Philosophy on photography genres and late night ramblings

Interesting what you learn about your personal aesthetic beliefs when you are sitting, agonizing about what photos go into what categories.

I am (I think) a photojournalistic portrait photographer. That means that I will always prefer my subjects to be in a more natural looking environment, and expression will always mean more to me than any other aspect of the photograph. It takes precedent over setting, and wardrobe, and pose, and even closely competes with lighting.

I have become much more aware of this recently, 1) because I am attempting to sort my website into meaningful and comprehensible breakdowns and 2) because I have been shooting more models lately. And while trying to build the "model" page of my site, I realized that much of my model shots are visually much more "portraiture" than they are "model photography," which, until this very moment, I had always more closely equated to "fashion photography."

Portrait photography (def.) "The capture by means of photography of the likeness of a person or a small group of people (a group portrait), in which the face and expression is predominant. The objective is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the subject. Like other types of portraiture, the focus of the photograph is the person's face, although the entire body and the background may be included." (Wiki - not the most accurate source, I know, but it's late and its what first presented itself. Relatively accurate, from my point of view).

Previously, I had always imagined model photography to be something that fell more along the lines of any of these:

http://community.livejournal.com/foto_decadent

So, basically, what you would pull out of a magazine spread. And it was something I was actually striving for, and despairing about because I could not see myself attaining that type of mod stylistic photography that seems to run so popular nowadays.

It wasn't until I was editing this young woman's set that I realized the error of my logic.



I had gone through some of her images and was attempting to throw them on the beta of my site when I realized that I was getting frustrated because I was looking for something that struck me as "fashiony" or "edgey" or some other word that I can't even name. And my frustration was born of the realization that I actually LIKED the set, despite the fact that it didn't adhere to my visionary quest because, well, the set was shot in my style. Focus on the face, the expression, the moment. A portrait.

Fashion photography as it stands in today's media puts emphasis on the wardrobe (obviously), as well as the model's hair and make up. But in addition to that, it also seems to seek to render the model completely expressionless. That may be the goal in and of itself, as the model in fashion photography is just a means, a mannequin, a body on which to display clothing, into which the viewer can impose him or herself. Thus, the elaborate, distorted poses, the vacant and stiff expressions, are all a means of emphasizing the absence of the model, who, in fact, is the center of attention in the photograph. While this is something I can admire in other people's photography, it isn't something I myself would ever really want to achieve.

My higher frustration comes from the supposition that, as a photographer "grows" in their technique and profession, they move closer and closer to this style and genre - more emphasis on complex lighting, waxy and plastic expressions (more often than not rendered through various make-up and hair artists, and, I'm sure, a great deal of postproduction), and increasingly more layered and intricate wardrobe. Perhaps this is because - with the increasing influx of new, amateur photographers - a "professional" is becoming more and more defined by their equipment, which equals expense, which equals success (because success = income = money for more equipment).

I think this assumption is fallacious, but sadly, one that more and more people are adhering to as a means to define the supposed dedication of a photographer to their craft (i.e. you put more money into it, so you must be really serious about it). When there are so many people applying to so few jobs, gigs, contracts, what more can an employer do to whittle down the vying applicants than eliminate the saddest looking websites, choose the photographers with the degree, and the most up-to-date equipment (which is one of the most frustrating aspects in my belief. A camera body does not a photographer make. But that's a tirade for another day).

This became a much longer diatribe than I had intended. But to sum it up, full circle, suffice to say, I will most likely never shoot a set that looks like it may feature in Elle or Vogue, or maybe even CosmoGirl. But if I have to sacrifice one expression for all the lighting and make-up artists in the world, then give to me my one expression. (Well, I may sacrifice that one expression for ALL the lighting in the world, and a good designer, with the promise to be able to capture whatever other expressions I want moving forward).

Good night.