Fashion and Film

[kristopher_lawrence]

Hi,

I wanted to share a personal experience that might be of interest.

I am getting more an more involved in the fashion photography market, and part of this is due to the fact that I offer a very different product, aesticaly and from a technical point of view. I shoot everything on film, absolutely everything. The digital part is limited to scanning and MINIMAL adjustments, nothing that cannot be done in the traditional darkroom either in color or BW. As most analog photogs, I try to get it right out of the camera, and it works.

When I shot a whole project on Kodachrome, the desingners were amazed by the quality and found it pretty usefull and fun to work with slides and a projector. The next collection will probably be made using the same method...

Two days ago, I had a meeting with the representative of an agency, he was septical at first that I was using film, but when he saw the results, I got very excited about it. Many times trough our meeting, he asked if I was sure that no photoshop was involved, never, I responded, and I showed him a 4x5 slide and he stopped asking. How many megapixels? About 400... Oh...

I always have two conditions for working: Film and no touch ups. There is a way of doing really creative fashion shots witout photoshoping. I really feel that something will change in this milieu, people are getting tired of plastic looking girls, and more and more of the models don't like being touched up too much.

What I have learned is that I have a very (paradoxally) innovative approach by working traditionnaly and I manage to sell it pretty well. Why should I take the plunge into the digital crowds where photogs are eating themselves up for contracts when I can do something different witout plugins that can be copied fairly easly by a photoshop wizard...

Finally, working with slides and a well calibrated scanner is as fast or faster than trying to get the colors getting right out of a digicam, plus no post prod effects needed, they are embeded in the slide. By the way, a girl told me that it was the first time her hair (she'S redhead) was looking real on a picture.

Long live Kodachrome, long live film.

Kris

 

[2F/2F]

Good work. The way to keep film alive is simply to use it. You cannot argue with results.

One thing, though: What is the point of having "conditions" for yourself that are purely technical? Nobody cares about your conditions in the end. They just give you something to pat yourself on the back about, and I actually find it extremely annoying when someone makes it a point that they are using film and that this makes them "different".

As you have shown, results are everything, so focus on that, and use whatever it takes to get you there. If you can do it on film, you can do it on digital, and vice versa. Don't obsess. Pix is pix. Whatever is making you successful is not film, so quit giving film the credit.

 

[mabman]

Kudos in particular for using Kodachrome. Just curious, given that there is a longer development turn-around with it than other films, do you lose work because of that, or are people coming to you because it's part of your "look" and are willing to wait?

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

In a certain way, yes, it is film that gives me success. However, it is not simply because I like the results, but also because I like working with it. Its half technical/half psychological. Don't get me wrong, I don't make a point of using film merely to be "different" liek you said, but simply to explain to the clients that I cannot get a digi proof sheet 2 hours after the shoot and also to justify the costs.

Conditions are part of a way of working, of doing art. If anything goes, creativity gets boring. Every kind of music has evolved around different kinds of conditions and this is important to understand. Even shooting BW film is a condition why not color and conversion? No need for filters etc... (ok there is a difference in results, but let's say shooting c-41 bw film), By refusing to photoshop, I set my own conditions for creativity, maybee its just me but this is the way I manage to perform well.

About Kodachrome turn-around time. Obviously it is too long for certain jobs, but if you explain the client and have enough time, it is OK. Remember that fashion projects are long to do and you might be able to work it out. Anyway most of the time it is not the film processing that is long, but the time it takes to commities to choose the final shots.

Kris

 

[dpurdy]

In the recent American Photo magazine there is an article about Nino Munoz photography of Gisele. They both are at the top, very successful. Under the cover photo for the article it says'
"...with a Pentax 67 and a 90mm f2.8 normal lens on Portra 400 VC 120 film."

Dennis

 

[Paul.A]

I'm still using medium format film for assignments that have a long lead in and the results are always favourably received. In fact here in Oz there are still a couple of magazines that still insist on film 6x7 or larger. Its really great getting work from them, no insane deadlines and an appreciation of quality.

 

[Shmoo]

It's good to hear positive film stories...we need more of that. Congrats!

 

[arigram]

You might just have given me enough hope to continue living... seriously...

 

[Frank Szabo]

Kris:

I you have it available to you and really want to see their jaws hit the floor, show them an 8 X 10 tranny.

The "experts" that I've dealt with (having no clue as to the recent past) usually begin stuttering. It's really comical.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

I still do the bulk of my commercial work on 4x5 transparency film. The clients get a review on CD-R, or through FTP, though sometimes I take along a mini lightbox and the actual 4x5 transparencies. Let someone use an 8x loupe on a 4x5, on a lightbox, and soon they are amazed at the level of detail.

