View Full Version : Unclear fashion photography
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
09-09-2002, 01:26 PM
Looks good on hamsters, too.
I like it. Emminently more interpretable. What's the trend called?
09-09-2002, 03:14 PM
Not sure how that happened. Here is what I intended to post.
I am often surprised when I see magazine fashion photo spreads and the photos are taken in a manner such that the clothes described are very hard to see. The most recent example of this was in Sunday's Chicago Tribune magazine. One shot had a model wearing a several thousand dollar shearling coat - but the shot was blurred as if in motion, and it only showed the model's head and shoulders. So you could vaguely see the coat's lapels. Other times, the caption will list - say - brand X boots, and you really can't see what the model has on their feet.
What messages are such a photos supposed to convey? What actions are they supposed to encourage? Is a reader supposed to run out and buy that coat? Or are they supposed to simply develop a feeling that xyz-designer must be cool if their stuff is featured in such a neat photo spread?
I guess this is a different question, but one of the shots had a guy wearing a v-neck cotton tee shirt under 2 other jackets. You could just barely see the collar of the tee. The caption said it was $190.00 by some designer. What in the world would make a tee-shirt worth $190?! Man, you go through a whole bunch of brand new Hanes, tossing them out after one wear, before hitting $190!
Who, if anyone, actually buys such things? Why?
09-09-2002, 03:21 PM
This is a question for the ages. But, apparently, people do buy $190 designer t-shirts, or no one would make them. Usually the name of the designer is just about the only thing that gets them that price tag. Yes, they are usually made of a nicer material than your average Fruit-of-the Looms, but not that nice!
As for the photography, I think fashion photographers do that to set themselves apart from catalog photographers, where artistry goes out the window in favor of dull but accurate portrayal of the garment. Still, you could always tell what the dress looked like in an Avedon photo.
09-09-2002, 03:35 PM
"don't sell the steak, sell the sizzle"
09-09-2002, 03:46 PM
It doesn't matter what the actual appearance of the clothing is, just who the designer is. They are supposed to convey that you should buy clothes by that designer. Of course, if you're not talking about advertising, then I'm not sure I can explain fashion photojournalism. I will say that last month the Washington Post published a pair of pictures of Serena Williams playing tennis in a skin-tight shorts jumpsuit that was very unflattering and the accompanying article compared her to a streetwalker. And those pictures were sharp as a tack. This online photo (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_659100.html?menu=news.lifestyle.fashion) is the same outfit but not the same photo run by the Post, which was much less flattering.
On your second question, it is largely snob appeal and status. The guy that wears a $190 T-shirt is doing it just so he can show everyone that he can afford to spend $190 on a T-shirt, not because he may actually think it's a good deal. Although the people he's trying to impress actually have to realize it's a $190 T-shirt. This actually has some evolutionary basis insofar as male humans have a need to display their ability to provide resources to females
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.