Ludmilla

Haven't posted in a while. Been busy with other projects. Here's an image from yesterday's shoot:




110mm f2 PQ lens, ISO 400, f4

What happened to her face? Looks like she might need a feed as well. Still, if it sells the product I guess it's what the client wants. Give me a bit of flesh and a subtle smile any day. Nice stairs though.

Graham Mitchell said:

Haven't posted in a while. Been busy with other projects. Here's an image from yesterday's shoot:

Click to expand...

Graham,

This could be called, "Revelations" from the way the open neckline reveals the necklace, the open coat, her dress, then those provocatively placed open thighs showing off her boots and finally we're led to the handsome, (and no doubt, stratospherically, costly), bespoke purse. in contrast, no inner thoughts are allowed to emanate from her face. (To consolidate the frozen mannequin look, here hair is simply made, almost wig-like). So this strong dichotomy of "showing", makes the picture extremely provocative and unsettling. That's the mental hook, even if you did this all subconsciously. That dynamic is really there and the far beyond pan face, really get's one's attention.

A great choice to contrast the crumply and shiny dark coat with the flat gray stone of the steps. He sitting allows your fantastically model like pose. The painted face make her the perfect manequin. i had to look several times at her legs, (no suffering there), to reassure myself that she was indeed a live model. I really like this picture. it's well composed, immediately catches one's attention and we're drawn in to the clothes and shoes, the whole point of the exercise, I expect.

There's a constant need in fashion to push the edges of magazine and buyers expectations and stop for long enough to make a commitment to consider a particular presentation. Here you are completely successful in that we'd not simply flick over the page to the next advertisement in a magazine or next billboard on Sunset Blvd!

As for smiles, I have them in spadefulls from my family. I do not like blank stares in those pictures ever!

Asher

Thanks Asher, as always, for an interesting perspective. I honestly don't understand why some people insist on smiles in every photo. Thinking of my favourite photos of all time such as the ones linked below, there are no smiles to be seen.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QlZp2brjf...plgc/s1600/tumblr_l3ivzaxabb1qzyxc1o1_500.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3069/2757605799_c8e7eab273.jpg

I wasn't insisting on a smile, graham, i was looking for a sign of life. She's just a prop and you could have used a dummy. It would have been cheaper. I know this is the 'look' that is currently sought after but making the assumption that it 'makes' the picture extremely unsettling as Asher has suggested is a bit over the top since it doesn't 'make'the picture anything at all. Its what we make of it that counts. My wife and grand children, who are all discerning buyers, made of the photo something quite different. They were completely distracted from the clothes and bag by the unrealistic face of the undernushished model and found the photo as a whole, bland and ininteresting; something they wouldn't give a second look to other than for the fact that I asked them to.
A small and selective canvasses group I know, and hardly representative of the general public, I know. They consider themselves above the general public.

Graham Mitchell said:

Thanks Asher, as always, for an interesting perspective. I honestly don't understand why some people insist on smiles in every photo. Thinking of my favourite photos of all time such as the ones linked below, there are no smiles to be seen.

Click to expand...

Who is the photographer who took these pictures? They are indeed quite impressive.

They would also tend to be in agreement with Tom Dinning's post. The people on these pictures do not smile, but they express obvious feelings.

Tom,

So I asked my wife and she's one of the Dean's of shopping in Rodeo Drive. Here impression: retro, stunning, the girl is beautiful and for sure I'd be interested in the dress, necklace, and purse. The boots? no!

So, this works for it's intended world. It's not a memento or a family event or a beautiful emotion that's packaged here, just the idea of "beauty" that can be purchased today. Women can look in the mirror for free to see a real live person with emotions, needs and shortcomings, so they go to Vogue for a prepared perfection where there are no pimples, smirks just fantasy and sexuality without any cost, commitment, guilt or risk. It's a game and the picture delights for those who play.

Asher

Jerome Marot said:

Who is the photographer who took these pictures? They are indeed quite impressive.

Click to expand...

The girl smoking is by Sally Mann. The other is by Tim Walker.

Thank you. You made me order "Immediate family" and "At 12".

Tom dinning said:

I wasn't insisting on a smile, graham, i was looking for a sign of life. She's just a prop and you could have used a dummy. It would have been cheaper. I know this is the 'look' that is currently sought after but making the assumption that it 'makes' the picture extremely unsettling as Asher has suggested is a bit over the top since it doesn't 'make'the picture anything at all. Its what we make of it that counts. My wife and grand children, who are all discerning buyers, made of the photo something quite different. They were completely distracted from the clothes and bag by the unrealistic face of the undernushished model and found the photo as a whole, bland and ininteresting; something they wouldn't give a second look to other than for the fact that I asked them to.
A small and selective canvasses group I know, and hardly representative of the general public, I know. They consider themselves above the general public.

