Fashion v High Fashion

Chaoslillith

Hello all ,

I have a question. I have been looking at a lot of fashion work and I am having a hard time figuring out the difference between a fashion shot and a high fashion shot other than the clothes, MUA and hair of the model. I know what a catalog and commercial work are but when I see high fashion v fashion I get confused. It seems the composition and lighting are the same it is just in the posing and appearance of the model.

Is that about right? Any idea?

Thanks!

angevin1

Chaoslillith wrote: »

Hello all ,

I have a question. I have been looking at a lot of fashion work and I am having a hard time figuring out the difference between a fashion shot and a high fashion shot other than the clothes, MUA and hair of the model. I know what a catalog and commercial work are but when I see high fashion v fashion I get confused. It seems the composition and lighting are the same it is just in the posing and appearance of the model.

Is that about right? Any idea?

Thanks!

Probably because you ought to be comparing commercial work vs.high fashion/couture.

Fashion: catalog activity; commercial activity.
High Fashion: runway stuff.

Chaoslillith

Tom,

I understand that high fashion is runway but do you shoot a high fashion design different than just fashion? Or is it just the drama of the shot that makes it high fashion?

Thanks!

Kat

Dan7312

Wasn't the stuff that Richard Avedon photographed considered high-fashion? His images were typically on a plain white background with no runway.

Chaoslillith wrote: »

Tom,

I understand that high fashion is runway but do you shoot a high fashion design different than just fashion? Or is it just the drama of the shot that makes it high fashion?

Thanks!

Kat

angevin1

Chaoslillith wrote: »

Tom,

I understand that high fashion is runway but do you shoot a high fashion design different than just fashion? Or is it just the drama of the shot that makes it high fashion?

Thanks!

Kat

SO you're asking about the environment of the shot? I think that is a valid and good question. I tend to think of Commercial Shooting as stuff you see in a catalog. And I rarely see drama in that. But in magazines I see both: I see drama and garments from Houses as well as Stores/Brands. But to answer your question I think you Shoot what the client wants. If they want drama, you give it drama.

What I think definitively 'makes' something high fashion is whether or not it was shot "FOR" "A" House. As in a first look and stuff most of us cannot afford to buy or wear.

Dan7312 wrote: »

Wasn't the stuff that Richard Avedon photographed considered high-fashion? His images were typically on a plain white background with no runway.

I dunno. I think he probably shot some of it all. I usually think of him in a Documentary style, and maybe that's just because of his style and period. it used to be that High Fashion was something we would see a starlet wear and that starlet might be on the streets of New York.

divamum

For me, the difference is:

Fashion: what real people might look like wearing certain clothes or in certain environments
High fashion: what stylists and art directors create as a "concept" to highlight the clothing/makeup/product.

Vogue these days is a perfect example of high fashion - many of their fashion spreads are approaching fantasy styling, IMO.

Compare and contrast to more "real people" magazines like Lucky, Glamour or Redbook - the clothes are still the highlight in the fashion spreads, but the styling is far more "realistic", especially as far as hair/makeup.

I'm not sure if we can entirely compare modern magazine fashion work with the classics of Avedon et al - some of his more elaborate shoots/looks certainly inspired and were the fore-runner of today's concept fashion shoots, but plenty of it was just incredibly gorgeous, high-end portraiture emphasising the clothing. The looks were never (IMO) as extreme as what you seen in Vogue these days!

Chaoslillith

Dan7312 wrote: »

Wasn't the stuff that Richard Avedon photographed considered high-fashion? His images were typically on a plain white background with no runway.

I love Avendon's work!! The lady with the elephants is so stunning!

Chaoslillith

The reason I am asking the question is I am planning a "high fashion" shoot I guess you could say for my own port. I want to push my poses and styling so I wanted to know if there was an accepted definition of high fashion v fashion. I think it is a little of everything, from the drama of the shot to the clothes even if it is not a "House" or couture garment to the lighting. It seems also the more "fashion" shots the models tend to be looking more at the camera and with high fashion they are looking off at angles to make it seem more like art and less like a portrait shot. I spent about 3 hours looking on photos on the web last night.

Thank you for your replies!!

Kat

Art Scott

this might help : http://tinyurl.com/7sdvusv - http://tinyurl.com/72j5jd7 - http://tinyurl.com/7qzrwqw
and for the full list of Google results for High Fashion Photography go here: http://tinyurl.com/7z2b77k

jhefti

Then there is Bill Cunningham, fashion photographer for the New York Times, who shoots with an old Nikon compact film camera and is known for his street shots.

jhefti

divamum wrote: »

For me, the difference is:

I'm not sure if we can entirely compare modern magazine fashion work with the classics of Avedon et al - some of his more elaborate shoots/looks certainly inspired and were the fore-runner of today's concept fashion shoots, but plenty of it was just incredibly gorgeous, high-end portraiture emphasising the clothing. The looks were never (IMO) as extreme as what you seen in Vogue these days!

I don't read these magazines, but occasionally look at the pictures and usually dislike what I see: every blemish removed, smoothed skin, altered proportions, hypersaturated yellows, etc... They all look the same to me. It is really hard for me to compare this to Avedon's work.