Digital is killing fashion photography..

treeman

treeman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,094
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Last edited:
That's just the view of one, funnily enough, film photographer. Does he not realise fashion photographers have been using digital medium format for donkey's years?
 
That reads just like someone who is very good at his craft getting bitter about technology making his craft easier. A little like an old racing driver complaining about traction control and ABS making the car too easy to drive...

I say easier, because he hints that he would only take a few rolls of film and thus relatively few chances of getting 'that' shot, where as digital allows you instant preview to adjust if anything out by a small margin...
 
Cagey75 said:
That's just the view of one, funnily enough, film photographer. Does he not realise fashion photographers have been using digital medium format for donkey's years?
Click to expand...

He's shot for Vogue, I think he knows.
 
Why is he only coming up with this "Digital is killing fashion photography" spiel now then?

I don't read Vogue personally ...
 
No argument about how good he is at his craft....But oh my he does like the sound of his own waffle.
 
As eloquently as he puts it, it's still nothing more than "I don't like change".
 
Last edited:
Lots of jimmies being rustled in this thread... Can't quite see why an artist preferring a certain way of working over another is enough justification for being called 'stupid' or 'bitter'. He finds film more gratifying and to his eyes, makes better photos as a result of that - can't really argue with that when you get repeat work with Vogue and Vanity Fair now...

PS: Give me a Mamiya 7II over a D800 any day, they're much more fun to work with. :p

Cagey75 said:
Why is he only coming up with this "Digital is killing fashion photography" spiel now then?

I don't read Vogue personally ...
Click to expand...

Because he was asked about it in an interview?

I don't read Vogue either, but it's nice to pick up an issue every now and then to see what the photography is like.
 
Last edited:
I was speaking with a local photographer who routinely does catalogue work for the likes of freemans and choice and he said that his clients don't want images that are "too sharp" because it makes the clothing and models look worse than they are. Its all about marketing and softening an image gets rid of fabric imperfection, as well as skin imperfection. Its harder to do that with digital than it is with film, especially since the focus on new lenses is at sharpness at the highest MP ratings to date.

However, he doesn't think its "killing" fashion photography at all, infact its helping it. Having the ability to tether shoot, so the client can see the results INSTANTLY is a massive plus. You can give the client exactly what they want within a few minutes based on the results you get, but with film we all know that they take time to process and its a highly skilled process.
 
I think he raises a great point about imperfections and I agree with him 100%, my background is in music and I've thought the same in that area for years. When you make music utterly flawless, i.e. absolutely no background noise, everything absolutely on the beat with no movement whatsoever, etc, you can end up with something that sounds very sterile and flat. As human beings we're not designed to do things perfectly; we make mistakes and screw things up sometimes so when those elements that go towards making something human are removed from a piece of art, be it music, photography, painting, etc, it can kind of lose some of the meaning. I'm not saying obviously wrong notes should be left in the middle of a track; no-one wants to hear that and it would clearly just be a mistake, but perhaps an occasional slightly off-beat note works well in capturing the mood of what's going on.

I don't necessarily agree that shooting on digital will automatically give you the 'perfect' image but I very much agree with his overall point.
 
PMN said:
I think he raises a great point about imperfections and I agree with him 100%, my background is in music and I've thought the same in that area for years. When you make music utterly flawless, i.e. absolutely no background noise, everything absolutely on the beat with no movement whatsoever, etc, you can end up with something that sounds very sterile and flat.
Click to expand...

Which is why I prefer vinyl to CD !
 
FruitFlakes said:
Lots of jimmies being rustled in this thread... Can't quite see why an artist preferring a certain way of working over another is enough justification for being called 'stupid' or 'bitter'. He finds film more gratifying and to his eyes, makes better photos as a result of that - can't really argue with that when you get repeat work with Vogue and Vanity Fair now...

PS: Give me a Mamiya 7II over a D800 any day, they're much more fun to work with. :p



Because he was asked about it in an interview?

I don't read Vogue either, but it's nice to pick up an issue every now and then to see what the photography is like.
Click to expand...

But still - why now?? He says it's "killing" not already killed.

Digital images can be as clear or grainy as you want them to be - I don't see his argument at all. And trust me, that's about as much as I care, so save the quoting.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
But still - why now?? He says it's "killing" not already killed.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's because he doesn't think it has killed fashion photography yet... just sayin ;)
 
If and when I have to shoot digitally, I always shoot to card and never show anyone. I usually give myself a day or two before I look at the session.
Click to expand...

Actually a very poignant line.

I always find if I get straight onto the shots from a shoot then the results are rarely what I hope for. If I leave it a couple of days before working on them, I tend to see much better results. Choose better shots for the final cut.

It also gets me enjoying the photography, and enjoying the time I spend in lightroom. Well worth it.
 
Cagey75 said:
But still - why now?? He says it's "killing" not already killed.

