GET REAL: Get on the inside(or as near as possible.)

In his book Adventures in the Screentrade William Goldman writes about the value of being an insider. He use the film Porkies as an example. This film was a success. All the amateur and out of work screenwriters thought ' I could do that'. Goldman says they were wasting their time. Before public screening test projections and the grapevine had decreed that Porkies was going to be a success. Before release Porkies 2 was well into production and #3 was being worked out by insider screenwriters who had already made their submissions. Outsiders were only yet working on #2 light years behind the real process.
This is what is needed: More grapevine. More industry reality. More toward the inside
Because most interesting fashion pictures and ideas dont come from reading the fashion mags.
I have a book with a picture of the art dept in Vogue there are three maybe four issues laid out with the pictures on the wall. Its called lead in time. By the time shooters have avidly read and prepared their next test in three weeks time insiders are three months ahead.
EG: The MUA, fashion and photographers assistants meet their buddies after working with xyz magazine photographer.
Well what have you been up to? They relate their experiences. In a couple of days at least 25 people know that famous xyz wanted absolutely minimal make up and red,yellow and green gels its the next big thing.
And its not going to show in the mags for another 3 months thats the time when the outsiders get their first chance to copy, critique and test or whatever
Too late. The others guys MUAs and stylists are 3 months into their next jobs.Why should they care what we think about stuff they did 3 months ago
Get grapevine, more relevance, more toward the inside.
There is great value in working on the real workings of fashion photography business and not what the consumer photo publications would have us believe. Most of what they say doesnt ring true and is misleading. At best you may get the ring of truth here but usually theyre playing to an eager maybe over eager fashion shooting public and of course their advertisers and sponsors.
Suss things that deal with the way things really are and not how folks want them to be.
This way we avoid being grossly offended when someone on the inside tells us our ideas wont work, wont sell or wont do. (Didnt we ask for a 'critique' )
If the information passed on is real (by someone right on the inside)rather than mythical then view it as extremely relevant. Take a consumer publication article concerning Peter Linbergh reporting his use of Pentax 6x7 etc. The article says little of substance letting slip that the photographer uses Plus X @ 64 asa. The usual techno bias.
Goodness I could buy a 6x7 dev my own PlusX and be just like him.
Contrast this with an internet post by someone who actually watched Linbergh work. He used multiple 6x7s some with b+w some colour and some polaroid. + the HMIs and the usual assistants.
Like most consumer mags the articles have to give the reader hope and a reason to buy the equipment, usually done by heavily censoring the photographers real process to elevate the 'I could do that idea'.
If someone can give us more grapevine info then the more relevant everything will be
May as well get your fashion ideas where the great and good get them from: The street, life itself, current events that lend themselves or insiders who know what they talk about. The real world fashion industry thats what theyre talking about.
The sizzles as important as the sausage.
The danger of internet forum photography isnt the sausage (well executed pictures) its the sizzle or serious lack of it. Why none? Perhaps because the photographs are to please no-one but self and to post to get 'critiques'. Not near enough to the inside (but still awesome.)
But will these pictures work for the agency who want to make money from promoting their models and who now have reservations from the horrible pile of 'edginess' thats just dropped into their lap.
Fashion photography is all small 'a' art stuff with commercial in front of it.Thats relevant and real.
Theres lots of bottom line, make money,please the client, deal with the egos and personalities as well as the picture taking
Why is this so hard to accept for some
The reason may be the pursuit of the greatest consumer driven myth of all time. 'I only shoot for myself and follow my own vision.'
Goldman relates an amusing anecdote:
A screen writer knows that most submissions get tossed before the first page is over.He tries to avoid convention. He wants to write just the way he wants. So planning to do something interesting to capture that interest, his first page goes something like this:
'Its a great morning, a couple are jogging along talking to each other in Central park. As they jog along they see a strange shape moving towards them. It gets closer. They stop. Its unbelievable. A herd of twenty camels is bounding towards them at speed. The couple are fixed to the spot. The herd gets closer...
Well that should capture the interest.
Switch to agent reading.
He checks to see that its not Woody Allen whose sent this. . Its not Allen. The agent begins to think. If I were to make this movie Where would I get these camels from. Would I have to import them from the Middle East or get them from circuses. Would I need permits to use them in Central Park. What do they eat? And who would look after them. Whats the day rate for camel trainers these days. Would I need interpreters if they only spoke Arabic. How much would that cost.
He tosses the manuscript on the pile with all the others.
Great idea, but the writer didnt think about the industry he was writing for, after all he only writes for himself, and usually hes only one who reads his pieces past page 2. He thought his idea was so great that any producer would do anything to use it. But he was wrong!! He thought he was a genius!!! Hilarious!!....He's going to be out of work!!!
Fashion photography improves when the photographer starts thinking about photographing for an industry called the Fashion Industry with its quirky ways, ego clashes and multiplicity of illogicalities. In this industry despite what we are told Fashion photographers are bit players and certainly not top dogs.
True story:
Anna Wintour and Grace Coddington arent hitting it off at British Vogue. Coddington loves fashion, the clothes, the art and act of it. Wintour is more pragmatic, she wants to appeal to the woman in the street, increase circulation and subscriptions etc.
A shoot takes place. Wintour orders a re-shoot because its not what she wants. and whats more no final pictures are to be taken without her approval. Problem: Wintour stays in her office, the crew with Coddington is on the street.
Heres what happens: They take a series of polaroids of the the frocks and the scenarios. A motorcyle messenger takes them to Wintours office and waits. Wintour flicks through them, checks the ones she wants and gives orders to scrap the other ideas. The messenger takes these back to the crew. Then the real shooting begins.
'I only shoot for myself and follow my own vision' Really!!!.
OK true you may have a vision but expect to be told how much of the vision is required and where and when its going to useful
Alexander Liberman to Helmut Newton “Helmut we have reports that you’re shooting everything around the the pool at the hotel, its not what we want get your *** out of there and start shooting where we arranged”
Business professionalism is a strange animal and certainly not always logical.
Heres a Norman Parkinson anecdote:
Art director to Parkinson
“Listen Parkinson, We handle the Hunts catsup account and we want, for our summer campaign a colour picture of a summertime picnic with five little girls in flimsy white lace dresses eating hamburgers in buns with red catsup oozing out”
It was snowing heavily outside. Parkinson said there might be a problem
The art director continued:
“It has to be taken around NYC and we want the transparencies in a week. I have my problems , now you have yours”
The pictures were taken in a tropical hothouse in a botanical garden on artificial grass. Problem solved.Professionalism maintained.
Youre only as good as your last set of pictures