And now we come to the evaluation. Generally, I think the shoots went well but are certainly inconsistent. I’ll begin the evaluation by analysing one of my first outdoor shoots.
I think this image is aesthetically wonderful; the natural lighting, the urban scenery and the post-produced colour saturation. In context to professional fashion photography…it falls a little shy. Although the clothing itself refers to the original film I chose to base the shoot on, the setting contradicts the film and ultimately overshadows the clothing. I think it could work within the context of a non-commercial fashion photographer such as Vinoodh Matadin or Jared Fowler (with the latter’s work bearing visual similarities with this image) in art galleries and such. Apart from the leading lines, the composition is slightly messy, but that was almost deliberate as I was trying to exclude the modern shoes.
I also did a shoot by this giant face…the result’s a little bit disappointing. This quality of this image is generally quite poor, especially the attempted large depth of field (the 15mm lens I was using couldn’t handle it, causing half of the background to be out of focus – not a nice look). Because of the horrible, cloudy lighting when this photo was taken, the image looked even worst in colour, forcing me to convert it to black and white. Although this does disguise the original flaws with the image’s colour, it confuses the context of the image, making it seem as if it should have been taken by someone like Richard Avedon, whilst the content completely controverts anything Avedon would ever produce. The surreality of the image could be attributed to some of Annie Leibovitz’s work but it’s little more minimalistic. The image’s rotation is one positive ‘side’ to this image; simply changing the perspective of the viewer (but additionally demeaning the main subject). If I was to redo this image I’d bring some lighting, a female model who could pose a little better and bring some interest into the photo and use a wider lens.
This is another outdoor image. I like the low angle used which doesn’t seem to bring about the usual threatening vibe of the subject as it usually does. The one-sided tree-framing is a little bit shabby but the cropping was necessary in this case as the original frame would have been completely empty anyway. The contrast between the lighting coming from the back and the dark foreground is okay. Generally, I don’t think this image could be professionally integrated – the poor post-production work lets it down and turns it from being a gallery image of fashion criticism (if that) into a schoolboy’s coursework.
This is another image I find to be slightly more successful. I like the subtle, soft lighting coming from the right and the contrast between the pitch-black arm and the white mannequin. I think the dramatic shadow on the right should have been edited out to make the image seem flatter and generally a bit neater. I do think the image could be cropped down and appear on the cover of any anti-fashion magazine (which itself, is still fashion) such as Purple or Blnc.
Out of all the images, I find this one to be the most unsuccessful (as a fashion image). I do love the metallic look of the image (achieved through a high contrast/red filtered black + white). I also like how the out-of-focus fence frames the main subject quite elegantly (with a hint of leading lines). Despite these technicalities of the image, I really see no place for this in the world of fashion. Although there is a world of narrative-like fashion that tends to feature non-commercially in galleries, books and various independent outlets, this image is too cluttered with bizarre content – meaning it could pass for ‘abstract’ fashion-photography, but really it’s pushing it. The scarf doesn’t help.
Stylistically, I think this is one of the best images. Horses are featured excessively throughout all non-catalog photography and can almost be associated with the idea of high-end fashion photography. With my image the horse represents the flesh, the living and the true nature, bearing the false, mechanical, plastic, clockwork mannequin – I think it works nicely. The dynamic lighting works nicely, adding slight shadow to the already -dark image. The shallow depth of field accentuates the main subjects in the frame and generally provides a nice backdrop. The close-framing and black + white resembles that of Peter Lindbergh’s work, but I think the content itself distinguishes the originality of the image. The photo could have done with some more contrasting white coming from the gaps within the trees. In terms of context, there are all kinds of places for something like this. Whilst the mannequin does lean the image towards more abstract, gallery fashion-photography, I think it could again, have a place in anti-fashion magazines or even campaign posters.
I think my final image is beautifully simplistic. Although the heavy lighting created a warped shadow on the left, I kinda like how distorted this shadow is. The framing is almost perfect with the (almost-noticeable) stool ruining it, but it is centred and all. In terms of professional photography, I think this one is a winner. I could see it being used on the cover of a magazine like Expose or even in a gallery itself.