My Space, Revisited: A Photographic Comparison

Art / Photography

My Space, Revisited: A Photographic Comparison

September 3, 2017

charles i. letbetter, My Space, REvisited

Five years ago, a friend invited us over to her apartment to take some pictures. She was in a particular space emotionally, setting out on something new and different, and was feeling particularly emboldened. A few weeks ago, she hit us up again. She’s in a different space both physically and emotionally, but once again finds herself setting out on a new and different adventure.

We named the original series “My Space,” not because of any relationship to the largely-defunct social media site but because of the inherent intimacy displayed in the photographs. We, as viewers, are not coming into a studio that is sterile and unfeeling. We are in her private space, her bedroom. There is emotion. There is something personal and intimate in the setting.

Shooting the second time around, we knew the pictures couldn’t be identical. Her room now doesn’t get as much light, the windows are higher, and the mood a little darker. While some of the poses are similar, none are identical. The only thing actually identical is the quilt covering the bed.

Our processing is a lot different this time around as well. With the room being darker and the light sources different, we emphasized the shadows more and then let the saturation stay at a natural level rather than muting it as we did the first time. The second set is a little sharper, has more contrast, and pulls a different emotion than does the first.

We don’t often have the opportunity to make this kind of comparison is such a direct way so to be able to do such now is rather special. We’ve included five from the original series paired with six from the most recent shoot. As always, click on any of the thumbnails below to view the full set.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”11506″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

Advertising / Art / Experimental

Sunday Gallery: On A Whim

April 30, 2017

Sometimes we just want to try something different

We like to keep our skills relatively sharp, you know? So, every once in a while we try something different. We had one of those days recently. This is the result.

As always, click on the thumbnail to view the entire slideshow.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”11193″ layout=”contain” columns=”2″]

Fashion / Long Read / Social Commentary

We Are Slobs

April 9, 2017

Fashion retail is failing because we prefer to dress like bums

The Short Version

With thousands of major brand name stores closing this year, fashion labels and department stores alike are struggling to find a way adapt to a fundamental shift in how people dress. Comfort dominates over style. Dress codes once forged in steel have been shattered. Rare are the occasions when we feel the need to “dress up.” Our preference is for wearing what once would have been referred to as gym clothes. All around the world, we have become a society of slobs.

Defining The Situation

My youngest son’s prom was last night. He came out of his room dressed in a black tux with white shirt and a tie that I had to tie for him. He was even wearing hard soled shoes for the first time in well over a year. He was handsome. He looked good. I took pictures to send to his mother.

Within ten minutes of arriving back home, however, he was back in his typical uniform of shorts and a t-shirt so old the white cotton has yellowed. This is how he prefers to dress. This is how his friends prefer to dress. They see little reason to dress up, especially if they’re spending most their day in a classroom.

On one hand, it would be easy to say that my son’s choice of clothing style is typical of a generation, and to some extent it is. However, his generation is merely taking to the extreme a trend that has been growing since before I was a teenager. We can talk about millennials and Gen-X and Boomers all we want, but the truth is we’ve been building to this level of casualness since the Great Depression of the 1930s, nearly a century ago. Society’s standards for clothing are not based on the trends of a single fashion season but upon multiple generations desiring to be more comfortable, less rigid, and freer.

Unfortunately, in our desire to run away from the corporate dress code and gender-based stereotypes, we have gone to such an extreme where the greater majority no longer care about trends or passing fads, or standards, or social expectations. We care more about our own comfort, creating our own “style,” being “unique,” and not selling out to a label. In the process, we have become a society that is full of slobs. We’re not just casual. Our global fashion style has evolved to a point to where wrinkled and slouchy is acceptable and we have decided to be okay with that.

A Slow Progression

One of the challenging aspects of my life now is that I struggle to get in 30 minutes of physical exercise or reasonably aerobic activity during the day. My doctor insists that I must, but our house is small, space is limited, and the effects of unpredictable weather provide too many convenient obstacles. Still, I have to take responsibility for my health (Kat insists) and that led to me going to the mall this week to do that stereotypical old person thing: walk. I have become that person. We’re not there to shop, just walk.

I took the 18-year-old with me for safety. I still don’t have these new meds balanced out just yet and sudden blood sugar drops are a problem. Sure enough, by the time we made a couple of rounds, I needed to sit and chug some juice. This gave us a chance to people watch, which is typically an interesting enough activity all on its own. What we observed was interesting.

The number of women wearing some form of Spandex®-infused leggings was roughly 70 percent. Most were black, but there were a couple of middle-aged women whose thighs were far from toned wearing leggings of bright colors and designs that made it impossible to not notice that their thighs were large and not toned. Easily 90 percent of men were in jeans or some other casual pant, loose fitting, a little too long. The day’s cool and wet weather had most everyone in a jacket, the range running from Nanook of the North-styled parkas to plain hoodies. Under those jackets were primarily t-shirts, which isn’t too surprising. None of the shirt tails were tucked, though, and men especially tended to not tie their shoe laces, leaving them dangling or tucked in the top of their sneakers. The general appearance, overall, was best termed as slouchy.

Sure, there were exceptions. We saw a couple of young women wearing very nice dresses, fully coiffed and made up, pushing babies in strollers as they headed toward Von Maur with fierce determination. People of certain ethnicities and religious practice were dressed according to their cultures’ traditions. One young woman, who might have been coming from or going to a job interview, was dressed what we traditionally refer to as “professional” but was having some difficulty walking in block heels that were about a size too large for her.

Those were the very obvious exceptions, however. More typical was the teenage girl who wandered into Pac-Sun wearing well-worn flannel pajama pants and a frayed hoodie. The pajamas were long enough to nearly hide her worn sneakers and the hoodie was large enough to obliterate most her features. She shuffled as she walked and her phone never left her ear.

How did we get here? Blaming generations is easy, but incorrect. We’ve been building up to this for a very long time.

Prior to the stock market crash of 1929, what one wore defined their place in society and the vast majority of people were anxious to look better off than they were. Think of what we refer to as the “roaring” twenties and one conjures images of girls in flapper dresses and men in sharp pinstripe suits. While the every-day reality was something a little less formal, there remained a sense that how one dressed reflected their character and morality.

The Great Depression changed all that, however, and by the time we came out of World War II we had begun softening our attitudes toward how we dressed, especially in non-work settings. Denim moved away from being strictly the uniform of labor and became an after-school favorite of teens and college students. Slacks became a regular part of women’s fashion and men came home and traded their suits for khaki slacks and open-collared short-sleeve shirts. As quaint as that may sound to us now, it was a fundamental shift in philosophy as casual wear became a fundamental part of the fashion industry.

Once society got a taste for casual style, we decided we really liked it and slowly moved toward integrating more casual looks into our daily wardrobes. By the time we got to the 1970s, we had the horrible experience of the leisure suit, leather fringe, and the shift toward athletic footwear for things other than athletics. The “track suit” became a thing and President Jimmy Carter even wore jeans and a denim jacket in the oval office. Ronald Reagan tried pulling the nation back with forced formality at the White House, but it was too late. Casual Friday became a workplace

Casual Friday became a workplace norm in the mid-80s and by the time Bill Clinton took office in 1992 the world was well on its way toward khaki hell, fueled by the casual attitudes of the burgeoning high-tech industry. Office dress codes that once required ties and jackets of men and dresses for women were the exception rather than the rule by the time the world nervously celebrated Y2K. Denim was always pre-washed and often “distressed” and ripped in strategic places. Flip-flops replaced sneakers to the point that some people didn’t think twice about wearing them for official visits to the White House.

Underwear became a part of our fashion sense, partly thanks to Madonna and partly the influence of Calvin Klein. “Street style” and “urban” became regular parts of our fashion lexicon. Questions of what, exactly, defined “office appropriate” became a regular struggle for HR managers who no longer had a clear road map to follow. We rebelled against any kind of forced style structure and increasingly insisted upon autonomy in deciding what we wear.

At the same time, we also became more self-aware regarding our health and our bodies. Videos on the Internet allowed us to see “behind the scenes” of how the “beautiful people” kept in shape. Fitness went mainstream and yoga, especially, not only became the dominant form of wellness but also infused itself into our fashion sense. Yoga pants and sports bras went from being something one wore to the gym to a regular part of our wardrobes no matter where we were.

In 2014, Vanessa Friedman, of The New York Times asked what to call this “gym-to-street sector that has suddenly become the hottest thing to cover two legs?” Nike CEO Mike Parker declared, “Leggings are the new denim.” Beyoncé’s line for Topshop targeted “women who go to yoga or the health club, as well as those who just want to look as if they do,” according to WWD. The term “athleisure” came to define those clothes that have an athletic appearance but are not really meant for one to actually sweat in. Alexander Wang, chief among the athleisure designers, made a killing.

In the short years since our style decisions have completely disintegrated. If athleisure is okay, then a couple of steps below that must be okay as well. Ragged, ill-fitting, wrinkled, old, and frayed have become such a standard part of our wardrobe that we even see those elements incorporated on fashion’s runways.

The problem is that fashion relies on trends, which change and lead us to keep buying new clothes. Athleisure is not a trend and as we dissolve into a new level of slovenliness we care less and less about purchasing anything new.

Fashion On The Ropes

A part of me cried this week when Ralph Lauren announced that they are closing their flagship store on New York’s 5th Avenue. Not only has that store been the base for all things Ralph Lauren, in recent years it’s been the home for the designer’s fashion shows, spectacles that transformed the entire store into a giant runway. Lauren is not alone, though. Fashion retailers are fleeing their 5th Avenue shops like rats flee a sinking ship and that sinking metaphor is more appropriate than any of us care to admit. Consider the number of store closing already announced this year:

Payless
Stores closing in 2017: 1,000
RadioShack
Stores closing in 2017: 552
The Limited
Stores closing in 2017: 250
Family Christian
Stores closing in 2017: 240
Wet Seal
Stores closing in 2017: 171
Bebe
Stores closing in 2017: 170
Crocs
Stores closing in 2017: 160
J.C.Penney
Stores closing in 2017: 138
BCBG
Stores closing in 2017: 120
American Apparel
Stores closing in 2017: 110
Kmart
Stores closing in 2017: 108
hh Gregg
Stores closing in 2017: 88
Staples
Stores closing in 2017: 70
CVS
Stores closing in 2017: 70
Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores closing in 2017: 60
Macys
Stores closing in 2017: 68
Sears
Stores closing in 2017: 42
Guess
Stores closing in 2017: 60
Green Mountain
Stores closing in 2017: 30

I know, not all of those have anything to do with fashion or style, but what affects one retail sector ultimately affects them all. How we dress or don’t dress, the degree to which we shop or don’t shop, has a ripple effect across all of retail, even reaching all the way out to seemingly extreme disconnects such as Family Christian stores. Guess what: we’re not buying religious t-shirts, either. The retail economy is reeling from such a severe attitude of casualness that we no longer give a fuck whether we buy anything or not.

Not that we care. As our society has descended into this realm of wearing whatever we pick up off the floor and calling it our “personal style,” we don’t seem to realize that at the core lies a self-centered philosophy that no one has a right to challenge or question what anyone else does. For me to sit at the mall and question whether or not someone should be wearing those leggings is considered “shaming,” and I’m told to not do that. For me to challenge the young woman who wore her pajamas to the mall is infringing upon her personal rights. Even my choice of titles, asserting that we are all slobs, is considered judgemental and inappropriate by most. We want to wear what we like and have rejected any sense that anyone has the right to even question our decisions.

