Discussion: genres
Have had a welcome break over the holidays, which actually gave me some time to think and catch my breath. Have been reading, watching some Creative Live seminars etc etc etc. Which led me to consider exactly what I want to develop in my own images. I'm realisng the work I admire most includes fashion/beauty elements in headshots, and more of a lifestyle vibe into everything else. While I love "classic portraiture" - and it certainly has its place (AND the technical skills it demands are the foundation of everything else, so it's pretty vital to know what to do) - I know my own taste is a bit more ecclectic than that and I'm trying to identify, specifically, various elements of what makes all these "genres" distinct from each other.
So, with that in mind:
What elements (eg technical, lens choices, hair/mu/styling, lighting, posing etc) do YOU think make each of these styles look the way they do???
Classic/traditional portraiture
Fashion/beauty (discuss separately if you feel they're that different)
Lifestyle
Would love your thoughts!
EDITED TO ADD: I think I've been lumping "beauty" and "commercial" together in my mind, and I probably meant commercial where I said "beauty"..... :thumb
So, with that in mind:
What elements (eg technical, lens choices, hair/mu/styling, lighting, posing etc) do YOU think make each of these styles look the way they do???
Classic/traditional portraiture
Fashion/beauty (discuss separately if you feel they're that different)
Lifestyle
Would love your thoughts!
EDITED TO ADD: I think I've been lumping "beauty" and "commercial" together in my mind, and I probably meant commercial where I said "beauty"..... :thumb
facebook | photo site |
0
Comments
Woot! Someone asked the Internet for opinions. I'll bite!
This has been going on for centuries. At one time only the filthy rich could afford it. Now they have their pictures hanging in fancy museums. The likeness of a portrait is traditionally the main goal. Does it convey an accurate (perhaps slightly stylized) representation of the person? Does it say a little something about the personality of the person? I don't think you can be a good portrait photographer without really enjoying people. All people. There are some tools that are traditionally helpful. Lenses that are long enough to not distort the face. Lighting scenarios that creates pleasing shadow to highlight transitions. Take your time to do it well. 400 years ago the person having their portrait taken might have spent days with the artist. Photographers might benefit from spending at least a few minutes with the person.
I do feel these are different. I think fashion has always been about the fashion... or rather creating a shared experience of the fashion. It isn't just the dress, it is what it might be like wearing the dress. It isn't about models, or celebrity - though that certainly is a modern trend. We've made a mistake as a society buying the pitch that only famous people can enjoy fashion. We've made a travesty of men's fashion, especially. Few men know how to dress themselves (I am clueless). There is no right or wrong in fashion. It is entirely a creative endeavor meant to convey an experience. Fashion is universal. You are wearing something right now. What does it say about you? Successfully convey that message via photography and congratulations, you are a fashion photographer. It isn't about the lens or gear you use.
Beauty is generally aimed at one segment of the population - people who want to modify or enhance their appearance via artificial methods. Reviewing the human history of beauty will reveal what this is all about. Make-up, hair products, teeth-whitening, skin care, anti-aging. Understanding this guides the photography. Well lit, further enhancement of the artificial effects, photoshopped skin, barbie-doll looks, bright eyes, white teeth, no distracting shadows. Some of the same rules of portraiture apply. You are creating a highly-stylized portrait.
If you think about it a bit longer, beauty is all about enhancement of sexuality and appearance. Men are very much involved too. Buy photoshop, lots of lighting, and grip gear. Erase wrinkles, the right moles, and make eyes brighter and you win. Oddly enough, I think a lot of senior portraiture is actually just beauty in disguise. I don't know what that says about the sexualization of young people, which isn't new. Perhaps we are just getting better at it? Sadly.
Capture people doing things and that's lifestyle. Fast focus is more important than lights. Invest in wide-angle lenses, good zooms, and gear that keeps you light and on the go. Lately there is a popular fad that creates fake lifestyle moments. That isn't bad. It is what people want and are willing to pay for. Give it to 'em. You can't create a good lifestyle session hauling around a 3 point studio lighting setup. Do us all a favor, however, and at least try to capture a few good candid moments. Even in contrived scenarios these exist. You just have to always, always, always be ready to take the shot with split-second timing. Buy gear that helps you do that.
