for – this idea, this element that drew me to a image even when I didn’t realize it. I began to realize why I would be drawn to one image over another both in my own work and others’. It was a stunning revelation – while I certainly wouldn’t say I know what my “style” is all of a sudden, I feel like I have a direction now – a theme I can work from going forward, a deeper understanding of my own visual voice. It was pretty cool stuff.
Now in hindsight, I don’t think anyone could have magically gotten me there. I had to put in the hours and make the connections and do the work to get there. And yes, context was incredibly important – without it, that little thought might have just gone unnoticed or ignored in a sea of my own aimless fumbling. Like you say, having that touchstone, that base to compare and contrast is everything…
-Ed
“And yes, context was incredibly important – without it, that little thought might have just gone unnoticed or ignored in a sea of my own aimless fumbling. Like you say, having that touchstone, that base to compare and contrast is everything…”
I approached photography much as I approached jazz drumming. I had to know what Cozy Cole had done, what Elvin was doing, and how Morello could play that left hand so fast… not to copy them, or become a clone, but to understand the techniques and the contexts. And to have a marker to reach. How fast is as fast enough if you have never listened to jazz?
How would you even explain it?
How do you do that if you don’t have any idea that is what you are supposed to do?
Fair point. When I said I only partially agreed, I was referring to the fact that if you studied all the previous and current masters, that is not enough. It’s one ingredient. But you can look at lots of shots of Avedon, and Meisel, and Cunningham, and that’s not going to make you successful fashion photographer on its own.
What studying the previous work helps you with, is shortening your learning curve. It helps you see what works and what doesn’t in a specific genre, you benefit from decades of experimenting of these folks, and decades of these folks getting paid work and thus implicitly some information what clients are looking for.
However I suggest that you deconstruct it into these elements, so you learn these aspects, but don’t constrain yourself to the tried and true recipe, especially since some of them are off trend in today’s market. You still have to do your own experimenting, and that’s where you will find your style.
How will a photographer who has no idea of how to shoot beer, never drank beer, never associated with beer, never seen another beer shot ever… how is he going to make a good beer shot for his client?
Totally agree. I think you have to pick genres of photography where you have an affinity and an understanding of the subject. You need to understand the basic language of the subject, you need to know what’s important. Or you will never make a believable or commercially viable image.
I picked fashion & food, because I have both an affinity to both, and because I have invested time and effort in understanding their industry and networking with both industries.. And that’s why I don’t shoot baby’s and senior portraits. It’s a mindset that I can’t relate to. That’s also why I don’t shoot church weddings, but will do the occasional gay wedding.
PS: When referring to model test, I was speaking of shooting for the agency. That term is morphing. I mostly refer to the total free form as personal project nowadays.
I agree.
“Fair point. When I said I only partially agreed, I was referring to the fact that if you studied all the previous and current masters, that is not enough. It’s one ingredient. But you can look at lots of shots of Avedon, and Meisel, and Cunningham, and that’s not going to make you successful fashion photographer on its own.”
I certainly hope my writing is not so bad as to have anyone think I was suggesting that.
It is but one part of a large list of work that has to be done. But I do think this one must come near the front of the list, otherwise there is no context for the learning at all.
LOL.
I certainly hope my writing is not so bad as to have anyone think I was suggesting that.
You’re writing is good. But the risk of a blog post that can only ever cover one aspect, is that it get’s taken out of context – it cannot stand on it’s own, but only in the context of who the blogger is and has been writing over time.
To quote you:
You think they KNOW this stuff, and I am saying they need to learn this stuff.
If you read just this post, and without knowing anything else, one could come to the conclusion that looking at books of Avedon is going to make them a fashion photographer. I know you didn’t mean it that way though…
Good discussion… This is a large subject, and could certainly cover a whole workshop or book.
“..But the risk of a blog post that can only ever cover one aspect, is that it get’s taken out of context…”
Yeah. It’s a blog post, not a book.
And not finding the context of the post, not being aware that there is more to it, not finding out how that post works in the context of all that is discussed on it sort of makes my point.
Without an inquisitive mind, without the thirst for more, deeper, wider and fuller knowledge, the photographer becomes a static blip.
If one were to go out and look only at Avedon, or any of the others I mentioned, and not make photographs, seek answers, find touchstones, grow against a scale, then they are simply not ever gonna be a photographer. I really don’t have much to say about that.
As with most things, there is more beneath the surface that must be revealed by hard work. Looking for an “easy button” – as noted – is futile.
But sometimes, in a sort of terribly mean way, it can be funny to watch… especially when they are being led by another who is equally clueless. LOL
Wow, an online argument between two intelligent people who mostly agree with each other. Don’t see that very often.
Where is the argument?
Check out http://www.emilysoto.com to see a good example of fashion photography. It is frustrating that people don’t use the web more productively to find out things and learn something. Emily’s site has BTS videos and also some lighting diagrams as an added bonus. While her work is very good what I found intriguing was her use of a Mola Setti and an Alien Bee strobe (shock-horror) and many of us can relate to the AB part at least.
While the BTS videos and lighting diagrams are useful for showing the how part of the shoot understanding the why part is the more difficult part to grasp. And if you don’t understand the why then you can not be in control of the shoot. The photographer needs to provide a solution to the shoot concept and how can you provide a solution if you don’t know what the problem is.
And stay away from forums.