The longer-term danger, beyond the severe economic impact and the jobs being lost, is that in our self-centered casual attitude we’ve not only stopped caring about what other people think, we’ve stopped caring at all. We care about my pets, my cars, and my life experiences. Sure, we still consume, and those who cater to our selfish desires are doing well. However, the Internet has made it all too convenient for to pretend that we care about refugees by simply donating $5 online rather than actually getting out and helping people. We post our political opinions on Facebook but can’t be bothered to actually have conversations that matter with our elected representatives. We’ll join a rally if enough other people are going because our egos are stroked when we appear to be part of something popular.

Unpopular conclusions

The examination that leads me here is harsh. We are slobs. We are self-centered. We are selfish. While none of these conditions are new, we’ve been this way for thousands of years, where society once considered these traits as something to avoid, we now embrace them fully and cherish them as if they were actually desirable. We love doing and wearing whatever the hell we want. We don’t care if our actions destroy the economy as long as we’re getting what we want. We just don’t want anyone else telling us what to do, where to go, or how to behave. We’re independent, dammit, and if we have to dress slovenly and act slovenly to prove that, then that’s exactly what we are going to do.

Perhaps, however, we need to reconsider some of the lessons our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents tried to teach us. There is some benefit to following rules. Standards not only help maintain order, they keep us safe. We mind our manners because it matters how we behave and how we treat other people. We don’t put our wants and desires first because it is important to actually care about other people first. We are taught delayed gratification because it keeps us fiscally stronger and avoids the irresponsibility of debt. We dress as well as we can for any given situation not to show off but because it is a sign of respect for those around us.

That last piece there, respect, is something we’ve all but lost. We want others to respect us, we’re all about people respecting who we are and what we do, but we give no one anything to respect in the first place. Respect does not exist when we don’t care what other people think. When we choose to dress like trash, we are effectually telling the rest of the world that we think they are trash. When all of our actions and motivations are self-centered on personal pleasure and gain, we are telling the rest of the world that we think they are inferior. We can copy and share the suicide hotline number on our Facebook profile over and over and over, but the proof of whether we actually care about the lives of other people lies in our all our actions, not our words.

How we dress, how we talk, the activities in which we directly participate, tell those around us whether we respect them as humans, part of our shared society. Dressing, speaking, and behaving appropriately says that we care, that we are willing to put respect for others above our own comfort and/or convenience. Without that visible demonstration of respect, all the words we might post on social media or anywhere else are meaningless.

We when dress, speak, and behave like slobs, we tell those around us that we really don’t give a shit about them. We say that our own comfort and perceived independence is more important than anything or anyone else. Ultimately, slobs don’t even respect themselves.

We can do better. We must do better. I don’t know about you, but I don’t care to be a part of a society of slobs.

Advertising / Just For Fun / PotD

Rejected Business Cards

April 2, 2017

Not every choice is a good one.

[dropcap] Sleep deprivation. That’s really the only excuse I can think of for some of the copy that was offered up during our latest round of business card re-design. As a photographer and creative, I can’t keep handing people the same business card year after year. First, the phone number keeps changing in this cell-oriented world where keeping the same number is an exercise in how much patience I don’t have. Second, seeing the same business card more than twice makes one look boring. We have to keep changing this up. [/dropcap]

As we were once again going through that process this week, our habit is to choose from some images we like, whether they be cute or different or just awesome, and then try them out on our business card template along with unique copy for each one. We then eliminate them one by one until we have the look we want. or at least have some concept of what we don’t want.

In the end, the two-sided design we chose looks nothing at all like the images you’ll see here. We rejected all of these looks, all the copy, all the concepts. And after having gone through that process, we found some humor in the ones we rejected.

So, here are the ones we didn’t choose. As for the ones we did, you’ll just have to catch up with me somewhere and ask for one. They should be here in a couple of weeks.

As always, click on any image below to view the full slideshow.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”11100″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

News & Comment / Photography

Any Given Tuesday: A Mini Gallery

March 21, 2017

charles i. letbetter - any given tuesday

Monday’s news fuels Tuesday’s fallout

I first started noticing the pattern some 30 years ago and it’s only become more relevant with passing time. A lot of important decisions and statements are made on Mondays. Yesterday was a good example. Just consider some of the revelations made yesterday:

The FBI is investigating Russia’s involvement in last year’s election and to what degree the president’s people were involved.
The US is prohibiting electronics larger than a cell phone on flights inbound to the US from eight countries, but failed to provide those countries with details.
The Secretary of State is snubbing NATO to meet with China and Russia. Fraternizing with the enemy, anyone?
North Korea tested a rocket engine that could fuel ICBMs and the US is considering sanctions.
Google is overhauling its policies and hiring more people to make sure client ads don’t appear next to Breitbart and other offensive content.

All of those issues are important in one way or another and now that they’ve been announced, the fallout starts. Expect it to be a rough day at the State Department. Firing decisions are often made on Tuesday (though they may not be announced until Friday). Don’t be surprised to see some bankruptcy and store closing announcements today. It’s going to be rough for a lot of people.

Then, there are the things one doesn’t read about in the newspaper. A dear friend became a widow at the age of 49 yesterday thanks to her husband’s heroin addiction. Another friend who had relocated across the country for a better job lost that job yesterday, less than six months after the move. There are surgeries and complications, illnesses evading diagnosis, and physical problems threatening to end careers.

Tuesdays suck.

So, though we don’t have a lot of time to just sit and look at pictures, we do have some pictures, re-processed with bolder tones. These photos won’t solve anyone’s problems. However, our hope is they will at least provide a moment’s respite from all the stress and anxiety that come with any given Tuesday. Click on a thumbnail to view the whole slide show. We’ll worry more about the news stuff tomorrow.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”11073″ layout=”contain” columns=”2″]

Advertising / Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment

Can Populist Politics Kill Fashion?

March 15, 2017

Current trends and historical comparisons don’t paint a pretty picture for the fashion industry

The Short Version

The retail sector at large, and the fashion industry specifically, has been having a rough time staying afloat the past two years. While a wave of populism sweeps the US and parts of Europe, fashion labels are beginning to worry that populist politics could gut fashion worse than Germany did during WWII. The comparison is frightening and gives designers more reason to insert politics into fashion.

The Long Cut

Fashion appears to be on the verge of crisis. I mentioned more than once during this past season’s coverage on Pattern that there were several names missing from the schedule, but didn’t take the time to explain why. Let’s do a bit of that now.

BCBG Max Azria has been hurting for a while and confirmed it would be seeking bankruptcy protection March 1. There were announcements that all the stores would be closing as the company shifts its attention to online sales. None of that was terribly surprising, given sales trends for the past few years. However, what did catch people off guard was when Lubov Azria, the long-time creative director, CEO, and wife of founder Max Azria, announced she is stepping down from the company completely. She is being replaced in both the corporate and creative positions by Bernd Kroeber, who has been with the brand since 2007. This announcement is generally viewed as a desperate attempt to revitalize a brand whose look and reputation seems stuck in the 90s.

The last SIBLING runway we covered was the autumn/winter 16 season last year. The amazingly popular show had erred in not requiring tickets for their presentation and, as a result, a number of editors and buyers were left out in the cold. When September came, we weren’t able to view the show due to scheduling conflicts, but in looking at the pictures we could tell something wasn’t quite right. The death of founding member Joe Bates due to cancer in 2015 was taking its toll. This season, SIBLING wasn’t on the official London schedule at all (they showed off-schedule). Then, this past Friday (March 10), the label announced they were entering liquidation. Shutting down. Game over. No immediate reason was given.

Then, catching everyone by surprise, THAKOON, the New York-based label backed by Hong Kong investor Vivian Chou, announced that the label is being put “on hold.” This comes less than a month after the label showed its current season collection in New York. While no date has been given for full closure, current inventory is being sold quickly. The reason being given is that the brand’s business model does not line up with the current retail market. Whether we will ever see another THAKOON collection coming down the runway seems doubtful at this point.

Those are just the latest in a line of recent closures that are punching larger and larger holes in the fashion industry. At the same time, department stores such as Macy’s and Saks are struggling to stay afloat as well. Should the department stores go down, the blow to the fashion industry overall would be tremendous.

Understandably, designers are very nervous. Toss international politics into the fray, though, and designers are downright scared. We saw the application of some of that fear this past season as many designers chose some form of protest, some more obvious than others, during their runway presentations. While outsiders wonder if the rhetoric has any substance, those in the fashion industry see the move toward populism as troubling. Already, the US and UK have populist leaders and designers in both countries are bracing themselves for what might be coming next.

One of the biggest reasons for such concern is that nationalism leads to closed markets and lack of access to the international talent pool on which fashion relies. Already, some 97 percent of all fashion is imported in the US, including the president’s own brand, and those of his daughter. What might be a more important number, however, is realizing that even when clothing is manufactured in the US, much of that work is being done by immigrants, roughly 20 percent of whom are undocumented. Any disruption in either trade or immigration is going to adversely affect the fashion industry and both, at this juncture, seem imminent.

Opening Ceremony’s creative directors Carol Lim and Humberto Leon, both of whom are second-generation immigrants, have never shied away from using their clothing line as means of making a political statement, but since the elections last November have found it all the more critical to be steadfastly aware of the current immigration status not only for themselves but many of the people with whom they work. Most recently, they cooperated with Justin Peck, New York City Ballet’s resident choreographer, in the production of a new piece, The Times Are Racing. The ballet looks at how the lives of first-generation immigrants affect the lives of their children as they assimilate into the world, a timely topic under most any circumstances. However, between its debut, on a Thursday, and its second performance, on the following Saturday, something changed. The president signed a travel ban leaving thousands stranded at John F. Kennedy and suddenly the protest of the ballet was being mirrored in real life. Dancers, leaping across the stage in t-shirts that read “Act,” “Defy,” “Protest,” “Shout,” and “Change,” were no longer part of what had happened but were now part of what is happening.

The Council of Fashion Designers in America (CFDA), the organization that represents US-based designers, has already been looking at the problems caused by the shift in policies and what might be done to offset the consequences. There don’t seem to be many positive options. CFDA president Diane von Furstenberg, herself a Belgian-born immigrant, said, “The fashion industry has always been a reflection of what America is all about… inclusion and diversity. I am personally horrified to see what is going on.”

New York–based designer Linda Abdalla, who was born in Ireland and raised in Ohio, told Vice magazine, “It even affects the tailors and the seamstresses, and some of the best ones come from countries that are on the banned list. … Having designers and artists coming from those countries, having this ban on people coming to visit, or study, or work for these brands is a big deal. I just started meeting more African designers who are coming to the states, but this is just another block.”

Even in France, National Front leader Marine Le Pen is leading in polls ahead of April-May elections and has said she will push for the country to leave the European Union and close France’s borders, which would be crippling to the Parisian fashion industry, one of the most influential in the world. France’s current minister of culture, Audrey Azoulay, told the Associated Press, “populist powers” are “absolutely incompatible with the idea of fashion and freedom.”

One of the reasons fashion designers and CEOs are so alarmed is because they or their predecessors have seen this before. Many fashion houses, especially those in Europe, are well over 100 years old, some of them, such as Pringle of Scotland, more than 200 years old. Embedded in those fashion catalogs are the evidence of how international politics and upheaval affect the fashion industry.

