Over on the G1 forum, a member writes, "I've been getting back into photography after many many years. And, I have read a few posts and articles on various topics with regard to taking pictures of women..." Later, in his post, he asks, "So, I'm curious as what you all think the futures holds for photography and the style/s that will be popular?"In the very first reply, R. Frederick Smith, a Dallas/Ft. Worth shooter responded, "I think the marketplace is looking for the next style break through. The master glamour photographers of the near future will be those who provide that new style. Who will be the pioneer?"
Personally, I'm not sure there will be any actual pioneers unless recycling previously popular styles and (to whatever extent) modifying them counts as pioneering... which, it seems, it often does.
Are there any (stylistically) bold new frontiers to explore? I don't know. Has it all been done before? Again, I don't know but I lean towards believing it has. Will future trend-setters be simply going back in time, retrieving a style that has gone out of vogue, and bring it back? Probably. Will doing so be heralded as the new style? We've certainly seen that happen, often-enough, before. So, I'm thinking yes, that's what will probably happen."
In photography, make that glamour photography, the most prominently new approaches, stylistically, have been a result of putting image processors into the hands of shooters and the subsequent easy-use and popularity of effects in the processing. I'm not sure that qualifies as a "new style" from the perspective of the photography, i.e., the initial captures of the images. It certainly qualifies as a changing style in the finished images. But change isn't always new. It's simply different from what was recently and previously popular.We see this all the time in other facets of pop culture: From fashion to music and, yes, even to glamour photography. Everything goes retro and then, somehow and someway, retro becomes accepted as "new." It's all cyclical. Styles go in and out of popularity and they are constantly being re-introduced, often with new and different twists--usually prompted by evolving technologies--and then these new takes on old styles become the "new" whatever.
The pretty girl accompanying today's little Op-Ed piece is Chanell. I shot these a few years ago at a backyard/residential location. Camera was a Canon 10D with a 28-135 IS USM zoom. For the lighting, I used an off-camera strobe (Canon 550EX Speedlite) mounted in a small, Photoflex softbox to fill the ambient daylight. (Which was providing most of what I needed for the exposure.) Behind her, I put a silver and gold shiney-board, I think a 3' x 4', on a stand and bounced the sunlight back at her to provide an "edge." Yes, her bracelet reads, "F__k Me." Great attitude but, alas, it apparently doesn't apply to everyone. All I did was shoot her. No problem. I'm a professional, ya know? ;-)
3 comments:
Obviously I'm no big wig pro in the field, heck, I'm only a pro in the wedding field and then not very big wig. But if I had to venture some guessed of where this was all headed I think the visual vocabulary of crappy editing techniques (diffuse glow anyone?) will filter down some more so the "fix it in post" mantra will change to "polish it in post." The exception to this will be images that butt up against digital art.
With the emergence of a pro-sumer ringlight I think people will look towards other technical methods that seperate the pros from the croud. Ringlight has been hanging on since the 1990's refusing to die, it'll become more popular as fill once its saturation hits the level of "Stairway to Heaven" in a guitar shop. Pros will look to things like 7' parabolic umbrellas, Schneider classic soft filters, fresnel lights, Harrison and Harrison black dot diffusion screens, etc. Anything that has a distinctive look that is hard to impossible to replicate in post that the hobbiest can't afford and/or justify. ($100 for a filter!?)
Burried in there is the nugget that I think well done soft focus will make a come back. Not guassin blur, generic diffusion filters, or vaseline on a skylight filter but classic Hollywood grade diffusion. I just think the hyper-real, tack sharp eyes and plasticy, barbie-esque skin look is played out and a hint of romance and mystery al la 1970's glamour but less heavy handed is ready to take a turn. Plus diffusion has been creeping back into our visual experience in several movies over the last few years.
Well that's what I predict, but what the hell do I know? :)
james: great observations and keen and intuitive glimpses of a possible future for glam photography. of course, it's most all been done before and if someone amongst the photographer-illuminati brings this stuff back, it will probably be heralded and "new" and "exciting" and "pushing the envelope."
various methods to produce subtle diffusion is of interest to me. i have a set of fairly expensive pro-mist filters used for video applications. they don't fit on any of my glass for the still camera but i'm gonna get some kind of ring to bridge the difference in diameters and give them a shot. they not only diffuse but they do some interesting things to specular highlights and it's difficult to reproduce the effects of these filters in post.
btw, i know shooters who often use those big, parabolics.
Another thing that seperates the pros from the rest? You see beautful images - like the ones in this article - and just finally discover that you just need a 10D, 550EX, Softbox and a bord. How cool is that?
And I wanted to buy some studio equipment ... perhaps I should go out and see what I can do with my 20D/580EX and a softbox.
Really great stuff here, thanks for sharing.
Regards from Germany,
Wolfgang
Post a Comment