counter customizable free hit
About This Website

This blog is intended to showcase my pictures or those of other photographers who have moved beyond the pretty picture and for whom photography is more than entertainment - photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because what is true is most often beautiful..

>>>> Comments, commentary and lively discussions, re: my writings or any topic germane to the medium and its apparatus, are vigorously encouraged.

Search this site
Recent Topics
Journal Categories
Archives by Month
Subscribe
listed

Photography Directory by PhotoLinks

Powered by Squarespace
Login
« man & nature # 107 ~ actually man's best friend & nature | Main | man & nature # 106 ~ meaning heaped upon meaning »
Thursday
Mar122009

civilized ku # 165 ~ hot dogging it

1044757-2662907-thumbnail.jpg
Hot dog and condimentsclick to embiggen
A recent article in PDN (Photo District News) featured an article (it's online but I can't link to it because PDN is a pay subscription site) titled, RAW FOOD PHOTOGRAPHY, which was based on this "news":

The stark lighting and graphic compositions in the redesigned Bon Appétit have won the magazine new fans but may alienate traditional readers.

Since food photography was a staple of my commercial photography life, I was interested in reading the article regarding the newest happening thing in the food picture biz.

It turns out that some in that world has eschewed the soft warm approach to making food pictures and have adopted an hot, hard, "edgy" look that is more typical of trendy fashion pictures. Magazine and agency art directors have shattered the mold even further by hiring non-food-specialist photographers whose pictures (of whatever) have an "edgy" look and asking them to bring that look to food pictures.

Both the style of picturing and the hiring of non-food-specialist photogs are radical changes in the food photo biz. In my heyday, a food client or art director wouldn't even look at your book (aka, portfolio) unless you were a food specialist, and, the soft look was absolutely de regueur. Taking it a step further, many clients/ADs wouldn't look at your book unless it was product specific - don't even think of showing pictures of red apples to a client/AD whose product is green apples.

The idea of specialization is still the prevalent paradigm in the higher reaches of the commercial/editorial photo markets and each specialization arena has its own picturing conventions and standards. The reason for this is quite simple - the time-honored idea of CYA (cover your ass). There is not an agency AD alive and employed who is willing to risk it all by hiring anyone less than an again-and-again proven specialist to create pictures for a client who is making a multi-million dollar media buy.

And magazine ADs, who are often willing to take controlled risks - like the new edgy food pix, don't have the time to deal with picturing screw ups - they have an absolute press deadline to meet. They still have to go with shooters whom they know can deliver the goods.

It's a business model that is, no matter the look of the pictures, a fairly conservative one. As a result, changes in picturing conventions and standards comes rather slowly. That's why I am always on the lookout for the next happening thing. I like change.

Reader Comments (2)

now I'm hungry. I like the what appears to be naturally lit, not white and glowy, not vanishingly shallow depth of field hotdog that goes with it to.

March 12, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterGordon McGregor

Welcome to the world of consultancy. In many areas of professional skills like this, customers want proven skills. Which means wher does one actually develop said skills if all the jobs are for the experienced? And those with the experience are busy defending their patch, so they remain employed and don't have to get more skills.

March 12, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMartin Doonan

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>