Final thoughts:
There is no right or wrong way to do this stuff. There are general guidelines, but there isn't a 'fashion' kit you can go buy. You can use your iphone for every single genre listed here. Photography is a thing that happens in front of the lens, not behind it. If you are about the gear, then you are a camera enthusiast, not a photographer. You can be both, but just because you have a Leica doesn't make you a photojournalist.
Think of this another way. Just because you take pictures of birds doesn't make you a bird lover. It makes you a fan of pictures of birds. Bird lovers might never take a picture of a bird. They help birds, encourage bird habitat, understand birds. Photography is like this. Do you love pictures of cameras and technical read-outs, or do you love fashion, beauty, or people? What do you really like to do? Do it, then just bring your camera along for the ride.
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
For me "LifeStyle" is the most demanding of all aspects.
www.cameraone.biz
I had been trying to summarise some key points before you responded, so here's what I came up with. (I sure hope others will chime in with their thoughts too - the more the merrier!)
Classic portrait: emphasis on technical quality and light. Static poses, often positioned very specifically by the photographer. Sense of stillness. Flattering likeness. Enhancing or non-distracting neutral backgrounds.
Fashion: extreme posing - and camera angles - emphasising angles and elongation. Human body bent into shapes which aren't always entirely natural. Frequently a sense of movement. Mood and "shapes" more important than human element. Quite "arty" at times. Lighting can be important and complex or not, depending on the concept.
Beauty: Often brightly lit. Softer than fashion - curves and stillness instead of angles and energy. Less dynamic with emphasis on "perfection" rather than "concept"
Lifestyle: Natural light, ideally really pretty natural light. Less emphasis on technical rules and more on capturing that moment-in-time-and-space. "Flaws" embraced rather than hidden. More casual clothing/locations. Emotion and movement more important than technical perfection, eg motion blur sometimes a bonus rather than a flaw. Wide angle lenses, unusual angles, shooting "through" things to create a fly-on-the-wall feeling that just happened to be captured. Also, currently a taste for film-inspired processing, often with a retro feel.
To me, LIGHTING is one of the key points in traditional portraiture. Not to say it's not important in Fashion/beauty/lifestyle, but those seem to be often about breaking the "rules" rather than following them. To me, most classic portraits are using a variant on the Key/Fill/Hairlight formula. More static posing - good point about it growing directly from centuries of painted portraits (something I hadn't thought about, to be honest, but you are SO right).
You.Nail.Head.
I recently heard the distinction between fashion and beauty - which can often be quite similar - described as "In fashion, the clothes are hero; in beauty, the hair and makeup are". I thought that was a great way of putting it.
I think that high-end fashion photography - eg Vogue - is stylised. HEAVILY stylised. It may be about the clothes, but they are presented as a "concept" rather than the models being used simply as mannekins; in some ways, it's become a fusion of fashion (demonstrating the clothing to a market) and fine art/conceptual (highly stylised). Posing is certainly more extreme - acute body angles, extended positions, accentuated bones and joints. Whether this has been driven by the passion for stick-insect models, or the stick-insect models have become popular because they fill the look the concepts are trying to convey I'm not sure, but it's definitely part of the current fashion vibe; no doubt about that at all.
Beauty, to me, is different again. Lighting is often brighter and softer, but carefully scultping faces and bodies to accentuate shapes (possibly even contributing to posing shapes that can't in reality be made simply by bending the body). Angles are often less extreme; more curve, less corner. Shooting angles are less exaggerated (so while a full-length shot may be taken from a lower angle to accentuate leg height, it isn't trying to actively distort the model's proportions into 10ft legs and a 5in torso). The model/person is a more integral part of the shot than merely something to carry around the product/look. Post processing seems to emphasise highlights and "perfection" that a "real person" might be able to attain; to that end, the models themselves look more realistic than those who are frequently promoted in high-end fashion.
Great points all
www.cameraone.biz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPk8Q7APlqo
www.cameraone.biz
Beauty photography is also posed, but it can be more sensual. The posing can also seem less static and more fluid. The lighting used is set up to minimize skin defects. It generally comes from overheard or with the model facing it, and side lighting is rarely used because it can make a people's faces look like the surface of the moon.
Fashion is kind of enigmatic, because it crosses genres. Some fashion photos seems very lifestyle-esque in that they convey a scene in which the subject appears to be very relaxed and spontaneous. Like a woman walking with shopping bags with a smile on her face. It can appear journalistic so that it seems either very casual or, conversely, very raw and edgy.
