Gene Schilling wrote:
I understand the intent, but I can't help but thinking these look like mug shots or passport photos. Would it hurt to have them at least pose?
The same thing was often said of Avedon's work. I happen to enjoy this style quite a bit. When you strip away all of the excesses, the fancy lighting, the unnatural posing, the glamorous editing, etc. it allows you to really focus on the subject.
All my life I've questioned the appeal of TGS. I think it's ridiculous. He must be a VERY CHARMING guy. Mentioning Avedon and TGS in the same sentence is blasphemy.
When it comes down to it, an image should be able to evoke an emotion. As soon as one starts comparing one image with another and point out where it is failing "because" the other image has this or that, you're missing - well - you're missing the big picture.
To say that because an image seems less complicated, less edited it is no(t as) good is plain wrong, imho.
Creativity comes in many forms. This type of work stands on its own merit and to me does show creativity, perhaps in a daring way to get a reaction from the viewer.
Here's TGS's quote "Photoshop is probably to blame. It's just so easy to erase a few years. What the hell, why not take off a decade of wrinkles and age spots. Click of the mouse. Any first year photo school student can do it."
Here's my opinion Any first year photo school student with a complete lack of taste can do it.
Good looking lighting on still good looking models.
This type of portraiture is so much more honest than the current slew of ultra retouched Maxim drivel out there. It seems so many people are caught up in a copy cat game of just pumping out that stuff but it's so derivative and to me, more uncreative than his style. After looking at that stuff I still don't know anything about the person or the photographer for that matter...what was that person trying to tell or show me? Oh, I guess just a naked back that is lit well...
I think he is immensely talented...he shows the person in a raw way that nudity or extreme posing can't. You really connect with the subject because there is nothing else to distract you. And technically he is spot on.
I read these forums as an experienced intermediate (but amateur) photographer and what I mostly see is people spewing the same rules over and over. Don't expose the armpit, don't do that, don't do this. While maybe helpful to rookies it also has a negative effect. It funnels creativity down to a formula and we all see the same boring type of shots. You can argue that you need to know the rules before you can break them. I think people need to learn the rules within the context of their vision. By the time you learn the rules you've lost your creativity and probably forgot how or are scared to break the rules.
I applaud photographers that don't listen to the rules and create the images that are important to them. The reason for that is because I realize my limitations, I'll never be even a good photographer by professional standards and I like to see talented people do what they like. I mean, in the end isn't art for the artist and not the consumer? But, since I am a consumer of art I like it when people do what they feel and not what a book says.
Scottbed wrote:
This type of portraiture is so much more honest than the current slew of ultra retouched Maxim drivel out there. It seems so many people are caught up in a copy cat game of just pumping out that stuff but it's so derivative and to me, more uncreative than his style.
What's so creative about the images posted at the link? They look like glorified passport photos to me. They may be "honest" about who the subject is, but I would hardly consider them really creative.
After looking at that stuff I still don't know anything about the person or the photographer for that matter...what was that person trying to tell or show me? Oh, I guess just a naked back that is lit well...
Maybe you're not supposed to know about the person or the photographer. Maybe that stuff is proof of concept? Maybe they're trying to sell something.
I think he is immensely talented...he shows the person in a raw way that nudity or extreme posing can't. You really connect with the subject because there is nothing else to distract you. And technically he is spot on.
I agree, but his talent is not on display in the linked images.
I read these forums as an experienced intermediate (but amateur) photographer and what I mostly see is people spewing the same rules over and over. Don't expose the armpit, don't do that, don't do this. While maybe helpful to rookies it also has a negative effect. It funnels creativity down to a formula and we all see the same boring type of shots. You can argue that you need to know the rules before you can break them. I think people need to learn the rules within the context of their vision. By the time you learn the rules you've lost your creativity and probably forgot how or are scared to break the rules.
I applaud photographers that don't listen to the rules and create the images that are important to them. The reason for that is because I realize my limitations, I'll never be even a good photographer by professional standards and I like to see talented people do what they like. I mean, in the end isn't art for the artist and not the consumer? But, since I am a consumer of art I like it when people do what they feel and not what a book says....Show more →
Agreed. That said, I don't find much solace in the kind of "rule-breaking" going on here, any more than I find much to like about Terry Richardson's approach to breaking the rules. Just because there are rules doesn't mean that they can't benefit beginners and experienced shooters alike.
Are you physically incapable of making a post without trying to brag in some manner? Good God you are full of yourself. Free hint: this forum is not about you.
As for the actual subject... I definitely approve of avoiding the overdoing of Photoshop retouching, but I find the photos also rather bland. I think this is a case where more attention is paid to the label than the wine. If a pro makes photos like that, they get labeled "clean" or "honest"; if an amateur does, they get lambaseted as "passport photos".
Agreed. That said, I don't find much solace in the kind of "rule-breaking" going on here, any more than I find much to like about Terry Richardson's approach to breaking the rules. Just because there are rules doesn't mean that they can't benefit beginners and experienced shooters alike.
Breaking what rules TGS and Terry Richardson aren't breaking any rules by using just one light. Neither is benjikan in the above cover shot. Although they each use only one light you wouldn't ever confuse a TGS photo with one shot by TR or either of them with the above from BK.
I find it interesting that many amateurs are contemptuous of pros who use simple lighting, i.e. it can't be any good because it's not complicated.
See Terry Richardson shooting Lindsay Lohan for Purple magazine and another for Purple Terry Richardson is hired not for his technical skills but for his people skills.
charlesk wrote:
One of my first L'Officiel Covers from 1986
Are you physically incapable of making a post without trying to brag in some manner? Good God you are full of yourself. Free hint: this forum is not about you.
As for the actual subject... I definitely approve of avoiding the overdoing of Photoshop retouching, but I find the photos also rather bland. I think this is a case where more attention is paid to the label than the wine. If a pro makes photos like that, they get labeled "clean" or "honest"; if an amateur does, they get lambaseted as "passport photos".
TGS and Terry Richardson aren't breaking any rules by using just one light. Neither is benjikan in the above cover shot. Although they each use only one light you wouldn't ever confuse a TGS photo with one shot by TR or either of them with the above from BK.