Just for Fun No C&C will be given: Studio Shots: Who shots Who?

[Leonardo Boher]

Okay... I have seen tons of videos about photography in studio and not all of them are like this one in particular for 2 reasons: 1) The photographer does somehow what he wanted to do and 2) The photographer is doing something instead receiving orders from its superiors.

So, with all this movement of stuff, lights there, lights here, bouncing or not bouncing, soft boxes hanging from the roof, a guy seeing in a Mac how's going the photo session, another metering lights. tripod always in the same place, make up and more make upt etc... We have, in reality (put aside the edition of the video, which distracts from objetive interpretation and tehrefore, opinion), a guy who... push a button... and several times. Boring, don't you think? Unskillful? I think so.
Remember every pic you see in the video is already photoshopped. Some people still thinks that the good photos are because the photographer and I state that's not true in the 99.9% of the cases nowadays. This is another topic, but who really does the final output? The Photo Retoucher. And nowadays, how many pictures have not been processed? Well, a lot! But because they're wating for that!!!
Before Digital Era, pictures where retouched as well, but those photographer were really good photographers. The good ones used to talk with the model, sometimes, they got involved, married and keep working and married again, etc. Only the good ones.

We're living in a world, lately, where we're working like in a Mc Donald, creating hamburguers insitead photographs and faster than light it self. Photo over photo and over photo... Where is the Hearth here... In no place... Just a model doing multiple poses, looking at the camera with lustfull eyes, recievi / NEXT!!! (a voice in off) and enter the next model and all again and agaiun and again...

Here is video (because is not "The Video", just a video like any others to show that studio photography is like fying potatoes in the 99.9% of the cases):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMU45J98PIU

Okay, you should click on the link in order to see the video (not embbebing options?)... Anyway, go ahead.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

I'm not completely confident that I understand what you are attempting to say, Leonardo. Perhaps you could re-state your observation and thesis more concisely.

Looking at that video, however, I will say that commercial photography is a frenetic, tense, and complex undertaking...especially fashion photography. This has been the case for many decades and has nothing to do with computers. This looks like a promotional video for this photographer, in which case it's edited to make him look sophisticated and slick.

But such shoots have nothing to do with amateur photography, if that's what you're suggesting.

 

[Asher Kelman]

.........Some people still thinks that the good photos are because the photographer and I state that's not true in the 99.9% of the cases nowadays. This is another topic, but who really does the final output? The Photo Retoucher. And nowadays, how many pictures have not been processed? Well, a lot! But because they're wating for that!!!

Leonardo,

It's a team effort. The photographer might have a project which has been so well mapped out that he almost can't help but do well. Other times he brings the missing ingredients. The photographer, however, may well be the one person who pulls the whole thing together. Other times the retoucher rescues the shoot. The photographer however is paid to understand all the steps and will accept or not advice of the crew and show the work to the art director who's happy or not. Each shoot is different. The fact that even amazing things become routine, is related to our wish not to fail.

Asher

 

[Leonardo Boher]

I'm not completely confident that I understand what you are attempting to say, Leonardo. Perhaps you could re-state your observation and thesis more concisely.

Looking at that video, however, I will say that commercial photography is a frenetic, tense, and complex undertaking...especially fashion photography. This has been the case for many decades and has nothing to do with computers. This looks like a promotional video for this photographer, in which case it's edited to make him look sophisticated and slick.

But such shoots have nothing to do with amateur photography, if that's what you're suggesting.

Hi Ken,

Well, thats the point. It's just commerce, a "fast food" photograpy, eaten and then trashed. I know that the video has been edited to give an slick look to the video. Of course there is a lot of effort here, but the why is what I'm questioning. And the answer is: sell fast and much as you can.

I'm more into this kind of fashion photographs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-pih9S3y9E&feature=channel

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG_QZTqG2Ns&feature=channel

Really cool way to go thorugh.

Leo.

 

[Leonardo Boher]

Leonardo,

It's a team effort. The photographer might have a project which has been so well mapped out that he almost can't help but do well. Other times he brings the missing ingredients. The photographer, however, may well be the one person who pulls the whole thing together. Other times the retoucher rescues the shoot. The photographer however is paid to understand all the steps and will accept or not advice of the crew and show the work to the art director who's happy or not. Each shoot is different. The fact that even amazing things become routine, is related to our wish not to fail.

Asher

Hi Asher, take a look to the videos I have posted when replying to Tanaka

Leo