Consider the fact that we no longer look to Germany as a fashion power. Yet, prior to the rise of Adolf Hitler in that country, Berlin was just as much a fashion capital as Paris or Milan. What happened? At its peak, Germany was home to approximately 2,400 Jewish-owned clothing labels and garment manufacturers. Between 1933 and 1938, all of those companies disappeared because of one person’s severe anti-immigration stance. Imports were forbidden. Exports completely dried up. The fashion industry in Germany died.

Some of the effects of the populist politics from that era still persist. The “Made it Italy” label sewn into garments from Armani to Gucci to Fendi started under Mussolini in an effort to convince Italian women to stop buying their dresses from Paris. While the label is seen today as more of a marketing tool, the nationalistic purpose has never gone away and Italy is still more closed to immigrant designers and foreign textiles than are other countries.

Fashion is a globally dependent industry, reliant on the international travel of both people and material in order to survive. Designers such as Calvin Klein’s Raf Simons regularly travel back and forth between New York and Europe and around the world not only for inspiration for their collections but to discover new fabrics and textile technologies. When politicians begin cutting off access to the global market, either through import/export taxes or through travel bans of any kind, they drive a knife deep into the heart of the fashion industry.

Most reliant on the free flow of textiles are the “fast fashion” retailers such as H&M and Forever 21 whose low prices are dependent upon garments manufactured at the lowest possible prices, usually in places such as Turkey and Bangladesh. Were imports from those countries to see a new tax of 25 percent or more, as has been suggested by the US administration, fashion retailers across the board, from Macy’s to Wal-Mart would feel the negative effect. Stores would have little choice but to pass the increased costs on to the consumers, resulting in an unprecedented amount of inflation. Eliminate those imports entirely and H&M and its competitors would have little choice but to close. Completely.

The rhetoric of populist politics always sounds good on the surface. “Make America Great.” “America first.” “Buy American.” Yet, history has proven that such nationalism and the fashion industry don’t mix. Fashion has to be open. Fashion, as an industry, must move as freely as a summer dress. There can be no borders. There can be no domestic restrictions. Try to put fashion in a box, even if it is flag-draped, and not only will an industry die, but the economies dependent upon that industry will be crippled.

Fortunately, designers are not the kind of people likely to just slip quietly away. As we saw this past season, they intend to speak up, to use their voices not just on the runway but on store shelves and even on the bodies of their customers to express opposition.

Larger groups are getting in on the action as well because bad laws that affect one sector affect them all. To that end, the National Retail Federation (NRF) released this ad last month in opposition to what’s being called a “border adjustment tax.”

The NRF has a strong lobbying presence in the US Congress and is working against any new legislation that would be of any detriment to the already struggling retail sector.

Now, let’s bring the matter home.

Consider what you are wearing right now. Assuming the clothes were not a gift, how much did you pay for them? $10? $100? Maybe $350 for the whole outfit, including the shoes. Americans are notorious bargain shoppers and hate paying full price for anything (which is a problem unto itself). So, what happens if a 25% tax is pushed on to the customer. The actual price increase is going to be closer to 30% to cover additional administration in filing the tax. So, that $10 item is now $13. Doesn’t seem like much. The $100 dress is now $130, which still doesn’t sound like a horrible increase unless you’re on a budget, in which case crossing that $100 line may not be possible. That $350 outfit though is closer to $450, and if you’re someone who likes designer labels in your clothes that 30 percent adds up even faster.

Oh wait, we’re not done. You can’t wear just one outfit every day (though I know some who would try). Consider how much you spend on clothes for your family each year. The kids’ school uniforms. The shoes (almost none of which are made in the US). The underwear (almost all of which is imported). Can you really afford a 30=50 percent increase in your clothing budget on top of all the other prices that are increasing along with it?

If you’re part of the one percent of the US population that makes over $521,411 a year, you might not be too concerned. The rest of us, however, have every reason to worry.

Populist politics, from nationalistic protectionism to anti-immigration restrictions and overly protective import tariffs are not only bad for the fashion industry, they are equally bad for your life, your children’s lives, and your future.

You might want to consider contacting your members of Congress now.

Photography / PotD

Sunday Gallery: Second Chances

March 12, 2017

Sometimes the best photos are overlooked

Something happens when one is light boarding dozens of photographs at a time. You look through a first pass, a second pass, and even a third pass, choosing only the ones you think are best for the topic at hand. Then, some time later, the topic changes and you go back through the same set of photos and select a completely different set of images.

That’s what brought us today’s images. None of them had been processed or published before today, though their siblings have. We took a different approach, looking for images that were softer, perhaps with a bit of motion blur to them. We wanted edges that weren’t quite as precise and lines not so clearly defined.

The photos are of two different women take at two different times of day in the same room. We gave them a common color palette and were careful to avoid any processing technique that might sharpen the image. We wanted soft, bright, and relaxing.

I know a lot of people who destroy images they don’t use on the first pass. I’ve done that very thing on some occasions. This gallery is a strong argument for not doing that. What doesn’t fit the first time around could well be exactly what you want or need later.

Second chances. Every image deserves them. Maybe even a third. One never knows what needs the future may hold.

As always, click any of the thumbnails below to open the full gallery.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”11004″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

Fashion / Fashion Review

Our Favorite Shows From Autumn/Winter 2017

March 10, 2017

There are a few that will always stand out

[dropcap]I spent most of Wednesday sleeping. Thursday was a surprise doctor appointment (not as bad as it sounds). Maybe it’s because I’m older, or perhaps because we put a lot more effort into our reviews this season, but by the time we reached the end of this autumn/winter fashion season I was ready for Kat to take me out back and just shoot me. These things take an inordinate amount of energy from me and more than once I’ve wondered if it is worth the effort. Of course, the answer is ultimately yes, they are worth all the effort, all the time, and all the loss of sleep. [/dropcap]

Now is the time for everyone to start with their “Best of … ” lists. I’ve already seen a couple and, while I agreed on most points, felt they missed some collections that were either very fun or very important. The list we want to present today isn’t really a “Best” list. Best is an arbitrary definition and seems a bit bullying toward those who might not agree. Instead, ours is a list of favorites, the shows that made it worth the ungodly hours, the sore muscles, the aching back, the endless eye strain, and the gallons of coffee. When all the other shows blur together, these are the ones that stand out in my memory.

Please note that there is no uniform set of requirements for making this list. Some are more because of the designer’s attitude than the clothes. Others had fantastic casting. Still others had just one piece that really caught my eye. Of course, all of our reviews are ready for you to read on Pattern. If you’re interested in the full review, we’ll include a link to each one below. What we want to acknowledge here are those that made us smile, made us feel good about our use of time, and excuse making everyone else alter their schedules so we could catch the next show.

These are the autumn/winter shows that are worth watching again, in no particular order.

Prabal Gurung

There are a couple of shows from this season where I really have no choice but to show video rather than still pictures. I love still photography and much of the time find that it presents the stronger message. Not in this case, though.

Gurung had already achieved a place on this list by casting “plus size” models Marquita Pring and Candice Huffine in his show. We didn’t see nearly enough of that this season and Gurung’s was probably the most notable show in which they appeared.

He also won the award for the most sheer we saw in a New York show this season. I’m guessing he didn’t want anyone to get too hot under those fantastic coats of his. We’re talking really sheer.

What cemented this show’s place in our hearts, though, was the finale walk. These are usually rather boring, actually. In fact, it’s not unusual for me to get up and grab another cup of coffee if I think it’s going to be long and drawn out. Prabal kept me in my seat, though, as the lights went down, the familiar introduction to John Lennon’s Imagine began playing, and models walked out in t-shirt with feminist messages of empowerment. I’ve never heard a fashion crowd go so completely quiet in all my life. The effect was amazing.

You can read our full review on Pattern, then watch the video here:

https://youtu.be/GV6G9LQxw9o?t=6m52s

Calvin Klein

This could be one of those collections that go down in history: Raf Simons’ first show for Calvin Klein. There was a lot of speculation beforehand as to whether or not the designer best known for his time at Christian Dior. Could he produce something that Americans would notice and want to wear?

While the jury may still be out on whether Americans actually want to wear this new version of Calvin Klein, it definitely got attention when he sent down some “sweaters” with sheer bodies. It was an interesting look, to be sure:

Granted, Calvin Klein is known for being a very sexy line of clothing, especially when it comes to their men’s underwear ads. But is the US ready for this? Actually, what this look does is allow one to make a sweater with any t-shirt. The sheer bodice let’s the shirt’s message shine through while keeping one’s arms warm and toasty. At least, we think that’s the direction Raf was going. It will be interesting to see if anyone actually tries wearing the sweater as it appeared on the runway.

We suggest reading the full review over on Pattern for more details. There are several interesting pieces in this collection, but this one, available for men as well, could make this fall’s college football games a lot more interesting.

Marc Jacobs

You won’t find any pictures from inside the Armory where Marc Jacob’s fashion show was held. In a season where spectacle often exceeded the value of the clothes show, Marc seemed to give the entire industry a giant middle finger by going with an anti-spectacle. No set. No photographers pit. Just one long aisle down the center of the floor with folding chairs on either side. No music. No distractions. Just the sound of models’ heels clicking on the hardwood floor. Stripped back and as bare bones as possible.

Only when models stepped outside the Armory were there cameras and music. Lots of cameras and lots of music. Models came out and sat in front of large speakers playing Issac Hayes’ cover of Walk on By while everyone snapped pictures of them, and the models snapped pictures of everyone else. It made for a most interesting end to NYFW. Our full review is here.

Marc Jacobs Ready To Wear Fall Winter 2017 New York / NOWFASHION.com

Burberry

A lot of people don’t understand this Burberry collection. No matter how much explanation Christopher Bailey has given, I’ve been amazed by the number of people who just don’t get it. The challenge seems to be that the collection is based on the work of a specific sculpture artist, Henry Moore. Even with Moore’s work on display right there in front of them as the models walked, not everyone seemed terribly thrilled with the collection and more than a few have wondered aloud whether Bailey’s days are numbered.

No, Christopher Bailey isnt’ going anywhere, and this collection is better than the credit it’s been given. There is some critical work going on here and while it’s not necessarily down the normal trench-coat-laden path it is still a strong collection with a number of worthwhile pieces. Among them, Bailey’s new take on that famous trench. What really blew my mind, though, were the amazing oversized capes that he put on models for the end of the show. While these pieces are not part of the collection that will hit stores, they definitely made the collection stand out and demonstrate how incredibly creative Bailey is. There’s a lot more to say, and you can find it all on Pattern. And for the record, I like the new trench, too.

Antonio Marras

This show kind of takes the cake for coolness this season. Not only was the runway diverse in terms of age, gender, and size, it was 100% entertainment without using outlandish set design as a spectacle. Instead, Marras employed a German-based theater method known as Tanztheater. As a result, there were ongoing skits between couples and silent monologs from individual models that were constantly taking place as the incredibly colorful line of clothes made their way around the catwalk. It was fun and entertaining without taking away from the clothes.

Then, came the finale, which involved a choreographed march of sorts. Humorous, to be sure. But oh, they weren’t done! Marras comes out to take his bow and the entire Tanztheater cast chases him crazily around the runway. I put the link to the show in our review, but I’m including it again here because it’s just that much fun to watch! Absolutely nothing like it all season!