Click to expand...

I agree with that man Dinning on this. which is a worry for one of us.


i'll go back to making work about grass.

Folks,

This picture is still a favorite of mine, so well thought out and executed, (despite Tom's valid and truthful reports to the contrary from down under). Yes, I admit there's the a sterile dead painted stare coupled with open lascivious thighs to unsettle us and draw us in to the merchandise. But here, in our Vogue-conscious society, it is considered "beautiful, remarkable and artistic". Let me add balance to my strong but perhaps unseeming and unabashed support for this picture. This is the 2012 Fall Season Campaign ad for Ralph Lauren replete with obvious smiles.




Here the smiles are clearly so reserved, modest but enough to be alluring behind a separation space of exclusivity and social rank. They send a challenge to cross this divide by buying into the brands and this be validated as members of some social elite. This gentle conceit of a smile is an tactic to have us reach out the the products as if wearing the fine materials will give women the competitive advantages or status they seek of think they need.

This work is brilliant too. The smiles are indeed smiles, but not really expressions of emotion, just plays in a game, like chess, where a move is part of a chain of events. A real smile, however, is a treasure and does not require anything but genuine emotion and bonding. However, we're so gullible that the posed thin smile works on us anyway!

Asher

Nobody here is asking for a smile. People are asking for an emotion. Like here:


See? No smile was involved.

Jerome Marot said:

Nobody here is asking for a smile. People are asking for an emotion. Like here:

See? No smile was involved.

Click to expand...

Jerome,

Are you sure you mean emotions? I see presentations and postures but no emotions.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Jerome,
Are you sure you mean emotions? I see presentations and postures but no emotions.

Click to expand...

Maybe Tom's "signs of life" is a better wording.

Jerome Marot said:

Maybe Tom's "signs of life" is a better wording.

Click to expand...

Jerome,

You have it right now! But I'd still assert that there are signs of life in all these pictures, just that Ludmilla's is the flower within her thighs! For sure that has life, longing and potential and there lies the strength of Grahams bitingly frank picture.





See how Graham bypasses the intermediate stage of a "greeting" on meeting her. Instead, we're boldly whisked downstairs, to a tease at where the action is!

Asher

I went to see Graham's website as I was curious. He has some really great work. I was impressed. He has several shots and most of them are not smiling but they do come off as human and alive. The girl in the shot above, however, seems just a little too dead for me. The lighting and the composition are great. The colors chosen etc., are great. The pose is fine. I have to admit though, that I cannot get over her robotic expression.

I like it, there is a story there in that intense expression. It is an image which in a store window would attract my attention. Inherent in that is that it does of course look like an advertising image, why else the perfect clothing and bag sitting on that step, however it is well lit, very well lit like all of your stuff Graham (to my taste, subtle, subtle lighting rather than in your face overlighting as is the style at the moment).

I'm going to move the daughter topic of Fashion with surreal/blank/attitude faces (and perhaps high cost) to a new thread here! We'll try to keep the O.P. topic on track! My fault!

Asher

Well I decided to do some editing, and this is the final result:



Well, this is a big surprise! We usually have to put aside the takes with fun and laughter, except from brands like Target, Guess, Victoria Secrets and Kohls where everyone is happy or have no heads at all. Your work fits well with some the most expensive taste. Now it's slightly more human.






Haute couture means elusive and exclusive and for that the best we get is a stare of some sort with a tiny hint of a smile being a an extreme rarity.

Asher

Graham -
Whats really odd about the image is the asymmetry in her face, even moreso with the edits. For someone who is so fastidious about her elegance, its really....disturbing? Might be that is the intent of the photo, which it does deliver. Doesn't make me want to look, but that's OK too!

Geoff Goldberg said:

Graham -
Whats really odd about the image is the asymmetry in her face, even moreso with the edits. For someone who is so fastidious about her elegance, its really....disturbing? Might be that is the intent of the photo, which it does deliver. Doesn't make me want to look, but that's OK too!

Click to expand...

Geoff,

Are you actually referring to Grahams painted lady on the steps or the Getty image? I see no asymmetry in his images!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Geoff,

Are you actually referring to Grahams painted lady on the steps or the Getty image? I see no asymmetry in his images!

Asher

Click to expand...

I'm baffled too