Jump to content

V Magazine Photoshoot ( November Edition)


judas2015
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, kesiak said:

To say that it "destroyed the art of photography" is a bit dramatic and, in my opinion, not true. There are tons of photographers out there who don't retouch their work at all, it's really down to personal preference, the type of photography you do, the intent of the photo and what client is expecting of you. I'm a full time photographer myself and I'm often asked by clients to alter images in a way that's too much for my taste, but in the end it's what the client wants so, like a good hooker, I grin, bear it and take the money :).

Photo manipulation is as old as photography itself, the only thing that's changed is technology. Yes, it was trickier to retouch before digital, a lot of the work was done on negatives (especially in the Old Hollywood days) but, as in modern times, there have been people who were better at it and others who went way overboard (apparently there are negatives of Mae West where she's so altered that her bracelets seem to be floating mid-air). It's also good to bear in mind that digital is far harsher on skin tones than film (and therefore might require more work in post). 

Some photographers want to capture bare reality without much interference in post (Nan Goldin is a great example) and there are others who are more interested in creating a new world with their work (Tim Walker, David LaChapelle, Mert & Marcus). There's no right or wrong, it's all art in the end. :)

Agree, I think its a matter of taste, you mention LaChapelle, for me he is a digital composite artist rather than a good photographer. Pierre et Gilles are similar but more artistic to me than LaChapelle. James Bidgood more artistic than the aforementioned, etc... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She looks great in the above photo.

Unpopular opinion though, but does she need to smoke whilst getting her makeup applied and making it difficult for the makeup artists? 

Not to mention them having to inhale passive smoke. Seems a bit inconsiderate irrespective of who you are **shrugz**. 

 

I don't think it makes anyone appear more edgy smoking. It's just a gross habit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, vasili said:

They can, but they also show restraint.

For example, the marks/indentations from M's tights in this 2010 Interview magazine shot:

https://www.interviewmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/img-madonna-07_105746724221.jpg

That’s just 1 aspect. Compare it to an unedited shot and you’ll see countless areas that were re-touched

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, realityisalways said:

Agree, I think its a matter of taste, you mention LaChapelle, for me he is a digital composite artist rather than a good photographer. Pierre et Gilles are similar but more artistic to me than LaChapelle. James Bidgood more artistic than the aforementioned, etc... 

 

LaChaplle a digital composite artist? You realise that all the stuff you see in most of his photos are actual set pieces, often custom made and built specifically for that one shoot, not stuff that was photoshopped in after? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, kesiak said:

LaChaplle a digital composite artist? You realise that all the stuff you see in most of his photos are actual set pieces, often custom made and built specifically for that one shoot, not stuff that was photoshopped in after? :)

LaChapelle looks like mostly photoshop to me. James Bidgood is the only one of those 3 that looks semi-real to me.

American Jesus: hold me, carry me boldly, 2007 - Ph. David LaChapelle

david-lachapelle-good-news-lost-and-foun

Archangel Michael: And No Message Could Have Been Clearer, Hawaii, 2005 - Ph. David LaChapelle

a7707ab298b3526e9b3032bc6befe269005adc4f

Eventide, 2019 - Ph. David LaChapelle

1615749470-1559558358795108-david-lachap

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, realityisalways said:

LaChapelle looks like mostly photoshop to me. James Bidgood is the only one of those 3 that looks semi-real to me.

"Looks like" being the operative words here. There are plenty of behind the scenes videos from LaChapelle's shoots, where you can see sets being build, props, etc. Tim Walker is the same. Having said that, I never liked this MJ shoot of his, yuk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, kesiak said:

"Looks like" being the operative words here. There are plenty of behind the scenes videos from LaChapelle's shoots, where you can see sets being build, props, etc. Tim Walker is the same. Having said that, I never liked this MJ shoot of his, yuk. 

Most of them look computer generated to me. I prefer more natural-looking photography being my favorites: Herb Ritts, Greg Gorman, Victor Skrebneski, George Platt Lynes, Gian Paolo Barbieri & Chris Von Wangenheim.

Another that abuses digital editing is Marco Glaviano:

b988280cc13d2d839392a332b4ca82048563e2f9

tumblr_psu4qdDwve1r90m4vo1_640.jpg

50_anniversary_16.jpg?format=1000w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Pretender1978 said:

With x's do you mean the marks on contact sheets? In the days of analogue photography it was customary to print contact sheets of a film roll and mark the selected images with an X to order bigger proof prints of that negative, so on those sheets the ones that are crossed out are the photographer's selection, hence they also include the well known images. So it probably wasn't rude ;-)

There are many contact sheets of Madonna shoots out there where you can see which pics were in the final selection. I always find it very interesting to see what makes the cut and what doesn't.