Missoni

Politics was on the mind of a lot of people this season and with good reason. As trade policies with the US could become less friendly to imports, many labels are looking for ways to express their dissent. Many designers kept their protest subtle so that it wouldn’t cause too much of a stir. Not Angela Missoni. She caused a stir and stirred hard.

First, there were pink knit “pussy” hats on all the guests’ seats. Then, at the end of a fairly typical Missoni show, came these three looks:

Now, in case you don’t catch all the symbolism, let me help you out a bit. The pink triangle is for AIDS awareness. The Venus symbol is for feminism. And the two hearts over the breasts are to protest the social media censorship of women’s nipples. That’s a LOT to put into one fashion show.

Oh, but she wasn’t done. After models made their finale walk wearing those same pink knit hats, Ms. Missoni and her entire extended family come out onto the runway where she read the following statement:

“I feel the need to recognize that in a time of uncertainty there is a bond that can keep us strong and safe, that unites those that respect all human rights. Let’s show the world that the fashion world is united and fearless.”

Wham. This was without question the boldest activist statement we saw all season and it was BEAUTIFUL. You’ll want to read the full review for more detail.

Dries Van Noten

This season marked Dries Van Noten’s 100th runway show, which is pretty impressive. Rather than putting on some great spectacle, however, Dries chose simply to review his past 20 years of fashion by bringing back the models who wore the looks the first time around. Talk about age diversity! That meant there were models ranging from 45-years-old to 16-years-old all on the same runway. The entire atmosphere was fun, jovial, and sufficiently celebratory without going over the top.

Equally important is that Van Noten kept his catalog parade from feeling like a catalog parade. He overlayed his house silhouettes with geometric patterns that fit well with contemporary looks and kept everything fresh and lively. He even incorporated metallic fabrics there were literally everywhere this season. While Van Noten doesn’t always get an overwhelming amount of press during the season, he gave plenty of people reason to look at him this time around and they’ll likely stick around to see what happens next. Read more in our Pattern review.

Christian Dior

This was Maria Grazia Chiuri’s blue season, which would, in of itself, have been enough reason to include this Dior collection on our list of favorites. Blue is such a wonderful color for fashion in the first place, and her sense of design and styling fits the color very well. There was no way that this wasn’t going to be a strong collection.

However, what really causes this collection to stand out for me is her use of denim as a metaphor for women’s strength. When she sent down a set of blue denim overalls with a wool blazer, she had me. The message she was sending was emphatic: women can be strong, stylish, and feminine all at the same time. Women can work at the hardest manual labor jobs you want to throw at them and still turn around and be the belle of the ball without batting an eye. This was a more subtle form of political statement, but be very certain Ms. Chiuri was making a statement and women heard it. You’ll find more in our review.

Andreas Kronthaler For Vivienne Westwood

Vivienne walked.

That’s really all I should need to say. Instead of waiting and coming out at the end of the collection to take a bow as she always does, Dame Vivienne Westwood became a model in her husband’s collection and walked twice during this season’s show. The auditory response she received from the crowd was overwhelming. Dame Westwood is loved throughout both the fashion and environmental communities. Her clothes speak to those who don’t care to fit into current trends and those who love her clothes love her as well.

So, when Dame Westwood set foot onto the runway, the entire crowd erupted in cheers and totally forget anything else that came afterward. Nothing else mattered. Vivienne walked! Catch the full review on Pattern.

Stella McCartney

Leather has been a huge trend this season, but there are a lot of people who find the use of animal products cruel. The size of that audience is significant and leading that charge in the fashion world is Stella McCartney. Her animal-friendly collection has been the go-to line for animal activists for quite a while.

This year, however, she took it a step further with not-skin-skin, a new high-tech material that looks and feels identical to leather. Ms. McCartney is picky, mind you. She’s very much aware of her brand’s luxury status and knows that if she doesn’t maintain quality she loses that status. She waited until she had a material that she’s confident is as strong and as durable as real leather. While I can’t speak to the durability of the product, I can say that it certainly looks like leather with the exception of being a bit more flexible. The question now is whether the rest of the industry will follow suit. The answer lies in what consumers demand, so that one’s totally up to you. See the full review on Pattern.

And now we’re done, although I’m sure I’m leaving someone out. Overall, this hasn’t been as boring a season as some of those previous. Perhaps the sense of activism helped more of the clothing lines take a more serious tone, which is a good thing. We didn’t get the sense that anyone was “phoning it in” this season as we often have before. Not that every collection was great, mind you. We’re still wondering about both the Gucci and Prada collections. Those were both… interestingly creative. And if we didn’t review your favorite designer it may very well be because we watched and decided there wasn’t any point in dragging the whole label through the mud because we couldn’t find anything nice to say. We try to not be totally mean, but there are limits.

So, the Autumn/Winter 17 season is past and we’re already looking toward Spring/Summer 18. Just this morning, Chloé announced Clare Waight-Keller’s replacement as Natasha Ramsy-Levi. Already we have something to which we can look forward. Who knows what else might happen between now and then. Perhaps Roberto Cavalli will find someone worthy to take the reigns of that ship. Know that we’ll be watching, waiting, and planning a great experience for you this fall.

Advertising / Art / Current Issues / Editorial / Long Read / Photography / Social Commentary

Over Thinking Rethinking

March 5, 2017

Rethinking the ethics of Photoshop is missing the point of Photoshop

The Short Version

Yet another group is taking aim at photo retouching, this time pushing their agenda through something called “The Retouchers Accord.” Their aim is to rid the world of what they consider photographic “fake news” that comes from altering images significantly. Our take, of course, is there is a purpose to retouching that defies any kind of blanket statement or set of rules. We also challenge their definition of “fake news.”

NOTE: We are not, under any circumstances, saying that body image and self-esteem, especially among teens, isn’t an issue directly affected by the media at large. We are well aware of the research in that regard and don’t argue that point. We do, however, take exception to the allegation that photo retouching itself constitutes a “public health crisis” or can, in any significant way, resolve the larger issue.

A Bit Of Background

Sitting at a table in a coffee shop back in 2007, I’m talking with a young woman anxious to get into modeling. She’s tall enough, attractive enough, and seems to have above-average intelligence, everything a model needs. As we’re talking, I ask, “How do you feel about having your pictures Photoshopped?”

“Oh, Photoshop the hell out of me,” she said. “I have trouble keeping my face clear so, by all means, clean that shit up. Oh, and make my boobs bigger if you can.”

I stared back at her for a moment. Make her boobs bigger? The young woman was far from being flat-chested. Increasing her size any risked moving into comical proportions. She was quite serious, though. So serious that she had implants doubling the size of her breasts just a couple of years later.

We’ve shot with this model for several years, but my favorite shots of her are the ones I have to retouch the least. She has a wonderful face and on days when her skin is clear, which happened more frequently as she got older, there was very little that makeup didn’t cover. Of all the pictures we’ve taken, only twice has she asked me to go back and airbrush her skin. I’ve never augmented the size of her breast.

Here’s the thing: when it comes to photo editing I’m lazy. I don’t want to spend any more time with an image than is required for it to meet client expectations, whether that client is a model, a family, or an ad agency. My take has always been that if I’m having to spend hours on photo editing, we failed to take a good picture in the first place. All-night editing sessions should never be necessary on a standard photograph.

However, not every situation is the same. As technologies have developed making some tasks much easier, many art directors look to creative photo editing as a way to save money. Increasingly, shots that once involved hundreds of thousands of dollars as we transported entire crews to the middle of the Amazon jungle are done in studio in front of a green screen. Not only does this save a tremendous amount of money, I can speak first-hand to how much safer the studio is than putting an insulin-dependent model on a boat in the middle of the freakin’ jungle. The move makes sense and there’s no good reason, in my mind, to not do so.

If you’ve been reading these pages long, you know Photoshop is a sensitive topic for me. While it frequently comes under fire because of some very public misuse of the tool, the fact is that photo editing is now, and always has been, one of the most critical aspects of the job. Even long before Photoshop was a thing, post-editing skills were necessary to make sure a photo was suitable for public release.

We’ve written about Photoshop issues rather extensively. Roughly 37 times in the past three years by our count. Rather than making you do a search, though, let me save you some time. Here are the ones you most likely need to read:

Everything else we’ve said on the topic is more instructional or relates only to how a specific set of photos were produced. Still, know that as much as I dislike spending endless hours editing, I will, to the last pixel, defend the right to do so. Editing is a necessary and valuable skill. Suggest otherwise and you’ll likely make me angry.

They Made Me Angry

There I was, reading during a moment of downtime between shows in Milan. I start flipping through the online version of Fast Company Design, a magazine whose ideas I want to like but question frequently. What catches my eye is Katharine Schwab’s article, Rethinking the Ethics of Photoshop. The subheading instantly had me feeling defensive:

Retouching is its own form of fake news. Can an oath change a problem that stretches from fashion to product design?

What the living fuck? “Retouching is its own form of fake news?” Are you fucking kidding me? Do you even understand the concept of photography and imagery and portraiture? Do you understand the fundamental difference between photojournalism and boudoir photography? How is transitioning from a color image to a black and white image suddenly equivalent to telling a blatant lie?

If I had been reading a paper copy of the magazine I would have thrown the damn thing across the room. This article isn’t just full of bullshit, “its own form of fake news,” if you will, it is irresponsible in the way it fails to understand why we edit photos, how we edit photos, and the results of editing photos. Not to mention the fact I find it fucking insulting.

I apologize for all the four-lettered expletives, but every time I look back at this article it feels like a slap in the face and I just don’t respond well to that kind of offense.

The article is written in support of the Retouchers Accord, a statement of ethics being pushed as though every photographer and photo editor on the planet were going around dramatically altering their photos. Sarah Krasley, the author of the accord believes:

“The downstream impacts of the design decisions that postproduction artists and retouchers are making are causing public health problems. You have young women and men looking at those pictures and thinking their body needs to look like that in order for them to be beautiful, to be loved or accepted.”

Excuse me, but “public health problems?” McDonald’s is responsible for more public health problems that retouched photographs. Let’s get grip on reality here.

Yes, we know there is a relationship between consumed media and eating disorders, but what Ms. Krasley is trying to push is a questionable 2014 study by Kristen Harrison and Veronica Heffner, Virtually Perfect: Image Retouching and Adolescent Body Image, which claims to show that retouched photos resulted in lower self-esteem and higher body image consciousness among teens. There are all kinds of problems with the research and how it was conducted, but the biggest issue is in translating what they found. The changes in self-esteem and body image occurred only in the group that was told the photographs had been retouched. In other words, make a big deal about the retouching and a few kids are going to respond.

Ms. Harrison and Ms. Heffner do make a big deal about the effect of media on eating disorders. Between the two of them, they’ve since authored dozens of articles not merely related to retouched photographs, but every kind of visual media, claiming that the images were shown to have a detrimental effect on adolescents. One might say the two are rather obsessed with the topic, but obsession does not make for accuracy. Even their own research shows that the majority of teens are well aware of the line between real and fantasy and don’t fall for what they know is unattainable. The hype is unfounded.

In fact, not only is the hype unfounded, it is misdirected. More substantial research points to obesity being the more serious health effect from media consumption. Teens, on the whole, are better arbiters of the images they’re fed than we give them credit. I know because I happen to have one in my home. Show my 18-year-old a dramatically enhanced image of a shirtless Hugh Jackman and he will scoff. Not only does he know that the actor’s form has been enhanced, he also knows that muscle is difficult to maintain and turns to fat. Krasley, Harrison, and Heffner are making a big deal about something that might have personally affected them at some point in their lives, but does not affect a large enough group of adolescents to constitute a “public health crisis.”

