Fashion Photography

When is an image a portrait and when is an image a fashion photograph?

Put at its simplest, the difference between a portrait and a fashion photograph is that a portrait focuses on the subject meanwhile a fashion photograph focuses more on the clothes that the subject is modelling. Portraiture and fashion photography have many similarities, for example, they both feature either one person or more than one person in the photo, both can be (and in fashion photography, generally are) taken in environments that complement the focus of the photograph (e.g. in fashion photography, this would be used to make the clothes look better), the photographs are staged and the subjects pose for the photo etc. But there are also various differences to the two styles of photography, such as, the aforementioned focus of the subject’s clothes in fashion photography and the focus of the subject itself on portraiture, most fashion photographs also have to run with a certain theme or style within the clothing brands magazine whereas portrait photographs can be independent from each other if it be the wish of the subject or photographer.

 To what degree should an image be manipulated to go into a fashion magazine?

I think that an image in a magazine should only be manipulated to rectify mistakes, for example, a passer-by in the edge of the shot, a piece of scenery or anything that shouldn't be there. Manipulation should not extend to the 'enhancement' of the subject's body or features. However, most people in the fashion industry do not share this sentiment and people have their photographs taken in many different clothes and styles, only to be changed 'made better' by an editor. All of this is necessary though for the sale of the clothes or product that the magazine is trying to endorse. Some people say that once a person in a photograph has been changed or manipulated in some way, that isn't a photograph of the person, it's just a drawing or a painting of someone. That it's no more a picture of the subject than a caricature of the subject is. Other people would say that a manipulated photograph in a fashion magazine is better because the public's view has become so distorted by the continued use of photographic manipulation that any less than that would be rejected by the public as it is something they are not used to seeing.

 Is there a clash between the creative and commercial side of fashion photography?
I believe that there is a clash between the creative side and the commercial side of fashion photography, there are disagreements in every industry and the fashion industry is no different. Sometimes, the fashion photographer will think that something should go into the magazine meanwhile the editor or someone in charge will deny the printing of the photograph into the magazine because they do not think it will endorse the product they are trying to sell. Some people would not even consider fashion photography 'photography' because they are trying to do different things, they say that photography is trying to convey some sort of meaning or provoke some sort of thought in the viewers' minds while fashion photography is just trying to sell somebody something.