You should not need to sell yourself on the fact that you are using film. The images and results are your creative voice to your clients. Unless they have some unrealistic hang-up about what gear you should be using, it shouldn't make any difference how you capture the shots. Obviously the end result of commercial work is images in computer file form, but there is no technical reason not to originate on film. Get everything right in-camera, then all you need to do is deliver consistent results.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[Bosaiya]

Hot damn, an 8' 10" trannie would be jaw-dropping! I've worked with a few trannie's in my time, but never one so impressive as that. That'd be like Andre the Giant in a wig and pumps. Wow!

Kris:

I you have it available to you and really want to see their jaws hit the floor, show them an 8 X 10 tranny.

The "experts" that I've dealt with (having no clue as to the recent past) usually begin stuttering. It's really comical.

 

[Gary Holliday]

and I actually find it extremely annoying when someone makes it a point that they are using film and that this makes them "different".

A

It's called marketing and I have no problem pointing out to clients my preference for working with film. Every business idea needs to be different from the crowd and there is an endless list of copy artists out there. If a photographer wants to point out that his photos will not give you that plastic perfect look well good for him.

 

[dmr]

When I shot a whole project on Kodachrome, ... and I showed him a 4x5 slide and he stopped asking. How many megapixels? About 400... Oh...

Kristopher, out of curiosity, where are you getting the 4x5 Kodachrome processed? I didn't think that Dwayne's did sheet film, and they (the ubiquitous "they") keep telling me that Dwayne's is now the only place in the known universe that still processes Kodachrome.

Just curious.

 

[argus]

Hot damn, an 8' 10" trannie would be jaw-dropping! I've worked with a few trannie's in my time, but never one so impressive as that. That'd be like Andre the Giant in a wig and pumps. Wow!

It is yaw-dropping. I always have one with me just for that purpose

G

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

Kristopher, out of curiosity, where are you getting the 4x5 Kodachrome processed? I didn't think that Dwayne's did sheet film, and they (the ubiquitous "they") keep telling me that Dwayne's is now the only place in the known universe that still processes Kodachrome.

Just curious.

HI,

I am sorry, I might have been not clear. It was two different projects, one solely with Kodachrome 64 in 35mm and the other with Ektachrome EPN 4x5

By the way, its too bad EPN has been discontinuated. It was so great! If I can still find it, I will certainly stash-up some.

Kris

 

[dmr]

It was two different projects, one solely with Kodachrome 64 in 35mm and the other with Ektachrome EPN 4x5

Oh ... that's different, in that case {imagine Emily Litella impression} never mind.

 

[DanielStone]

Well done Kristopher! Many of the photographers that I assist for on a regular basis still use film frequently. Most of them use it because the client wants c-prints, but also because the results can be determined immediately which one is better, film or digital? film wins 90% of the time. Now this is with people/portrait/lifestyle/outdoor fashion "e#$ie bauer"catalog shooters, mainly outdoors. They prefer the 160vc/400vc and portra 800 films in 120/220, but two of them use 4x5 as well.

One of them uses a Littman i think its called, damn fine camera IMHO. and the results with readyloads/quickloads on 160vs/fuji 160s are excellent. We were in the Bahamas last spring and the photog with the Littman shot roughly 350 sheets of 160vc. Was a weeklong shoot. The art directors on the shoot locations were astounded by looking at a fuji polaroid, they both responded with "damn, that's beautiful!"

the results were beautiful. i was put in charge of scanning, and that is usually one of the most boring parts of film post IMO as an assistant, but that job was a real treat. I can't say the company, but it was a popular brand that caters to the 14-32 year-old beach going crowd. many of the 4x5 and 120 shots made 40x60 posters for the inside of the stores

all of those photogs shoot/shot digital as well. those were mostly for the web, instant big prints(11x17s<mag spreads>) back in the hotel room later that night. the real stuff went into an x-ray bag, actually 4 bags (~300 rolls of 120 c-41 for the bahamas)

film is not dead, no matter what the bloke in the camera stores say. they don't shoot, they sell.

people who shoot for a living and for the love of it know what works best for that particular job. film is superb. digital works better in some situations, but if I personally have to take a picture that I want to remember, then it will be on film for as long as I can.

on a professional note: many of the photogs i assist for actually have a lower price when using film primarily, or the same as many of the digital only shooters. many equate film with being more expensive, and it can be if you don't know wtf you are doing. but if you know with 100% assurity that you have the shot before you take it, then you have nothing to worry about.