Nonetheless, being the passionate and highly-motivated person she is, Ms. Krasley has decided that every photographer and retoucher on the plant needs to acquiesce to her little “ethics” accord because, you know, less than one-tenth of one percent of the global adolescent population might be adversely affected by a retouched image. Never mind that for most of us getting that level of exposure is a pipe dream. Never mind that there’s no negative nor positive effect at all if the viewer doesn’t know the image has been altered. Ms. Krasley has the “If one child is saved …” attitude that sounds altruistic but actually ends up making life more difficult for more people than would ostensibly be helped.

What Does The Retouchers Accord Say

There are five steps in the Retouchers Accord, and two of them are actually decent ethics statements. Not that I would try to force any of them on anyone, mind you. Ethics are a personal decision and only once someone has agreed to abide by a certain code can they be judged by whether or not they follow it. What we need to look at are the parts of the accord that are either unnecessary, offensive, or unrealistic. Let’s do that now. I’m pulling the images directly from the Retouchers Accord website, so don’t think for a moment I created any of it.

What the living fuck? That’s how you’re going to start, by demanding that one let everyone else know that they’re in the fucking club? What strange sort of cultic evangelism is this?

No, just absolutely no-way-in-literal-or-figurative-hell am I going out of my way on any level to let someone outside an organization—any organization—know that I am a member of said organization. I had enough of that nonsense rammed down my throat while growing up in church. The same maxim applies now that applied then: “If you have to tell someone you’re doing something good, you’re not doing it very well.”

The world is already far too full of people who talk too much and do too little. We elected such an idiot president. We don’t need more people running around essentially saying, “Hey, look at me! I’m doing this thing that’s good for society,” just because it brings attention to them. I never have understood that form of reasoning and never will.

Extending that reasoning out, this is why I’m not a member of any professional organization. I don’t want anyone looking at whether I’m a member of this group or that association when deciding whether or not to hire me. Look at my work. My work is what matters. Anything else is a distraction away from that work and I really don’t like distractions. So no, I’m not signing anything that forces me into a position of being any kind of evangelist.

This statement reflects how little Ms. Krasley understands about the greater scope of photography and retouching outside her own little world. For example, one of the aspects of my work that I enjoy most is taking pictures of newborns. Each one of them is lovely and perfect in their own special way and it’s wonderful to interact with a young family that is just starting out with this little one, or adding to their young family, and feeling all the warmth and joy they have for this precious little life.

So, in the midst of this beautiful setting, you now want me to “fuel a dialog about social impact, diversity, and authenticity?” Have you lost your fucking mind?

That’s not saying that such a discussion is never appropriate, but it’s damn sure not going to be with every client or partner. In fact, for the majority of photographers, it’s not likely to ever be an appropriate topic of conversation. If I’m shooting the wedding of a black Muslim to a White Jew, the last thing I need to discuss with them is social impact, diversity, and authenticity. If I’m covering the local women’s march and selling the images to a wire service, no one really cares what my views are on ethical matters. They expect those things to be reflected in my images if they actually impact the topic.

This “each and every” thing is a sign of severe ignorance and antipathy toward the greater scope of photography and retouching and borders on being insulting both to photographers and our clients.

I’m curious at this point as to what manner of strange, fucked-up world Ms. Kraley lives in where she thinks anyone needs to “improve and build upon my knowledge of retouching techniques” every, single, fucking day? Does she not understand how education works? Retouching isn’t something where one sits down, reads a book, and then instantly is better at retouching. It just doesn’t work that way.

First, one must focus on a specific area within which they are challenged. Just for the sake of having a real-world example, let’s say that challenge is masking. For the sake of those who are not familiar with the photographer’s use of the term, masking comes from when one would place a piece of acetate over an image being processed and cut out specific areas to which a given treatment would then be applied. This protected the rest of the image while working on a selected area. With film, it is extremely time-consuming and frequently messy. With digital images, it’s a lot safer but many people still find it confusing and difficult. So, if one wants to improve their masking technique, they don’t just read and practice it one day then move on to the next subject. They start with the basics and keep practicing, over and over and over sometimes for months, as the need and opportunity presents itself.

Even then, are we going to focus on improving our masking technique every day? Nope. Probably not even close. There are plenty of days I never open an image for editing purposes. There are plenty of other days when the editing I do does not require expanding beyond my current skill set. The whole “daily basis” thing is excessive to the point of being abusive.

Another issue with this article is the effectual adage that when one only has a hammer everything looks like a nail. In other words, when one learns a new skill, one looks for and even deliberately creates situations where that skill can be applied, whether appropriate or not. We see this almost every time a rookie encounters the Photoshop filters menu for the first time. Everything is so cool! All the effects are so neat! Let’s use this on everything! A torrent of really bad images floods Facebook shortly thereafter.

Photoshop, and editing programs like it, is huge. Adobe has packed more power and capability into that one piece of software than any one person would ever have any reason to use, but addresses the needs of the imaging community at large. There is a limit to what any one person needs to know. A photographer who specializes in landscape images doesn’t have to worry about carefully removing skin blemishes. The photographer who only shoots black-and-white images doesn’t really need to know the finer aspects of color control. Everyone’s skill set is specialized to the aspects of retouching they actually need. When we add skills we don’t need, we start making mistakes because we want to use that knowledge and information. Instead of getting better at what we do, learning new or different techniques might actually make someone’s end product worse because of the tendency to apply it where it’s not needed.

Learn what you need to know, by all means, but don’t make the mistake of thinking you have to know everything. There’s a limit.

I have less of an issue with this one and the one following. Practicing integrity and empathy isn’t limited to creating images. Integrity and empathy are global characteristics that I would hope we are applying in every situation we face. In fact, if one only attempts to practice integrity in one aspect of their life and not others, they don’t understand integrity at all.

For example, let’s say you see someone drop their wallet and you pick it up and return it to them. Integrity, right? But then, you see someone drop a twenty-dollar bill, something not so noticeable, something whose ownership cannot be easily traced, and you pick that up and slip it into your pocket, hoping no one else was noticing. Guess what: you don’t have integrity. It’s not a switch one turns off and on. Either it’s there in every situation or its not there at all and you’re just pretending.

Empathy is even more difficult to apply randomly. We are not natural empaths and depending on one’s age there’s a very good chance one was taught to ignore those feelings in order to get certain tasks accomplished. Empathy takes practice and can be easily misplaced and/or misused. Exercising empathy requires patience and the ability to put oneself in another’s position. Not everyone can, or should, do that.

There is a great need for empathy in a number of situations, but misapplied it can cause trouble. Ask the photojournalist who defies instruction and befriends native children in a war zone. Empathy leads the photographer to want to help the children but in doing so they put the entire military unit to which they’re assigned in danger.

We have to give hard examination to both ourselves and our work to decide where and when it is appropriate to be empathetic. We cannot take every story at face value. Such is the reality of the world in which we live. Not everyone can or should be trusted. People can and will lie if they sense they might get something out of it. We want to be sensitive to real situations, not taken in by false ones.

I can live with this one. Granted, I’m not sure how much actual impact I am ever going to have “throughout the industry” given that 99.985% of the industry doesn’t even know that I exist. That’s okay, they probably don’t know you exist, either. There are millions of photographers and retouchers out there and there are only a handful, probably fewer than ten, who command enough respect to actually get anyone to change their method of operation.

I’m sorry if that deflates your ego. This is what is known as “keeping it real.”

Is body image distortion a problem? Absolutely. Most of that distortion comes from other forms of media, though, and, get this, from the people with whom one chooses to associate. It’s the difference between having a parent who says, “Hey, you look nice today,” versus, “You’re not going to wear that are you? It makes your butt look big.” The root of self-image problems start long before anyone steps in front of our camera or sees any of our images.

We need to be careful with what we say. I saw a photograph recently of a young woman who happens to be a ballet dancer. To say that she is thin would be an understatement. We know the photographer well and know he would not engage in any body manipulation techniques, but I double checked just to be sure. The woman really is that thin. Does that mean she has an eating disorder? Should we say something?

We should be very careful here. I’ve known far too many women, especially models, whose metabolism runs high enough that they simply don’t gain wait. What, when, and how much they eat is irrelevant. They’re not going to gain any more weight until their body metabolism slows down. Then, when all the weight gain suddenly hits, the threat of developing an eating disorder gets real because they miss how they once looked.

Body shaming occurs in both directions and is just as equally wrong. What matters is that we promote healthy attitudes in both directions not only with the photos we take, but perhaps more importantly with the things we say to models and clients as we’re taking those pictures. We can do a lot more harm with our words than with our photographs.

We also need to understand that there is no one set definition of a healthy body. That call is made between an individual and their physician. We have no right to imply that someone’s body needs improvement or modification.

So yes, we can advance the understanding of a healthy body image, but we’re likely to be more effective in that goal on an individual basis rather than trying to take on the whole industry. The industry will change on its own as we alter our individual methods of operation.

All that being said, I can’t encourage anyone to sign this Retouchers Accord. The first three articles alone are sufficient reason to walk away and the final two are more complicated than a simple statement can address. If what we sign is going to mean something, we have to find points that make sense, take the diversity of our industry into consideration, and don’t accidently lead us into activities that could do more harm than good.

About that “fake news” line

By this point, I’ve had nearly two weeks to mull over Ms. Schwab’s assessment that retouching is the equivalent of fake news. I am still as angered by her misuse of the term “fake news” as I am by the president’s repeated and offensive misuse of the term. Perhaps we’re using different definitions here as to what is fake. So, let’s see if we can get this straightened out.

First, calling something “fake” implies that something was fabricated in whole with no intention of utilizing any element of truth. For example, if I were to re-color a photo from World War II and paint all the German soldiers green then make the fantastic claim that the Nazis were actually aliens attempting to invade the planet, that would be fake news. If, however, I took that same image (without the green part) and made it sharper so that the details of that image were more clear, that would not be fake but enhanced.

The distinction between what is fake and what is enhanced becomes increasingly important in situations like we are experiencing now where the allegation is being used as a weapon against legitimate media taking on a corrupt leader. To call an image fake simply because it has been enhanced to more fully communicate its message is a disservice and disrespectful to everyone involved.

Claiming that by simply retouching an image somehow falsifies its content is like saying that editing a book makes it less interesting. Denouncing retouching creates an expectation of perfection that is unfair and unreasonable. Not only would the photographer have to do their work perfectly, but the model would have to be perfect, the hair and makeup artists would have to be perfect, the stylist would have to be perfect, the art direction would have to be perfect, and the lighting would have to be perfect. In my over 30 years of photography, all those elements have worked in perfect harmony exactly zero times. Sure, there have been some wonderful images that came very close but at no time has anyone been foolish enough to think that there wasn’t room for improvement and then proceed to make that improvement in post production.

Here’s the thing: photographers have always manipulated photographs. We’ve had to. Early cameras were extremely fussy and if a photographer wasn’t as diligent about the developing process as he was about taking the picture itself they would wind up with an unusable pile of garbage. As the cameras and films developed, so did our processing techniques. We learned to use masking, as we mentioned above. We learned to use dodging (making something lighter) and burning (making something darker) and we even learned how to use cloning (an extremely difficult process in film) to remove blemishes. By the mid-1950s, we had learned to make skin appear more even and soft as well as remove wrinkles and the bags under a subject’s eyes. Portrait photographers’ entire reputations were built upon their ability to retouch a photo and mind you, this was well before computers were small enough to fit in anything smaller than a three-story building.