Digital images can be as clear or grainy as you want them to be - I don't see his argument at all. And trust me, that's about as much as I care, so save the quoting.
Click to expand...

Quoting the article or yourself? Because if it's yourself, that isn't how a forum works.

I don't think he has a problem with the medium itself, more the attitude of working that it creates - he shoots film because it physically imposes a way of working that is quite hard to transfer over to digital. He doesn't want art directors hovering over his shoulder and constantly checking and interrupting the flow of the shoot. In that sense, digital is killing fashion photography, as it becomes art by committee. At that level you'd expect everyone on set (make up, stylist, model and photographer) to know what they're doing, so put them all together and see what comes out. It's like throwing four great musicians in a room together for a jam session - mistakes aren't actually mistakes but an opportunity to take whatever you're doing in a different direction (there's a great TED talk from a Jazz musician about that kind of thing). It's often the unexpected that makes an image.
 
So....vinyl is killing fashion photography and CDs should be softer so you dont see the cloth......or am I confused?
 
FruitFlakes said:
Quoting the article or yourself? Because if it's yourself, that isn't how a forum works.

I don't think he has a problem with the medium itself, more the attitude of working that it creates - he shoots film because it physically imposes a way of working that is quite hard to transfer over to digital. He doesn't want art directors hovering over his shoulder and constantly checking and interrupting the flow of the shoot. In that sense, digital is killing fashion photography, as it becomes art by committee.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what he's saying, maybe the slightly sensationalist headline is misleading to some.
 
I agree with pretty much everything he says.. well.. 80% of it. He's not arguing against digital as a medium.. as a technology, he's arguing against what it doing to photography in certain respects. Images are over worked these days. Working with art direction is a nightmare now because they want to stick their oar in despite knowing the square root of jack about what needs doing.

Commercial studio stuff.. sure digital rocks, but fashion is dull as dish water these days. Very few have the sheer lunacy and don't give a **** attitude that fashion seems to thrive on and I think it's because there are always too many people sticking their oar in during the shoot. It makes you more conservative - you're scared to take risks as much, and taking risks is where the truly mental stuff comes from.

These days, it's shoot by committee.

Another thing I agree with - shoot to card. I can't stand it when you're working and everyone sods off to gather round the computer while you're shooting... even if it's because I'm sick of wiping bloody fingerprints off a £2k monitor! Plus... I don't want to see the shots arrive one by one. I have a tendency to stop when I see something that makes me think I have it. I try harder if I can't see it.

Only a fool would be anti-digital, and I don't think Norman Jean is either from what I've read from him elsewhere. It's the attitudes of clients that have changed. They no longer just trust to you to work the way you work. They want to see the images on a screen immediately, and they always want to change this, change that... bugs me. They booked you because they like the style of your work, and then they want to change the way you work.
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
another "unknown famous" photographer talking nonsense to make his online footprint bigger.
Click to expand...

Unknown?? LOL.. you're funny :)
 
Last edited:
So you don't know who he is, or have any idea about his work, yet feel qualified to dismiss what he says as nonsense?

Just LOL.
 
Pookeyhead said:
So you don't know who he is, or have any idea about his work, yet feel qualified to dismiss what he says as nonsense?

Just LOL.
Click to expand...

pretty much - I don't agree with what he says. I don't need to know who he is to disagree with what he wrote. You don't me or know my work but you disagree with pretty much everything I say ;)
 
treeman said:
Poah, are you bored or something this evening, or is there a particular reason you're talking nonsense?
Click to expand...

I'm not the only one in this thread that is thinking the same - are you going to reply to them and tell them they are talking nonsense :shrug:
 
@POAH

All I can say is you have never worked in a studio on a fashion shoot these days, and also have experience of what it was like when film was the order of the day. Otherwise you'd be agreeing with him. Do you do many fashion shoots? So far as I can tell, he's only talking about fashion photography.

I disagree with you because you are always very disparaging about any one who creates anything even remotely considered "art" in inverted commas, and you're also dismissive of any work from anyone from an academic background, or anyone who goes against the grain of popular amateur photography's general opinions.. yet post up absolutely no work of your own to put your money where your mouth is. :)
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
I'm not the only one in this thread that is thinking the same - are you going to reply to them and tell them they are talking nonsense :shrug:
Click to expand...

Nope, as they're all entitled to their own opinions of what he said, but none of them have said he is unknown and only doing it to gain more site hits, that is talking nonsense. If you did the research on him, as I suggested, you'd understand why. :)
 
treeman said:
Nope, as they're all entitled to their own opinions of what he said, but none of them have said he is unknown and only doing it to gain more site hits, that is talking nonsense. If you did the research on him, as I suggested, you'd understand why. :)
Click to expand...

He is not known to me and probably most people . It's not a name like David bailey etc hence why I wrote "unknown famous"
 
Pookeyhead said:
@POAH

All I can say is you have never worked in a studio on a fashion shoot these days, and also have experience of what it was like when film was the order of the day. Otherwise you'd be agreeing with him. Do you do many fashion shoots? So far as I can tell, he's only talking about fashion photography.