"shoot a polaroid to make the creative director happy" is what the bahamas photog said about 80 times that week. we took along ~60 boxes of fuji instant film(mf) and 15 packs of the 4x5 stuff. she's a tiny woman of 5 1/2' or so, and about 115lbs soaking wet. funny to see her running around with an rz67 II, prism and winder. let alone the 4x5 littman

 

[DanielStone]

Most pros I assist for like film better

Well done Kristopher! Many of the photographers that I assist for on a regular basis still use film frequently. Most of them use it because the client wants c-prints, but also because the results can be determined immediately which one is better, film or digital? film wins 90% of the time. Now this is with people/portrait/lifestyle/outdoor fashion "e#$ie bauer"catalog shooters, mainly outdoors. They prefer the 160vc/400vc and portra 800 films in 120/220, but two of them use 4x5 as well.

One of them uses a Littman i think its called, damn fine camera IMHO. and the results with readyloads/quickloads on 160vs/fuji 160s are excellent. We were in the Bahamas last spring and the photog with the Littman shot roughly 350 sheets of 160vc. Was a weeklong shoot. The art directors on the shoot locations were astounded by looking at a fuji polaroid, they both responded with "damn, that's beautiful!"

the results were beautiful. i was put in charge of scanning, and that is usually one of the most boring parts of film post IMO as an assistant, but that job was a real treat. I can't say the company, but it was a popular brand that caters to the 14-32 year-old beach going crowd. many of the 4x5 and 120 shots made 40x60 posters for the inside of the stores

all of those photogs shoot/shot digital as well. those were mostly for the web, instant big prints(11x17s<mag spreads>) back in the hotel room later that night. the real stuff went into an x-ray bag, actually 4 bags (~300 rolls of 120 c-41 for the bahamas)

film is not dead, no matter what the bloke in the camera stores say. they don't shoot, they sell.

people who shoot for a living and for the love of it know what works best for that particular job. film is superb. digital works better in some situations, but if I personally have to take a picture that I want to remember, then it will be on film for as long as I can.

on a professional note: many of the photogs i assist for actually have a lower price when using film primarily, or the same as many of the digital only shooters. many equate film with being more expensive, and it can be if you don't know wtf you are doing. but if you know with 100% assurity that you have the shot before you take it, then you have nothing to worry about.

"shoot a polaroid to make the creative director happy" is what the bahamas photog said about 80 times that week. we took along ~60 boxes of fuji instant film(mf) and 15 packs of the 4x5 stuff. she's a tiny woman of 5 1/2' or so, and about 115lbs soaking wet. funny to see her running around with an rz67 II, prism and winder. let alone the 4x5 littman

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

Well done Kristopher! Many of the photographers that I assist for on a regular basis still use film frequently. Most of them use it because the client wants c-prints, but also because the results can be determined immediately which one is better, film or digital? film wins 90% of the time. Now this is with people/portrait/lifestyle/outdoor fashion "e#$ie bauer"catalog shooters, mainly outdoors. They prefer the 160vc/400vc and portra 800 films in 120/220, but two of them use 4x5 as well.

One of them uses a Littman i think its called, damn fine camera IMHO. and the results with readyloads/quickloads on 160vs/fuji 160s are excellent. We were in the Bahamas last spring and the photog with the Littman shot roughly 350 sheets of 160vc. Was a weeklong shoot. The art directors on the shoot locations were astounded by looking at a fuji polaroid, they both responded with "damn, that's beautiful!"

the results were beautiful. i was put in charge of scanning, and that is usually one of the most boring parts of film post IMO as an assistant, but that job was a real treat. I can't say the company, but it was a popular brand that caters to the 14-32 year-old beach going crowd. many of the 4x5 and 120 shots made 40x60 posters for the inside of the stores

all of those photogs shoot/shot digital as well. those were mostly for the web, instant big prints(11x17s<mag spreads>) back in the hotel room later that night. the real stuff went into an x-ray bag, actually 4 bags (~300 rolls of 120 c-41 for the bahamas)

film is not dead, no matter what the bloke in the camera stores say. they don't shoot, they sell.

people who shoot for a living and for the love of it know what works best for that particular job. film is superb. digital works better in some situations, but if I personally have to take a picture that I want to remember, then it will be on film for as long as I can.

on a professional note: many of the photogs i assist for actually have a lower price when using film primarily, or the same as many of the digital only shooters. many equate film with being more expensive, and it can be if you don't know wtf you are doing. but if you know with 100% assurity that you have the shot before you take it, then you have nothing to worry about.