To think that suddenly, somehow, all this retouching of images has gotten out of control and become a “public health concern” is both naive and insulting.

What makes articles like Ms. Schwab’s troubling is that they are too often read by people who know absolutely nothing about photography beyond the snapshots they take with their cell phone. Neither is their audience likely to have any appreciation for what actual photo retouching involves. So, I’m going to try and show you using a series of photos in various stages of processing.

Understand, every time I open Photoshop or any other image processing software, I’m faced with thousands of choices for how to process my picture. Even when I know what steps I must take to make an image acceptable for public consumption, there are still multiple different ways to achieve exactly the same results. While I am showing you a particular method (sort of) that I used on this particular image, a different photographer would likely approach it in a very different way, with different results, and still be just as correct in their interpretation of the image. There are no exacts. There are no absolutes. Artistic vision and understanding of what the client wants comes into heavy play here. Are you ready? Let’s go:

The Image

To help everyone understand the issue more clearly, I needed to use an image fully under my control with a model not opposed to me displaying both the raw image and it’s final form. Obviously, the easiest and most convenient solution to that issue was to toss Kat kicking and screaming in front of the camera. Okay, maybe not kicking and screaming, but she really didn’t like having the sun in her eyes. I processed the photo and then gave her the finished image. She then posted the image as her profile picture on Facebook. Here’s the picture:

Having been posted less than a week, the image already has nearly seven times as many likes as her previous image, more than twice as many likes as her most popular image over the past four years. So, it would seem that the overwhelming response to the finished image has been positive.

Oh, but you know the raw image, the one we started with, didn’t look quite this way. Here, let me show you:

The RAW image

This isn’t a totally horrible image, mind you. In fact, under different conditions, I might just adjust the contrast and color tone a bit and let it go at that. Still, there are some things about this picture that just bug me, so we need to fix those issues.

First revision

Before you go jumping to conclusions, I didn’t touch Kat at all in this photo. We balanced color and tone then cleaned up the background a little bit, primarily removing the fire hydrant that was inconveniently near Kat’s head in the photo. It doesn’t take much to dramatically alter the appearance of a photo.

Second Revision

First round of blemish removal. I focused primarily on the eyes and removing the pesky shadow caused by the glasses. We’ll do a little more later, but it’s too early in the process to get all heavy-handed. Anything feel fake yet? No? Good.

Third Revision

This is a tough one. Look carefully at this image and the one before it. Can you see the difference? The revision applied here is only necessary with digital cameras that do not have a full frame sensor. Because the size of the lens and the sensor don’t match exactly, we have to correct the distortion that occurs. A lot of times the difference is so subtle even I can barely tell the difference. Here, though, because of all those angle and ratio factors, there was actually a significant difference. Oh, and we cleaned up her left eye a little, also.

Fourth Revision

By this point, we’ve lived with the image a little bit and the softness of some areas is beginning to bother me. We have to be careful in applying a solution. While there are a number of tools that can sharpen an image, applying them globally can really cause problems. Here’s where masking comes in. I won’t bore you with the details, but we sharpened up the places where it makes sense while being careful to not adversely affect the places we want to remain soft.

Fifth Revision

Cross processing. This is a concept, like most others photographers apply in Photoshop, carried over from film processing. Originally, cross processing was a mistake caused by using the wrong chemical solution for the type film being processed. Depending on how far apart the pairing was, the results could be extremely dramatic. Obviously, we don’t apply chemicals to digital photos, but we can mimic some of the same effects, typically by raising contrast in certain areas and adjusting the colors and hues appropriately. We didn’t want too dramatic a difference, just enough to brighten the image and make certain colors pop a bit more. While all that might sound like we’re faking the look, what we’ve done is come all that much closer to duplicating the actual environment of that morning.

Sixth Revision

Okay, there’s a lot to this one because stopping after every little process and method was getting exhausting and I realized I was soon going to have more than a dozen images with changed so subtle that even in telling what they were one might not be able to see the difference. So, you should know we did a lot of manipulation between the previous photo and this one, which is the finished image. We cleaned up the remaining blemishes and removed some wrinkles. We dealt moderately with the offset on the right side of the glasses that was caused by the camera looking through her prescription lens. We did some selective color adjustment where the cross processing had created problems and pulled back on some highlights that had gotten out of control.

That’s it, folks. That’s all we did. The whole process, including stopping to save the interstitial files, making coffee, and checking on photos from a fashion show, took less than two hours. Oh, and I think I played with the dog some in there. We could have gone faster had there been motivation, but there wasn’t. I sent the picture to Kat, she posted it to her profile, and the fandom began.

The image is processed, not faked.

So, where’s all the fake stuff?

Is this to say that no one ever fakes anything in Photoshop? You know better than to ask that question. Of course, there are people who dramatically alter photographs. For some, that’s what they do for a living. What matters is their intention in doing so. Most of the time, such revisions are an artistic decision to make the image a little less boring or, perhaps, give an image a specific meaning. Not everyone wants their portrait in front of a plan-colored background. When done well, changing the background scenery makes all the difference in how a photo is received. As long as the intention isn’t to make someone believe you were on a beach in the South of France when you were actually off having an affair with your dog groomer’s cousin, then I don’t see a problem.

Yes, there are times, especially in advertising, when no one is paying enough attention to detail and an image slips past that shouldn’t. Yes, there are times when clients have severely unreasonable expectations and push agencies into releasing images they probably shouldn’t. I have two thoughts regarding those situations.

First, negative consumer feedback has done a lot to curb over-manipulated photos. Remember that research by up there a few pages ago? There was only a response when viewers were aware that the image had been manipulated. People don’t like being played for fools and an obviously over manipulated photo in a product ad does just that. Organic change comes slowly, but it’s more likely to stick as opposed to trying to force change from the outside through some unrealistic statement.

Second, the number of times when a photographer or retoucher has much say in the matter is actually rather small. You don’t know to know how many times I’ve been shown a finished ad and not recognized that it was a photo I took. We submitted the slides and the editing department took it from there. My opinion was neither considered nor requested. Targeting photographers and retouchers with some ethics statement might work in tiny little boutique agencies where everyone is all family and time is lost consulting everyone on every decision. Major agencies, who produce the majority of ads, don’t work that way. They don’t have time. And if a photographer or retoucher has ethics issues with how a photo is used, they know how to find the door. The Retouchers Accord addresses the people who are in the least position to actually effect any change when it comes to major advertising accounts.

Been there. Survived that ass-chewing. Wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

The Proper Place For Fake Images

If we really wanted to, and had sufficient motivation (specifically, pay me a lot of money for all the eye strain), we could easily create a bunch of totally faked photos. We’ve done it before when the concept called for such. In fact, just to demonstrate what a fake image really looks like, we took the picture of Kat and spent a couple of days throwing every bad idea at it that we could find. We call our finished product, Invasion of the MasterCard Alien. If you don’t get the reference then you’re really out of touch.

Is that image over-the-top? Oh my stars, yes! Not only is it over the top, it is totally impractical. This one image required days of work. While Kat and I can sit here and laugh at it, this isn’t the kind of we engage in because we’re not in the business of designing sci-fi book art or anything related to it. Is it an entertaining exercise on occasion, yeah. but ultimately we’re not fooling anyone. This is “fake” and was created to be fake.

Now, since you are aware that this image is fake, how does that make you feel? Are you upset that your skin tone isn’t a strange shade of green? Would you like your eyes to be oversized? Do you wish you had a clue what is going on in the background? Should I have given you more warning before we showed you the image? Do you need to go to your safe place now?

I realize there will always be some people who believe anything. The late Orson Welles’ epic War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938 proved that point. Today, that same broadcast would likely be referred to as fake news simply because too many people failed to realize that what Welles was doing was all scripted for radio. They had no intention of creating a national panic, but that’s what happens when people over-react to something. Just as Welles cannot be blamed for the chaos that followed his infamous broadcast, neither can photographers and retouchers be blamed when people over-react to obviously over-processed images. Step back, consider what the digital artist is trying to communicate (and this is digital art at this point, not a photograph) and understand that obvious manipulation might be sending a message different than the face value of the image.

Conclusions and considerations

First, and let’s be excessively clear on this point, if you or someone you care about has an eating disorder, severe body image issues, or suffers severe depression due to low self-esteem, please seek professional help immediately. The solution is not blaming external causes. Very few of those external causes can be controlled. The solution is in how one responds to and processes that external input. This is not easy work and the risk factors are high. No solution should be attempted without professional guidance.

Second, realize that all commercial media, everything consumed on TV, radio, and the Internet, has the same basic purpose: to sell a product. Products are made by companies and companies, especially the big ones, are largely amoral. Therefore, the way to effect change within a corporation is to disrupt its bottom line, not attacking or questioning the ethics and practices of mid-level or lower employees who are simply doing what they’re told.

Third, understand that creators of non-commercial media, such as portrait, wedding, and boudoir photographers, edit their images to meet the direct requests of their client. If a client has body image issues when they walk in the door, those issues are not going to be resolved by giving them back photographs that fail to address their misgivings. The responsibility first and foremost is to that client and everything else is secondary.

Fourth, appreciate the reality that there is a time and place to hold conversations about body image and self-esteem but unless a photographer also happens to hold an advanced degree in and licensure for practicing psychotherapy, the photo studio is not the place to be holding that conversation. More damage is likely to be done from bad advice than a bad photo.

Fifth, let’s acknowledge that labeling something as a “public health crisis” is the job of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and/or the World Health Organization. No one else has that authority and attempts at claiming such from parties unrelated to those organizations only serves to inflame fear and panic among the general populous. Calling something a public health crisis on your own does not make it so. Furthermore, such unwarranted and baseless statements make it all the more difficult to address the core issues because of the uncertainty and confusion created by non-authoritative sources.

Sixth, accept the fact that asking people to join your group just so they can get others to join your group is not only anti-ethical but also self-defeating. If your group or cause is actually doing something good versus merely talking about doing something good, people will ask to join. Proselytizing is bad form even if you’re not a religion.

Seventh, know that as long as we are all imperfect there remains a need and justification for photograph manipulation. Using Photoshop or some other editing tool on an image does not create “fake news” in the same manner in which Kelly Ann Conway opening her mouth creates #alternativeFacts. Editing manipulation and editing can either improve the message of a photo or create a work of digital art for a specific purpose. Stop demonizing people who edit photographs.

Eighth, maybe it’s time we stop harping on first world issues when there are so many infinitely more severe problems among third-world countries that are being ignored. Each of us has limited time and resources. We do better by applying that time and those resources to places where it does a lot more good, such as providing clean drinking water, sustainable food sources and distribution, and getting medicine to where it is needed. If you can look at a starving child and tell them you cannot help them because you need to whine about an over-edited photograph, you desperately need a change of perspective.

I am really tired of having to continually address people who feel they are justified in attacking those who edit photographs. I do not do what I do to make some random person in Boston happy. I recently had a model upset with me because I didn’t do enough to her picture. Now, if someone else wants to lecture her on body image and self-esteem, you just go right on over there and do so. Me, I’m going to give her new pictures because I want her to be happy. That’s what matters.

