|
Forums >
General Industry >
are we the enemy?!?
are we, the photographers and models of our industries to be held responsible for the tainted view on what is beautiful and what is not...are we not whores of madison avenue continuing their lies?!? May 21 06 08:28 pm Link as long as we kowtow down to it instead of trying to change it ---YES May 21 06 08:40 pm Link i say we all keep it real...no more photoshop...no more mua's. May 21 06 08:54 pm Link No more falsifying lighting either! Or falsely representing a 3D world on a 2D medium! May 21 06 09:20 pm Link I agree , but the only problem is that if you dont use an MUA,Photoshop,or spend tons of money hiring agency models, have a 3000 sq.ft. studio, or make your living off of being a industry slave then you are considered an amatuer or labeled a GWC. so either way it is a big double edge sword just waiting to slice us in one way or the other........ May 21 06 09:30 pm Link john knight wrote: you can always hire models who are a little off from the standard concept of beauty May 21 06 09:33 pm Link very true.....I think beauty is a package deal......got to have the personality to with the looks......I think IMHO that most mainstream models are not all that great.......I have worked with a few models that could knock you off your feet, until they starting talking and then it all went down hill May 21 06 09:43 pm Link I blame it all on Shyly.. Who can live up to that? What's a waifish, impoverished supermodel supposed to do in the face of competition from a REAL woman like that? I mean if there wasn't a superstructure of insular power brokers with titanium encrusted egos to protect them from reality what would these emaciated elves do? ...erm... Me no likey fashion.. *shrug* May 21 06 09:45 pm Link john knight wrote: I couldn't agree with you more! May 21 06 09:46 pm Link I actually have come to the conclusion that it's the designers who are to blame. That's the reason they want tall models right? Petites and other full body types (for visual reasons I don't quite understand) bring out flawed designs. They would have to be capable of making clothes that look good on all body types rather than human hangers on the runway. A lot of photographers I know take pride in being able to photograph all people and many in fact seek out different people for their work. (like in the movie "funny face") Yet, I have never heard a high end fashion designer say anything like "My work is so good it looks good on normal people." Usually it's just the opposite. Just my two cents. I am so glad photographers are considering these issues. Way too many teenage girls are hurting themselves emotionally and physically trying to be something that isn't natural for them. May 21 06 09:53 pm Link Sharon Gutowski wrote: Bravo! well put and so very true...... May 21 06 09:57 pm Link I think its funny how the main example of "beauty" is always the tall skinny supermodels, who "make everyone feel bad" That portion of the industry just happens to be the most celebrated... There are many many facets of our industry that people ignore... What about the commercial/lifestyle genre... beautiful people being ordinary joe schmoe people, and making money doing it. I'm a proud supporter of the tall and skinny genre... Thats what I want to shoot, and thats the world I want to work in. Call me a slave to the industry, call me a sellout... but hey, I'm able to keep food on my table, and pay the bills, all by doing a job that I love. Ultimately... the world turns because of all the unique people in it... without beautiful 5'10 models that weigh 110lbs, their wouldn't be a High fashion industry, and without the 5'5 130lbs models their wouldn't be a commercial/lifestyle industry. People just need something to bitch about, all we should worry about is working in the industry we love, and having fun while being able to support our lifestyles. May 21 06 10:02 pm Link john knight wrote: You may use any "label" you like to describe me or my work. I will continue to refuse to accept the fashion industry as the standard. And I will continue to pursue photography as an art, as I have an "axe to grind" with our culture's veiw of women and I have chosen photography as my prefered venue. May 21 06 10:13 pm Link I think it depends on what the PURPOSE of a photograph is. There are many reasons to photograph people. Most of them are valid and have a place. If we evaluate a photograph based on a set of criteria that comes from only one purpose, we may miss the point entirely. People who use this site as only a platform to show commercial "madison avenue" type modeling/photography, may evaluate photos based only on those very narrow concepts. This is a shame because they miss the point of some very effective art photography that has nothing to do at all with selling perfume. Photography is an art. It's a VISUAL art. When people become skilled at using the elements and principles of design to express themselves, it really does not matter what the tools are. 35mm camera, paint brush and canvass, digital camera, chain saw and a log. Who cares? If it looks good, it's ART. WE use this site because our tools of choice happens to be a camera and the human form. On this we all agree. I understand the purist photography attitude. I just think it limits the scope of possibilities. May 21 06 10:16 pm Link NewBoldPhoto wrote: I agree, I shoot from my home....a very small room in my home......I have felt the brunt of models and photographers judging me becuase of my lack of a studio.....I am proud of the sub standard equipment that I use.......and how would I label you?...a photographer May 21 06 10:25 pm Link Photographer for Hire specializing in: Product Packaging, Real Estate, Fashion, Forensic Research, Pornography and Tourism Trade. Referances on Request. ..Err...........??.........sorry wrong thread!! May 21 06 11:03 pm Link |