"shoot a polaroid to make the creative director happy" is what the bahamas photog said about 80 times that week. we took along ~60 boxes of fuji instant film(mf) and 15 packs of the 4x5 stuff. she's a tiny woman of 5 1/2' or so, and about 115lbs soaking wet. funny to see her running around with an rz67 II, prism and winder. let alone the 4x5 littman

Thank you...

I am continuing to shoot projects and still manage to use film!

Another funny thing : a photog saw one of the pictures I made from a model the pic has a feel, colors are a little soft, pastel with nice shadow details even if it was shot on contrasty natural light. He asked what photoshop filter i used, I answered: a 60 years old Rolleiflex. That was great!

 

[lambis]

I shoot Fashion and beauty in Sweden, both above & underwater and untill now i have use digital (hasselblad & Phase one). Last moanths i have really beguin to question my methods and get tired to try to create in Photoshop a look that you can simple archive with film direct in the camera. I havs shoot last week a thest shoot with Polaroids. Just that and the results was amasing. Most importand was that was done after the shoot. No photoshop. The way i have work was a other to. FIlm or Polas make you think in diferent ways. compose as the cameras are unic in diferent ways.

Those lite Littmans or Razzles i have look a lot. Would be a joy to have a camera that accept for 120 to 4x5 film and is portable. Well done Kristopher. Is a joy to hear this and the story of Daniel that many think this way. I think film is comming back. It must come otherwise most off us will become retushers and not photographers.

 

[DanielStone]

I shoot Fashion and beauty in Sweden, both above & underwater and untill now i have use digital (hasselblad & Phase one). Last moanths i have really beguin to question my methods and get tired to try to create in Photoshop a look that you can simple archive with film direct in the camera. I havs shoot last week a thest shoot with Polaroids. Just that and the results was amasing. Most importand was that was done after the shoot. No photoshop. The way i have work was a other to. FIlm or Polas make you think in diferent ways. compose as the cameras are unic in diferent ways.

Those lite Littmans or Razzles i have look a lot. Would be a joy to have a camera that accept for 120 to 4x5 film and is portable. Well done Kristopher. Is a joy to hear this and the story of Daniel that many think this way. I think film is comming back. It must come otherwise most off us will become retushers and not photographers.

most of the photographers that i've assisted for use film for that exact reason! they want a print-ready picture right then and there... with very minimal or no photoshop at all, just a few spotting for dust and maybe a curves adjustment, but more than that, not very often...

digital is what 90% of the pro market uses these days. purely because if they were to use film, they wouldn't be hired, period... IMO its because these young art directors that are getting hired in the last few years only know digital and they don't like the hassle, or the wait for film.

and with the current economy, time is money. everyone has to get paid, and the less time on set means a smaller budget, even though it usually gets evened out after all the post-processing of files and photoshop work.

just writing this makes me want to get off my ass and get out there with camera in hand and shoot something, too bad its black as night out there

naw, i hate being in front of a computer for any long amount of time makes me itch, even though i'm 21 and have grown up with them.

i get my kicks when looking at a 4x5 neg getting enlarged or scanned and creating a print, knowing that all the time spent BEFORE the shot was taken is better spent than double that behind some stupid computer.

just my 2C

besides, many of the shooters i've assisted for end up getting their best final digital files written to 4x5 and 8x10 chromes in the end anyhow by the lab and their film recorder. they still prefer to have something tangible in their hands at the end of the day

 

[sperera]

it IS a marketing tool

I've also started to integrate shooting film in my fashion/portrait work and people love it....it IS a marketing tool, people LOVE the fact you're using film too cos they love the fact you're going the extra mile to get different looks....most people remember the film days unless they're kids so everyone starts to reminisce and stuff in my experience.....it's all great marketing....they see you more as an artist because of it....just like wow thats a big lens you must be a professional....I would now add, "wow you using film, you are an artist".....

It IS all about the end product but if you can vary the product by using different light and using different medium then you're going the extra mile.....

I WISH I COULD GET Polaroid 500 and shhot some 5x4 with it....thats all i can say.....THEN you'd get clients blown away!

Another thing.....V magazine....can anyone talk to me about it....it seems they shoot a lot of film on it....prob cos they use a lot of the old-timers like Miesel, Unwerth and people like that.....

 

[Marcus S]

Effective advertising is, pointing out the difference between you and your competitors.
If everybody does everything exactly the same, there is no difference and the only criteria in that case becomes, who gives the mostest for the leastest. When the use of film is pointed out, than there is a difference and price is not the only factor anymore. You have set yourself apart.
Great to hear about film and fashion.
Plastic faces, the look of androids, is exactly the reason why I use film for my projects.