I won’t sign the Retouchers Accord or anything remotely like it. Instead, I will focus on the work I do, consistently try to do it better, and hope that the people with whom I work are happy with the end result.

And scream at the idiots running the stop sign on the corner because that affects our children’s safety.

Focus on what really matters.

Photography

Sunday Gallery: All The Pretty People

February 26, 2017

charles i. letbetter - all the pretty people

Still too busy to edit anything new

As I’m writing this, I’m waiting for yet another fashion show to start in Milan. To say this past week has been hectic would be a tremendous understatement. In the past four years, we’ve never gone this long without adding anything to the website. I feel bad about that.

I wish we had new pictures as well, but it would be unfair to ask anyone to come in for new pictures when I don’t have time to edit them immediately. We’ve made that mistake before. The pictures are still sitting there. Not making any promises on that front.

What I do have is a curated set of pretty people. Understand, when I use the term “pretty,” we are in no way talking about physical appearance. Pretty is who one is, the person they display, who you allow other people to see. Unfortunately, we’ve photographed a lot of people over the years who are attractive enough on the outside, but less so when it came to who they really were. The people in these pictures were wonderful, every last one of them. We would happily work with any of them again.

Sigh. For some reason all the pretty people keep disappearing, moving away, getting on with their lives. I do wish they’d come back occasionally.

As always, click on any thumbnail to open the full slideshow.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”10946″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

Photography

Scattered Pictures: A Gallery

February 19, 2017

Found on the digital floor

I never have been the most graceful person on the planet. I trip over nothing, fall over anything, and have an uncanny ability to not see that giant obstruction standing directly in my path. I’ve gone through life with a never-ending array of cuts and bruises on my shins, knees, hips, and elbows. There’s always a sore spot somewhere.

What makes being clumsy especially challenging is what happens when you’re carrying something. How many white shirts did I ruin with a splash of coffee before I learned to stop wearing them? All it would take is one loose thread in the carpet, my foot would find it, and I’d stumble just enough to turn that white shirt brown. The more valuable the thing I was carrying, the more troubling the fall would be.

It doesn’t seem all that long ago when one of the things I would frequently carry were trays of photo slides. Those things never were secure and it never seemed to take much to upend the whole thing and send slides scooting across the floor. There would always be a few that would escape under some random piece of furniture and not found until months later.

Finding those random slides, though, could be exciting, if they weren’t ruined. They would bring back to memory some long-forgotten photo shoot, or a model who we hadn’t seen in years, or stories of some little out-of-the-way place I couldn’t find again. Then would come the challenge of trying to find the rest of the original set and returning the slide to its proper place.

We don’t have those problems with digital files, obviously, but we do have problems of another kind. Namely, I’m really bad about nesting folders and then giving them some bland label that does nothing to tell me what’s nested inside. Only when I’m desperately searching for an image I know exists somewhere in this mess do I occasionally come across those folders and become sidetracked by their contents.

Hence, this week’s gallery. I won’t embarrass myself by saying how far down the nesting chain these were, but it’s been a couple of years since this folder was opened. What’s here are some of my favorites from that collection. There’s no real cohesion, as they were specifically processed to go with specific articles somewhere back in the long ago but not too terribly far, far away. They’re just pictures scattered across the digital floor that we picked up and dusted off for your enjoyment.

As always, clicking on any thumbnail opens the full gallery slideshow.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”10897″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

Art / Photography / PotD

Repeat Performance

February 15, 2017

We’ve been a bit busy

In fact, we’ve been wholly consumed by New York Fashion Week, and it’s not going to get any better with London, Milan, and Paris still to go. We’ve not had time to edit or curate any photos. So, we thought we’d take a quick look at just a few people who have made repeat appearances in front of our camera. These are some of our most favorite people in the whole world and they’ve let us do some really crazy things with them. Mind you, this isn’t everyone by a long shot. We just wanted to keep the number of photos manageable.

Have fun!

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”10826″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

Current Issues / News & Comment

Smaller Is Better

February 10, 2017

Fashion powerhouse LVMH is on the prowl

The Short Version

As the fashion industry spends the next month looking at new styles, some of those people sitting on the front row are more interested in a brand’s bottom line more than what’s coming down the runway. Fashion mega holding group LVMH has changed its strategy from buying large, successful brands to smaller, up-and-coming designers that have yet to make it big. The result is making a lot of designers nervous.

A Little More Detail

Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy (LVMH) is one of fashion’s largest conglomerates. It owns brands you know such as Marc Jacobs, Christian Dior, Kenzo, Fendi, and Givenchy, among several others. They also own a number of high-end wine and spirit brands and a few other things in the luxury category. They’re big, they’re powerful, and they are extremely well financed. They have plenty of money to throw at most anything they want to purchase.

In the past, the LVMH strategy has been to purchase only known brands, fashion labels that were established, well recognized and profitable. The conglomerate would infuse their purchase with enough capital to fuel extensive growth in an effort to make them super brands. For the most part, that strategy has worked.

However, LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault says that the company is changing its purchase strategy. Instead of going for the big brands, they’re looking for smaller labels that address a niche spot in the market. An example would be their purchase of German baggage label Rimowa late last year. Chance are, unless one travels to Europe frequently, one has never heard of Rimowa. Expect that to soon change. That’s exactly the strategy the group is taking toward fashion as well.

If they’re looking at anyone specific, though, they’re keeping their mouths shut about it and that silence has everyone on edge. There are several smaller brands, from Jason Wu to Adam Semalt, showing in New York this week that could be a good fit for the conglomerate’s new strategy. There are plenty of others in London, Milan, and Paris as well. The question is whether the label’s growth pattern is sufficient to warrant their purchase.

Smaller luxury brands have had it tough given the downturn in luxury sales over the past three years. Smaller labels don’t have as many flagship stores, if any, and are more dependent on department stores to fuel sales. Department stores have been sucking air of late with major chains such as Macy’s having to close hundreds of units. As a result, the attraction of big company money is very attractive to those trying to stay afloat.

Already this year, New York-based designer Bibhu Mohapatra has had to file for bankruptcy protection. Several other small brands could be looking at making similar moves if not closing altogether.

As a result, all eyes are on the front rows looking for any LVMH executive who might be checking out potential purchases. Almost everyone would like to be on LVMH’s list, but they typically make only two or three purchases a year when they’re in a buying mood. Still, several designers have their hopes set high. They’re putting in a little more effort to this week’s presentations, a little more pomp, a little more glamour, hoping to prove they are worthy of a significant investment.

Only time will tell whether the effort will pay off.

Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment

Defying Authority

February 9, 2017

Retailers don’t care who Ivanka’s daddy is, they’re not carrying her junk.

The Short Version

Retailers including Nordstrom and T.J. Maxx have dumped Ivanka Trump’s fashion line, saying that the products were cheaply made and not selling well. Ivanka’s daddy, who just happens to be president of the United States, tweeted his anger toward Nordstrom yesterday. Not only did the tweets not have the desired effect, it once again draws attention to the ethics issues raised by the president’s business holdings.

A Little Background

Fashion retail is a challenging market, as we’ve discussed several times before. Several once-popular chains have gone completely under. So, it makes sense that a store would stop selling anything that doesn’t sell well. Back in January, department store Nordstrom, as well as T.J. Maxx and Marshall’s, announced that they were dropping the entire Ivanka Trump line because they didn’t sell well last year. Any sane business person would have done the same thing.

Unfortunately, it is an insane businessman we have elected as president.

What The President Said

Yesterday, almost a month after Nordstrom and other retailers dumped his daughter’s label, the president issued this tweet:

My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017

Typically, that would be bad news for Nordstrom. Other times the president has tweeted about a company, their stock took a dive. Not this time.

That’s right, the company’s stock value went UP after the president’s tweet. Could it be that the great orange one holds no sway over fashion? That would certainly seem to be the case.

The Washington Post quotes Indiana University retail merchandising professor Mary Embry on the matter:

“Politics certainly do matter in fashion,” she said, “but the strength of the Nordstrom stock validates the strength of the decision making of that retailer that is based on absolutely knowing its customer.”

Also, she said: “The president is not seen as having any particular expertise on fashion.”

The Fallout

The loss of influence may not be the only consequence of the president’s actions. While the tweet was initially issued from the president’s personal account, it was later re-tweeted from the official @POTUS account. That would appear to be a serious ethics violation, using his position as president to influence a business on his daughter’s behalf. That is a very big no-no in both business and political circles.

Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told the Associated Press: “The implicit threat was that he will use whatever authority he has to retaliate against Nordstrom, or anyone who crosses his interest.”

Ethicists all over the country have been weighing in on social media and while some defend the president’s use of his private account to defend his daughter, there is very little question that retweeting the message on the president’s official account is definitely crossing a line.

This adds to a growing list of ethics concern that could eventually end up as part of a Congressional investigation, though the president and Congressional leadership are doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. However, Congress cannot stop the growing number of lawsuits against the president for breaching ethics issues. Already, the president is facing multiple lawsuits over his failure to fully divest his business holdings as other presidents have done. Most damaging may be a lawsuit that claims the president has violated the Emoluments clause of the Constitution. Should the courts ultimately decide against the president, then Congress would be compelled to take action against him.

For all the reasons for opposing the President, ethics is the one over which he has total control. He doesn’t have to tweet at all. He doesn’t have to comment. He chooses what, when, and where he is going to speak. The entire ethics argument could go away overnight were the president to simply keep his hands in his pockets and be more presidential in what he says. Unfortunately, this president seems to be incapable of either of those things.

Over at T.J. Maxx, employees have been instructed to remove all Ivanka Trump merchandise from their shelves and place the branded signs in the trash.

If only it were so easy to remove the president.

Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment

What is #tiedtogether

February 9, 2017

A new movement is underway in the fashion industry

The Short Version

Digital fashion magazine Business of Fashion (BOF) introduced the #tiedtogether campaign this week, just in time for the ready-to-wear fashion season. Its aim is to provide a focus point for unity and inclusiveness by asking people to wear white bandanas.

A Little More Detail

There’s not a whole lot more to write on the matter. BoF’s own #tiedtogether page is rather brief and void of too many details. The movement is in response to the significant silence on the part of the fashion industry as a whole regarding recent world events, such as the US travel ban and the impact of more nation-centric trade deals. Fashion brands must have a global presence to be successful, but things such as travel limitations and high import fees/tariffs can not only strain the business side of fashion but create animosities between people from different countries.

Few fashion brands have bothered to say much about political situations for fear the backlash might hurt business. While there was some dustup last month regarding which designers might dress the new First Lady of the United States, most companies have chosen to not take a stand. The most notable exception is Levi’s, the denim jean maker, which signed on to an amicus brief for the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the travel ban.

BoF’s movement is admirable, to be sure. With the world seeming to fray at the edges, it would seem that we could do with a little more unity and inclusiveness. The question is whether people are actually interested in either. The distance between political ideologies is extreme and in many camps, unity is seen as a compromise that favors the evil of the other side and inclusiveness is pretty much the same as fraternizing with the enemy. The strength of the #Resist movement is an example of the challenges to finding or creating a global sense of unity around most any topic.

Fashion is not immune from politics and the question designers and labels face now is how much of their personal attitudes and feelings to allow into their work. Under previous circumstances, the conventional wisdom has been to keep the two separate. However, there are some notable exceptions to that rule, the most obvious probably being Dame Vivienne Westwood and her strong stand for environmental causes. Much of the rest of fashion, however, prefers to remain quiet.