High fashion has more deliberately created drama. Contrasty light, whimsical concepts, and a very polished, obviously commercial, look.
Lifestyle is one of those things that hasn't every really been clearly defined. I think it refers to photography that is on-location and the photographer isn't typically acknowledged. It's all about how the subjects interact with one another in a general setting. In some of the shots during a lifestyle photo shoot people might be posed, but I think most people define specific shoots as "lifestyle" and not so often individual photos.
You raise a very good point about pop-fashion. We can blame (in a good way) Richard Avedon for most of the over-the-top trends in popular fashion. However, I think our fashion world would be incomplete without including the work of two contemporary fashion photographers:
Bill Cunningham. http://www.nytimes.com/video/on-the-street/
Bill is simply an inspiration. He is 84 years old and shoots non-stop every day - all day long. He brings his camera to his own award parties where he doesn't stop shooting. His photography is nothing more than snapshots. (He isn't a particularly skilled photographer.) The reason why he is brilliant is because of what he is looking at. He remains, to this day, one of the major trend-spotters in modern fashion. I don't think he'd have an opinion in the Canikon debate. In fact, I'd be surprised if he could name the model of camera he uses. That kind of thing just doesn't seem to fit in his world. Fashion is his first and only love - to the exclusion of all else.
Scott Schuman. http://www.thesartorialist.com
Scott seems to do everything. Brilliant street-fashion, runway, commercial work, snapshots... his love for fashion is just dripping from every entry. He beats the street every day. I don't think we can underestimate what it means to pursue a single love to this level. Scott is also a bit of a gear-head, proving you can be both intensely dedicated to one pursuit while not letting the pixel-peeping get in the way.
Website | Galleries | Utah PJs
Lifestyle Portraits:
In many cases, pictures taken with a photojournalist bent by folks that don't own or know how to use lighting.
Let the beatings begin....
Good One
~daDUMching~
I think that's true of the wannabes, but when see the best lifestyle stuff it is ALL about finding and using light; it may not be studio, but it's light, and skilfully used. But, kidding aside, you do make a good point - I think it may attract some people initially because it doesn't require the gear or the knowledge...
RyanS, been browsing those links - thanks! I may be looking at the wrong stuff, but what I saw on my first pass through was more street/documentary that just happened to have fashion and the fashion world as its subjects rather than "fashion photography" as such. Must dig deeper into those blogs - watch this space
Still trying to identify the posing differences between models and "normal people" :giggle. One of the things that got me started thinking about this was the Lindsay Adler posing seminar that Creative Live broadcast last week - she was constantly talking about how high fashion uses geometric posing, particularly noticeable in the negative space between body parts (as opposed to compositional negative space). Triangles, diamonds... it's clear once you see it pointed out. One thing I noticed in watching the Sue Bryce seminars last year is how she translates elements of fashion/commercial/beauty posing into "real person" posing. Again, it's about shapes, as well as (for her) the shoulder>chin connection, and hand placement. Brcye has actually skillfully taken what she saw in her years working for a studio and made it into something that the normal person can actually *do* successfully when well directed by a photographer who "gets" it and can help them out with the details.
One last thing, relevant to RyanS's comments regarding senior portraits = a division of "beauty" (which I agree with) - hair and makeup. I have been convinced for some time that the work of some (many?) photographers is defined as much by the makeup and styling as by the actual photography. I keep looking through portfolios and galleries to see where it's the lighting/posing and where it's just the makeup and styling - it's remarkable how often it's the latter that makes the "look".
Rexbobcat
Anyway, just further musings. I really want to try and "bullet point" this in my own mind, particularly posing ideas. I'm determined to improve my full-length posing, and this is part of it. I don't want performer promotional pix to look like seniors OR models, but take elements I see all around me and bring them together into something I find really pleasing. Learning the technical components of what makes a look "a look", is the first step
"High fashion modeling is considered an art form and is defined by models who display fashions in an artistic manner. An emphasis is placed on the way models express their emotions in their face and body postures. Commercial modeling is performed for the use in catalogues and in any print or electronic advertising media. It can also encompass underwear and swim modeling.
"The difference between high fashion modeling and commercial modeling is that while high fashion models use their emotions to communicate the artistic vision of the designer fashions they wear, commercial models focus more on using their postures to enhance the shopper appeal of the garments and or accessories."