In his book Adventures in the
Screentrade William Goldman writes about the value of being an
insider. He used 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.
This is because most interesting fashion pictures and ideas don't come from reading the fashion mags.
I have a book with a picture of the art department in Vogue. It shows 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.
For example: The MUA, fashion and photographer's 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, it's the next big thing.
And its not going to show in the mags for another 3 months. That's the time when the outsiders get their first chance to copy, critique and test or whatever.
Too late. The other guy's 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 out the real workings of the fashion photography business and not what the consumer photo publications would have us believe. Most of what they say doesn't ring true and is misleading. At best you may get the ring of truth here but usually they're 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 won't work, won't sell or won't 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. Plus all 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, and this is usually done by heavily censoring the photographer's real process to elevate the 'I could do that idea'.
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, that's what they're talking about.
The sizzle's as important as the sausage.