Pro Photography Faux Pas

[iliketag]

There are hundreds of Fauxtogs out there, and we’ve mocked some of them relentlessly. Others we have shown an eager hope for.
But what about a tried and true professional who makes a silly mistake we just can’t unsee?
This is where I’d like you to share them.

I bring this up because I caught this article on my facebook feed, and while the shots are overall pretty great; for a publication I’m just so surprised these basic mistakes made it through. It’s nice to remember that those glamorous pros are people too, and even though they are fantastic, human error is still the ever frequent possibility.

 

http://www.cbs.com/shows/watch_magazine/photos/1000048/that-s-amore/33439/
For instance, this one is crooked and there’s a funny cut off on the background (the steps on the left). I understand the photog probably wanted her center (looks like she’s kinda centered) on the bench… but between the uneven lighting and the distracting background images… I really am impressed this was chosen for publication.

 

http://www.cbs.com/shows/watch_magazine/photos/1000048/that-s-amore/33436/
This shot, from the same series/article is also crooked! Couldn’t they have just fixed it in post? Even if these didn’t make it into the print version of the magazine, why display them online?
I checked out the Photographer’s website and she’s very good. Very clean, well done fashion/editorial work. I’m just really confused as to why she took the job if she wasn’t able to deliver her regular quality of work!

[cameraclicker]

Why do you think http://www.cbs.com/shows/watch_magazine/photos/1000048/that-s-amore/33436/ is tilted?  Try opening it in an editor and fixing it in post!

The door frame, window frames and furniture are all pretty vertical.  the transom of the door behind her is off.  That may be caused by perspective, or it may really be slightly off.  The chandelier looks odd but I think there are two of them and the chain of the rear one is hidden by the first one.  That gives the clue to why the photo looks off.  The camera should have been an inch or two to its left to line up the chandeliers — assuming the carpenter/electrician measured carefully when installing them.

The issue they might have fixed in post is the dynamic range, but if it was shot with film or as a JPEG, options are limited.

What was the expected use of the photo?  Fashion photographers aren’t going for architectural perfection.  Ebi might jump in here and correct me but, fashion is mostly about the cloths and the mood.  As a fashion consumer you are supposed to be in awe of the celebrity and exclusive beautiful location but mostly you are supposed to be paying attention to the gown!   You are not supposed to get out your carpenter’s square to check the construction.  (all said with tongue firmly in cheek) 😉

For me, the biggest problem with the first one is the bright patch of light across her dress.

Looking at the rest of the images in that group, it seems they are trying to do a fashion shoot with Smulders and Harris, possibly to promote their TV show while offsetting some of the expenses by pushing products from some of the fashion houses.  If they achieve the required goal, the photographer can claim success.  Being a guy that thinks a great fashion innovation was adding a pocket to a T shirt, I’m sure I’m not part of their target market.

[iliketag]

I suppose it’s just hard for me to see those things from someone making big bucks on it. I’m sure it looks different in the actual editorial, the second image of her inside is still really appealing – I like the tones and it’s a beautiful shot of the dress in motion. It’s very glamorous – but I can’t unsee the cockeyed door and it just seems like everything is slightly tilted! This is one of those images I’m sure looks better in print – I’ll have to keep an eye out at the book store to see if I can catch the actual published versions.

I think the one of her sitting isn’t really showing off the dress well though. It’s a pretty color but it’s a bit matchy (so much green!). If a shot can’t let me know if I like the dress, is it going to sell me on it? The pose is also awkward seeming, she looks so rigid – it surprised me because I would imagine a celebrity and a fashion tog would have great, natural cohesion. Is it a style for stiffer posing in fashio? It’s a very different world! Pretty interesting though. If you come across anything of the same vein, please share C.C.!

[ebi]

fashion is mostly bullshit. Most photographers don’t know what they are doing. I call them “good eye photographers”. They are the ones that schmooze the clients while 3 assistants do their work for them. They make an appearance on set to click the button a few times which makes it look like they really do deserve that really big paycheck. It’s a very appealing job!

I don’t see anything wrong with the cropping and angle of these images. It appears they are shot with a somewhat wide lens which creates a little bit of distortion. CC is right, the photographer is not concerned with anything other than how the girl or guy looks in the clothing. The clothing has to look really great. Which is why there is a stylist on set, getting in between frames and straightening things out to look nice. Like literally every chance she gets to do it. Hair and Makeup as well. No set designer for this as its a real space but probably a prop stylist who made things look better in the background. But often times we aren’t allowed to touch anything. Sometimes we can add things, but usually can’t touch anything. Been on many of these shoots. Production assistants galore. Lots of grunts to do things for us. the jobs typically go very smoothly. especially when you have celebrity talent on set. they don’t want to be there long so everything has to be thought out and planned before hand so they aren’t made to wait. Sometimes mistakes happen because we have to move so quickly. The issues get sorted out in post. sometimes not.

[iliketag]

Interesting, I didn’t think about the fact that a celebrity might not necessarily enjoy these kinds of shoots. I figured it might be fun for them – but I guess if you do tons of them in a year it can get pretty old pretty fast. So if a photographer isn’t doing much of the work – really just the shooting itself and not the fussing, what sets each of them apart? What makes one so much better than the other? Post production?

[ebi]

i’ve had good experiences and bad on set with celebrities. In most instances, it has been good. On the ones that are bad, there is typically a problem with production that creates inconveniences for them. But on a few occasions they just came on set for 5 minutes, knew nothing of the hours or days that went in to producing a shoot that they were only involved in for such a limited amount of time, and still acted like an ass. I just roll my eyes in those situations.

I’d say that you can’t always say one is better than the other. One is just better at getting and maintaining relationships with their clients for one reason or another. In a lot of situations, the photographer happens to be a really good host, takes the client out on the town,  gets them a reservation at some fancy new spot that they’ve been dying to try. Or just really digs in deep while kissing their ass. But generally someone who is fun and interesting to be around. Art directors are typically cooped up in offices all day and have boring lives. When I was working in fashion and traveling a lot, I was out to dinner with art directors and creative directors every night. Even when I was exhausted and didn’t want to. It really wasn’t up to me. Because if I wanted to be on that next trip to Bali, I had better not bore them on this trip.

In terms of lighting, they just use the same assistants over and over again, or just make sure they can get someone who follows vague direction really well. Essentially, you have to be able to look at a swipe and recreate the light.

[Author]

Posts