I disagree with you because you are always very disparaging about any one who creates anything even remotely considered "art" in inverted commas, and you're also dismissive of any work from anyone from an academic background, or anyone who goes against the grain of popular amateur photography's general opinions.. yet post up absolutely no work of your own to put your money where your mouth is. :)
Click to expand...

I've got no problem with art or anyone from an academic background (I'm assuming you just mean photographic since I have an academic background). I have no reason to post my own work, I don't need validation from other people. I know you like to check back other people's posts so you should check back on mine to see images posted or I could email you the PDFs from my publications if you are truly interested.
 
FruitFlakes said:
I don't think he has a problem with the medium itself, more the attitude of working that it creates - he shoots film because it physically imposes a way of working that is quite hard to transfer over to digital. He doesn't want art directors hovering over his shoulder and constantly checking and interrupting the flow of the shoot. In that sense, digital is killing fashion photography, as it becomes art by committee. At that level you'd expect everyone on set (make up, stylist, model and photographer) to know what they're doing, so put them all together and see what comes out. It's like throwing four great musicians in a room together for a jam session - mistakes aren't actually mistakes but an opportunity to take whatever you're doing in a different direction (there's a great TED talk from a Jazz musician about that kind of thing). It's often the unexpected that makes an image.
Click to expand...

treeman said:
That is exactly what he's saying, maybe the slightly sensationalist headline is misleading to some.
Click to expand...

Plus one, I read the article first, then many of the comments on here and I was wondering whether we read a different article...He qualifies why he is 'against' digital, and actually he isn't at all against digital. He doesn't like chimping and have another dozen people chimping at his work either, it's his time when he is with the camera to pull it together. I can really understand that.
 
I've had a bit of a turnaround on this subject.

On Wednesday, I had a job that was under exceptional scrutiny. I was shooting a book cover for a publisher, and the whole shoot was being filmed for a TV program. At the start of the shoot, it transpired that the laptop I was using had a version of Lightroom that wasn't compatible with my Hasselblad, so we were unable to tether and view shots. We were stuck with the back of the Hasselblad screen, which is TERRIBLE (nothing like a DSLR screen).

Normally, this would be a shoot-killer, because I'd delay everything and go off and find a way to download the update to Lightroom before it started. Because there were cameras on me, I was forced to just use the camera without chimping the screen or the monitor.

The result, like the content of the Fstoppers article, was that I got more into the shoot and didn't rely on the laptop to tell me I had the shot. I shot more and I tried more in order to cover bases.

The result was a better image. I think in future, where possible, I'm not going to tether, and I'm going to just shoot the job and look at the shots when I go home. It'll probably take some convincing the clients, but I hope I can.
 
Apart from the bit about "Digital Perfection" and people have been saying that for years he seems to be just having a rant because the industry is changing and he doesn't like it,tough I'm afraid that's life
 
London Headshots said:
I've had a bit of a turnaround on this subject.

On Wednesday, I had a job that was under exceptional scrutiny. I was shooting a book cover for a publisher, and the whole shoot was being filmed for a TV program. At the start of the shoot, it transpired that the laptop I was using had a version of Lightroom that wasn't compatible with my Hasselblad, so we were unable to tether and view shots. We were stuck with the back of the Hasselblad screen, which is TERRIBLE (nothing like a DSLR screen).

Normally, this would be a shoot-killer, because I'd delay everything and go off and find a way to download the update to Lightroom before it started. Because there were cameras on me, I was forced to just use the camera without chimping the screen or the monitor.

The result, like the content of the Fstoppers article, was that I got more into the shoot and didn't rely on the laptop to tell me I had the shot. I shot more and I tried more in order to cover bases.

The result was a better image. I think in future, where possible, I'm not going to tether, and I'm going to just shoot the job and look at the shots when I go home. It'll probably take some convincing the clients, but I hope I can.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think the people accusing him of whining about change just have absolutely no idea about shooting fashion.
 
I'd never heard of him before, couldnt care less who he is. I feel I have as much right as anyone to comment on what he says. It's public, didn't think it was restricted to only those on high horses interested in fashion. It's just dim what he says, and does sound bitter. Don't know why there has to be debate on what people think on it. . Then i remind myself where i am.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Exactly. I think the people accusing him of whining about change just have absolutely no idea about shooting fashion.
Click to expand...

Not just that, I have no comprehension a out shooting fashion, but I can read what the article actually says. It seems that a lot of people are not focussing on what the article actually stated opposed to just the headline which is very misleading.
 
Cagey75 said:
I'd never heard of him before, couldnt care less who he is. I feel I have as much right as anyone to comment on what he says.
Click to expand...

Of course... but without experience of what he's talking about you'll probably fail to understand the problems he's discussing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top