But yes also Marilyn's pictures were probably retouched, it's been around almost as long as photography itself. But it is also good to remember that a picture is never a "real" representation, it is already manipulated by lighting, posing, angles, lenses etc. then furthermore in developing and printing there used to be real artistry with contrasts etc. very much reminiscent of photoshop. It's been around forever, we are just more aware of it now

"Beauty's where you find it." 

I have always had a fascination with photography and find this discussion very interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, deathproof said:

That’s just 1 aspect. Compare it to an unedited shot and you’ll see countless areas that were re-touched

I've seen the outtakes and I realise that (and she looks much better for their retouching, just quietly).

The point I was making was that they do know where to pull the retouching breaks and their results are tasteful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, char said:

I don't remember the whole story i have read so many books on marilyn i watched a interview and Lawrence Schiller said this about her. they went to a drug store he had either the contact sheets (would've had to have been) i don't think she could've seen the negatives she went in and got her favorite drink dom perignon. And she took the photos from him and started looking at them. It was either scissors or a hair pin. And started destroying half of them. And he said he wish he hadn't gave her all of them. She was just very insecure and very hard on herself i think we call all relate. I wish i could find the interview/or where i read it. Hope this clears it up. I thought this was a great interview. Saying that people women weren't jealous of her. Its kindly hard for me to believe cause according to feud Joan Crawford was at the same time it was rumored her and Joan had a affair. Won't mention her again cause i know this is a madonna fan site. I guess its okay cause madonna also loved her. 

 

 

Haha this thread is about a photoshoot that’s channeling Marilyn so discussing her and her iconic shoots is perfectly acceptable. 
What I don’t get is why would Bert Stern remove the scratches from the contact sheets when he can print new ones from the negatives, unless the negatives were destroyed as well. 

Well regardless. Even though this look is repetitive, I can never get enough of Madonna channeling Marilyn. And I love to see how each photographer puts their own spin on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, realityisalways said:

LaChapelle looks like mostly photoshop to me. James Bidgood is the only one of those 3 that looks semi-real to me.

American Jesus: hold me, carry me boldly, 2007 - Ph. David LaChapelle

david-lachapelle-good-news-lost-and-foun

Archangel Michael: And No Message Could Have Been Clearer, Hawaii, 2005 - Ph. David LaChapelle

a7707ab298b3526e9b3032bc6befe269005adc4f

Eventide, 2019 - Ph. David LaChapelle

1615749470-1559558358795108-david-lachap

 

Actually LaChapelle did very little compositing in the 90s and early 2000s. 
I know his main assistant from those years and I’ve seen a lot of private backstage photos. 
Actually that Michael Jackson Angel photo was done all in studio as you see it. The background was a huge printed backdrop in the studio. I’ve seen set images. And that’s a technique used in film and photography since they were invented. 
Also the Madonna crown photo was an accident. The light effect happened because she moved her head and that created a light trail. It’s a technique called light painting that combines flash and long exposure. Also everything in that photoshoot (except the street crowd) was done in studio as we see it in the final images. I was told some water shots had these huge sci-fi looking lotuses in the water. But they ended up not using them cause they were too distracting. 
Also his images from the 90s are mostly airbrushed by hand on prints since he was very reluctant to digital retouching, unlike Steven Meisel who embraced it very early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, realityisalways said:

Most of them look computer generated to me. I prefer more natural-looking photography being my favorites: Herb Ritts, Greg Gorman, Victor Skrebneski, George Platt Lynes, Gian Paolo Barbieri & Chris Von Wangenheim.

Another that abuses digital editing is Marco Glaviano:

b988280cc13d2d839392a332b4ca82048563e2f9

tumblr_psu4qdDwve1r90m4vo1_640.jpg

50_anniversary_16.jpg?format=1000w

we have some same tastes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, into the erotico said:

we have some same tastes!

I mean I still like Marco's over-sexualized and unattainable perfection photos, but I tend to give more value to photographs that seem as the photographers did most of the work in the real word rather than in the post-production editing process. I also enjoy Thierry Mugler's photos very much, not sure if there is coffee book of his work but I will look into it. 

eb675ad609790460be4163a99466520363ace72e

c8f92db0ebc6e443adbb69a3eb9b1cc843da6846

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, realityisalways said:

I mean I still like Marco's over-sexualized and unattainable perfection photos, but I tend to give more value to photographs that seem as the photographers did most of the work in the real word rather than in the post-production editing process. I also enjoy Thierry Mugler's photos very much, not sure if there is coffee book of his work but I will look into it. 

eb675ad609790460be4163a99466520363ace72e

c8f92db0ebc6e443adbb69a3eb9b1cc843da6846

 

 

 

alien is one of my perfumes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Write here...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use