It seems like I’ve brought up Helmut a number of times recently for one reason or another, and after seeing his book, Helmut Netwon: Pages from Glossies I can’t but help to hash him up again.

There’s a lot of work of Newton’s that is ubiquitous and that we all know: the nudes, the Yves Saint Laurent campaigns, the more classic Vogue stuff, but this book brings up en masse Helmut’s not often shown editorial work he did through his career.  And my suggestion is for anyone interested in shooting fashion to look through this book at least once.  It will show you both how incredibly inventive and creative Newton was, even for simple, single page Vogue shots, and also how very many editorials and aesthetics alive and well today were born from the style he brought to the mainstream.  It makes apparent that Steven Klein and LaChapelle and many others are Newton’s children.  Not to suggest this is a bad thing at all, on the contrary.  We are all made from something and come from someplace(s).  But I think it’s important to attempt to understand what those somethings are and where the someplaces are. This book is a excellent hand in that attempt.

It’s eye opening, humbling, and inspiring.


photo: cover of the book Helmut Newton: Pages from the Glossies.


photo: Cindy Crawford in Vogue (don’t have the issue date), ©Helmut Newton.

Recently I had a photographer write me with two questions that I thought would be worth discussing here, as I think they’re common questions and good questions. 

Question “1) [w]ith so many formats available (e.g., 35mm, medium format, and large format), what guides your decision on which format you shoot with for an assignment?  I know that the output print size is a major part of the decision as well as portability and ease of use. But are there any other issues that you consider?”

Format is something I consider with every shoot, but it’s hard to explain any logic in this choice b/c only about 17% of the decision is logical. The other %83 is a arcane go-by-my-gut sort of deal.  I think most photographers are like this, and that’s why we’re all vastly different in how we approach our gear.  Some shoot three formats during the same job, some can only shoot one (I’m definitely of the latter category).  So, vague answer: it is something you figure out over years of trial and error.

That’s boring though, so as a more specific and personal answer, I know that I shoot differently with each format and each format has a slightly different quality (less so with digital).  These things are part of the process of achieving what I want the pictures to look like.  Then I consider reproduction sizes (not as big a deal as most people think) and budget (a bigger deal than most people think) and other practical matters to further direct these considerations.  It’s a mix of what’s practical and gets things done, and what feels right for the idea or the moon’s phase or whatever.


photo: 35mm fashion example.  © Graeme Mitchell 2005.

It’s something you get relaxed about after a few years as you develop relationships with different cameras and learn that they’re a small part of the process.  But I do understand when you’re starting out it can be nerve racking, as is the simple questions of what film you should use, what light modifiers, on and on.  I’ve two pieces of advice that worked very well for me in these regards.

First, do not loose sight of the big picture.  Go ahead and write that on your mirror.  In fashion and portraiture the key things are people, clothes, taste, ideas, light.  Concentrate on these.  Learn to understand how they work for you and how you work for them.  The details of cameras and films and small stuff becomes a unnecessary distraction imo, b/c frankly they make much much less of a difference than we think they do.  Yeah, you need to know what you’re doing b/c the photography part does matter, but it’s mostly stuff you learn from simple testing and playing around.  A day of shooting will teach you more than a year of reading internet forums.

Second, (as a way of not getting wrapped up in the details), when you’re starting out I always suggest to radically simplify your gear.  Pick one camera and shoot it for a few years. Learn to really control that system.  Pick one film and one developer and master it.  Pick one lens and master it.  It is a way of teaching yourself how to bend the basics to your needs, and in doing this you learn the principals of the medium  Then it’s like learning a second language; once you become fluent in one, others will come easily.

I did this out of necessity rather than choice.  When I first moved to NYC I had sold most of my gear for money; not that I had room for it anyway (lived on couches), so all I had was my Nikons and a few lenses.  And I was broke, so all I could afford to do was shoot black and white and process it myself.  My back-to-basics wasn’t a pedagogical choice, rather a financial one, but I quickly saw the benefit of it in my work and it soon became a game: “if I can’t do something amazing with this camera and this film, then the problem is me and nothing else.”  Your kit might be 8×10” and tmax 100, or a digital point and shoot, you’ll know when you hold it, but whatever it is use it until it’s as natural as…well, whatever comes naturally to you.


photo: 4×5 portrait w/ old optics. © Graeme Mitchell 2007.

