|
Forums >
General Industry >
Defining types of Photography... what is your def?
Hey guys... Im starting to put together my website and honestly.. im a little confused on the categories.. Someone says my work is commercial - what does that mean?? I think i know what Editorial means... Fashion... artistic.. im sure i could figure that out.. I have even gotten the description of theotrical... I suppose its possible photography could even start combining the styles.. Explain your definition of Each... Commercial, fashion, artistic, editorial, and others I forgot? Oct 09 06 01:14 am Link Like so many things in life, categories and genres are all a matter of opinion and some things (be it photos or music or movies or whatever) will fall into more than one category. Hence, just do your best to categorize your images the way YOU see fit. Because invariably, some people will disagree with your labels. And that's okay. They are your pictures. What genre other photographers would put them into is irrelevant. Oct 09 06 01:20 am Link in my opinion your work is very Commercial (which to me just means your selling something a look, a product, a style) with alot of fashion thrown in. Editorial work usualy has a harder edge then this though Oct 09 06 01:25 am Link editorial - work for print, generally a magazine, non-commercial even though it may feature a product like in fashion editorial, can range from magazine assignments to photograph a celebrity to journalism fashion editorial - fashion story or image for fashion magazine or similar commercial - advertising, catalog beauty - like it says, not about the clothing, often headshots, cosmetics, etc. glamour - more about the model, often eroticized/sexualized imagery, maxim/fhm of course Oct 09 06 01:32 am Link oh good a new thread guaranteed to provide a laugh Oct 09 06 02:41 am Link I like good and bad as the two main categories. Oct 09 06 07:23 am Link Hadyn Lassiter wrote: I agree. There is some much overlap they end up being completely meaningless. Oct 09 06 07:51 am Link Matthew Lyn Photography wrote: categorize by noun. people, places, things. about the only category that won't raise any definition dispute is headshots. Oct 09 06 08:16 am Link Oh, and another one that drives me crazy. Implied nude If you are nude, but covering up the naughty bits, you are still nude. Those shots can be great but "implied nude" seems to be such a odd term. I know I sound like a crumudgeon now. Oct 09 06 08:19 am Link I like really really good shots as well. And then there is "Pro" shots? Oct 09 06 04:50 pm Link FaceReality wrote: Actually, there have been some fairly robust conversations here about "what is a headshot?". It's amazing the variety for different applications - and there is the notion that a "headshot" isn't a "headshot", it's a "beauty shot". Or that "headshots" are for actors, and, well, something else is for models. Oct 09 06 05:07 pm Link MegaHertz Studios wrote: I disagree. She may be full on nude to you since you're in the room with her and you see angles the camera doesn't pick up, such as when she's adjusting or moving around. However the final image doesn't show any of the naughty bits that would show up censored or fuzzed out on public television. There's a significant difference. Full on nude will direct attention to the otherwise private parts, whereas partial nude will more likely redirect attention to the full on photo without any sexual involvement, such as back to her eyes or the curve of her back or some other feature to appreciate. Oct 09 06 06:44 pm Link MegaHertz Studios wrote: I hate that too......its different though if your naked but have an umbrellas the size of X or what not. Oct 10 06 03:41 am Link |