Question “2) I’m planning for my first fashion story; it’s personal/portfolio work, so I’m simply shooting for myself and for my team.  I have a team of five: two models, a hair stylist, a make-up artist, and me (the photog).  What role do the hair and make-up artists play while the photographer is photographing the models?  Are they usually with the photographer and the models during the shooting? Or are they out doing something else[…]”

As above, this all depends on you and what you’ve figured out for yourself over the years.  It also varies job to job, set to set, mood to mood.  Some photographers blast music and have groupies hanging out, others close sets and it’s just them and the model.  For most I think it lies someplace inbetween depending on their personality, the shoot, and the team.  I’ll close the set if things get distracting or I can tell the model would benefit from it.  Personally, I prefer not to though.  If I’m working with my usual team, or people I am confident in, then they’re all right next to my side and very much a part of the process of making pictures.  The shoot is an open dialogue where everyone can contribute.  This is important to me personally b/c it’s one of the reasons I was so interested in fashion photography, b/c it’s such a collaboration.  For me, there’s nothing better than a good group of people just loosing themselves in making a cool image, totally open and honest, dishing and taking, and having fun.  Again though, everyone and every shoot is different.  As an example of a quirk that makes us all different: I love collaborating and that energy, but once I start burning film and concentrating on the model it has to be quiet; there can be music, but no distractions or pointless noise.  Kind of weird, but a big deal.  Obviously, for me, having so much faith in my team and wanting them to work so tightly with me makes them a specific sort of people and ones that took a long long long time to put together.  And still, the dynamic and people are always shifting as life sees fit.  You’ll meet all sorts of people shooting, some who you like and others your don’t like, all that affect the day, and all who you can learn something from.


photo: on set in L.A. © Graeme Mitchell 2006.

Still really haven’t answered the question have I?  So, my suggestion in starting out with a team is to keep communication wide open, don’t be afraid to direct but also to let people do their thing, and most of all to watch what they’re doing so you can learn it, so you can begin to see what they’re seeing.  If you’re into fashion you need to start to understand hair and make-up, and there’s not quicker way to learn it than while working with people on it.

As is my usual advice in receiving advice, often the smartest thing to do is to ignore it all and do what you want.

(Do any other fashion photogs visit this blog?  If so, feel free to leave your answer’s or experiences about these questions in the comments.  Because I’m not for a moment trying to persuade anyone I’m an authority of any sorts.  More thoughts are better.) 

You know, I thought it incredulous to think that each of us isn’t all alone.


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008

August, the odd-ball-bastard month in NYC, chalk full of near contradictions and almost mysteries.


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008

This month marks my second year working on the project that was casually given the working title of NYC Journal.

At this point (not to suggest any sort of point has been achieved at all) the experiences I’m having and the things I’m learning while working on this are foremost, while the pictures are a by-product of those experiences, or maybe a cataloging of them.

And with every added photograph I get the odd yet unmistakable feeling the less complete it all becomes.

Like questions leading to bigger questions.

Scratching hard at a surface.


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008


photo: ©Graeme Mitchell 2008

David Bram pointed out this excellent archive of Bill Jay’s portraits of photographers.

Ever wonder what Weegee looked like?


photo: Weegee the Famous at home in New York, 1968. © Bill Jay.

Or Brandt?


Bill Brandt at home in London, 1969. © Bill Jay.

Worth a look.

Willy Vanderperre (with Management Artists) has a style that you can spot easily; it’s gorgeous, technically perfect, minimal, and thoughtful.  Once you learn he studied fashion and photography in Antwerp this sensibility and aesthetic makes complete sense, as you can see it’s of the pedigree of the infamous Antwerp Six school of design.  It surprises me that I don’t see his work or even hear Willy’s name more often, only b/c he’s young and doing strong work.

Anyway, this post was sparked by the beautiful story he has in V magazine (V54) right now.  Well done.


photo: from V magazine #54, Fall 08, © Willy Vanderperre.


photo: from V magazine #54, Fall 08, © Willy Vanderperre.