#tiedtogether did get an important endorsement last night as all the models walking in the Tommy Hilfiger show on Venice Beach were wearing white bandanas imprinted with #tiedtogether on their wrists. Even the designer had one tied to his belt loop as he made the finale walk. If BoF can convince other designers to incorporate the concept into their shows in a similar fashion, the idea might have a chance of catching on, at least as an accessory idea.

Still, we’ve seen this type of movement before. Just because people wear a bandana, or a plastic bracelet with a certain inscription, or a given set of beads, doesn’t mean that they actually subscribe to the philosophy behind the symbol. Wearing every white bandana in the world has little effect if the people wearing them do not genuinely believe in unity and inclusiveness across the deep chasm of political divide. The white bandana risks becoming just another fashion trend with no real substance behind it.

What’s missing in this movement is an example, someone or something that demonstrates what unity and inclusiveness mean in the fashion world. If we’re talking racial inclusiveness, which has been a problem for fashion shows, then seeing more diversity on the runway would be a good start. If we’re talking about gender inclusiveness, then the trend toward mixed men’s and women’s show is a start, but seeing more transgender models on the runway would be a significant step forward. Size diversity has been a significant issue, but only a handful of designers have done anything on that front. There are options and those options have always been there. The industry has been frequently criticized for not embracing those options before now. Are we to expect that a white bandana can be the thing that makes a difference?

BoF is certainly trying hard to get as many designers, editors, models, and bloggers on board as possible. Just getting industry insiders to understand and sign on to the concept is a herculean effort. While we applaud BoF for taking the initiative in starting this campaign, however, we remain skeptical of any real change. We’ve seen other campaigns for inclusivism before and watched as major designers totally ignored them. We will be watching carefully to see if a white bandana can actually make a difference.

Fashion / Fashion Review

Ready For Fashion

February 8, 2017

What we’re expecting from upcoming fashion weeks

The Short Version

Disruption continues this season as some designers abandon New York and challenges to the traditional fashion shows increase. Our fashion week coverage for Pattern magazine begins tonight with the Tommy Hilfiger show on Venice Beach in California. We’re expecting a lot of changes in methodology but don’t know if those changes carry over to the styles themselves.

What’s Going On

New York Fashion Week officially starts tomorrow, Thursday, with Nicholas K at 10:00 AM. So, naturally, the first show we’re covering is tonight on Venice Beach. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

Yeah, I’m having some problem with the logistics myself. Doing NYFW in LA is definitely a continuation of the disruption that started last September. Tommy Hilfiger is taking the lead on Venice Beach, with yet another extravaganza likely to be even larger than the carnival on the boardwalk last season. He’s not the only one who is abandoning NY in search of a younger, possibly more hip audience. Rachel Comey and Rebecca Minkoff are also doing LA. We’re rather used to designers occasionally hopping to Paris or London for a season, but moving to LA is something new. This has a lot of people asking if New York is still the center of American fashion. For now, it is, but be sure that many questions will be asked about what might happen in the future.

There are some serious absences on the schedule this season. DKNY is out. Open Ceremony is out. Rodarte is moving to the couture schedule and no one is quite sure exactly what Tom Ford is doing—some kind of film. Oh, and did I mention the strange mashup between Oscar de la Renta and

Oh, and did I mention the strange mashup between Oscar de la Renta and Monse? This one is going to interesting to watch. Remember, Oscar de la Renta has a new creative team, Fernando Garcia and Laura Kim. Despite Carolina Herrera’s efforts to block Kim from working for the storied house, they are presenting their collection on time. Here’s the catch: Garcia and Lim also have a separate line, Monse, which they started a few years ago. Monse has a similar aesthetic to de la Renta, but doesn’t have the audience or market share. So, the creative team is combining the two shows. Confusing? Almost inevitably.

Then, there’s Raf Simons at Calvin Klein. All I can tell you is that they’ve moved up on the schedule to Friday morning. We’ve been trying to get in touch with their PR team but, as of this writing, haven’t had any luck doing so.

What’s happening in New York is spreading to the other cities: London, Milan, and Paris. There are new creative teams we’ve not seen before in addition to the usual spate of designers hopping houses. In fact, we’re expecting some interesting good-bye parties at Chloé and Givenchy with Claire Waight Keller and Ricardo Tisci both having announced they’re leaving but no word as to where they’re going.

Because there are so many questions and not a lot of answers, we’re changing the way we’re covering the shows. I’ll be doing fewer reviews than previous seasons—no 24-hour writing marathons. We will be trying to go into more detail on the collections we do cover. We’ve been actively trying to make contact with the labels so that we can provide a deeper level of information. We’ll also have more pictures and try to talk more about the clothes and accessories.

So, here we go with another season. As always, our reviews are exclusively on Pattern. We hope you’ll join us.

Editorial / Photography / PotD

Beauty In The Cold: A New Gallery

February 5, 2017

charles i. letbetter - beauty in the cold

Loren Hawk defies the snow

Weather or not

The weather seems to be working against us. Each time we’ve planned on shooting outdoors, it has thrown some manner of difficulty at us, challenging and changing our plans at the very last minute. This shoot was no different.

There wasn’t snow in the forecast when we scheduled Loren Hawk’s return in front of the camera. Cold, yes, but no snow. Yet, we woke up not only to a lawn covered in white, but occasional squalls that momentarily sparked fear for what might happen next. Fortunately, the squalls were short, accumulation was small, and we were able to continue with only minor changes.

You’ve likely already seen part of this shoot. Loren brought along a friend, Melinda, and Melinda brought along her friend, Bella. We convinced both of them to participate and published those pictures on Tuesday. You can see the gallery here.

Our primary attention, however, was on Loren. It’s been a year and a half since we covered her in paint. This time, we decided it might be more fun to capture her softer, more thoughtful side. After all, Loren is a wonderfully intelligent young woman, something that too many people miss when looking at her pictures. We wanted to catch images that are closer to the every-day person, not just the model.

But then, it snowed.

If Loren was terribly concerned about the weather, it didn’t show. Well, not much. She didn’t really enjoy giving up her warm coat to stand in the middle of the sidewalk on Mass. Ave. She didn’t shy away from it, either, though. She handed her coat to Melinda and off we went.

The snow provided just enough context for the season. The squalls hit while we were driving downtown but managed to stop by the time we were ready to shoot. You’ll see the white blur of a few snowflakes in some of the shots, but for the most part we had little interference.

Kat had fun playing with Loren’s hair and used a very careful approach with her makeup so as to keep it lighter and more natural. We’ve gone darker on other shoots and wanted to stay away from anything that might appear too moody.

Having Loren here was fun. We certainly don’t want to wait another year and a half before she returns. Enjoy the pictures.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Current Issues / Fashion / News & Comment

Dress Like A Woman

February 4, 2017

More misogyny from the White House

The Short Version

#DressLikeAWoman started trending overnight as word of an unofficial White House dress code that is more strict for women than men began to circulate. Women have been posting pictures of themselves in various styles to emphasize that there is no wrong way for a woman to dress.

Wait, Haven’t We Been Here Before?

Yes, yes we have. We’ve covered the topic of what is appropriate for women to wear no fewer than three times in just the past year:

Ciara & The Double Standard was posted almost exactly a year ago after a number of closed-minded people made too big a deal over the evening gown Ciara wore while singing the national anthem at the Super Bowl.
Modesty Doesn’t Become You got a lot of attention nine months ago when Kat ultimately left a job because someone didn’t like the way she dresses.
Appropriate Fashion Is Whatever You Want was our post last September in response to France attempting to dictate what women wear on the beach.

So yeah, we’ve covered this general topic before. The fact that we have reason to discuss it again is rather disturbing.

What’s The Big Deal This Time?

This time around, the issue is an apparent double-standard in the unofficial White House dress code. We have to say “unofficial” because, officially, the White House doesn’t actually have a dress code. However, as presidents inevitably come and go, each one sets a different tone for how people dress.

For example, Jimmy Carter wore blue jeans in the oval office, something that really upset a lot of people at the time. So much so, that when Ronald Reagan became president he immediately reversed the trend and even required male reporters to wear ties inside the White House. President Clinton was, again, more relaxed, and, again, President Bush made things a bit more formal. Most recently, President Obama was known to not wear a jacket in the Oval Office and aides often came to meetings wearing t-shirts and jeans. So, it’s not the least bit surprising that as we return to largely Republican leadership fashion preferences run a more formal direction.

What got everyone up in arms, though, was an article from former Politico writer Mike Allen in his new newsletter Axios. Citing an anonymous source (which we consider questionable at all times), Mr. Allen wrote:

Trump likes the women who work for him “to dress like women,” says a source who worked on Trump’s campaign. “Even if you’re in jeans, you need to look neat and orderly.” We hear that women who worked in Trump’s campaign field office—folks who spend more time knocking on doors than attending glitzy events—felt pressure to wear dresses to impress Trump.”

That was all it took for women everywhere, especially those who already dislike the president and his policies, to take offense and start asking, “How is a woman supposed to dress?” then answering the question themselves with pictures.

While the article has no actual authoritative quote from the president or anyone on his staff, such a dress code requirement from this White House isn’t unbelievable. After all, this is the same man who, while on the campaign trail, rated women on a scale of 1 to 10 and insulting women who criticized him in any way. His misogynistic tendencies are already well known and well documented.

By questioning the White House dress code, however, we are at the same time questioning all dress codes where more emphasis is placed on how women dress over men’s styling. This isn’t an uncommon occurrence among businesses, especially those in more traditional industries such as banking and finance. The president is far from being the only one with antiquated ideas of how a woman should dress.

Does that give the White House a pass, though? Absolutely not. If anything, the White House should be the one setting an example of inclusion and self-definition.

Oh, wait, this White House doesn’t understand those words, does it?

In the end, this is an issue the entire business community needs to address, not just the White House. That we cannot depend on the White House to show any leadership on the matter is just sad.

Really sad.

Answering The Question

Thousands of women have already posted their pictures on twitter with the hashtag, #DressLikeAWoman. Here are some of our favoriates so far:

I’m a marine biologist and I #DressLikeAWoman , mostly in bathing suits pic.twitter.com/LzKfMEEXj5

— camila caceres (@Camila13Caceres) February 4, 2017

I am an #actuallivingscientist (or so it feels) and naturally I #DressLikeAWoman at work. pic.twitter.com/aKr2Kc9bWL

— Laura Baudis (@lbaudis) February 4, 2017

#DressLikeAWoman like this? pic.twitter.com/UyKwnipPoA

— Karen Sue Castle (@KareCastle) February 4, 2017

@YWCAToronto @papillon4444 I like this one best because they’re also defeating Nazis, defending human rights, liberty… #DressLikeAWoman pic.twitter.com/dSdt3hVL5H

— WheezySmurf (@snoopmary) February 4, 2017

Here I am #DressLikeAWoman while loving on our Muslim neighbors & #resisting @realDonaldTrump‘s illegal #muslimban pic.twitter.com/g8keNZybir

— Millie (@millieryb) February 4, 2017

#Repost @shopmombasa
・・・
How do you #DressLikeAWoman? #resist #defendscience #climatechan… https://t.co/o95V5IEA0d pic.twitter.com/kgnPxZXExt

— NubianOne (@NubiaOneSpeaks) February 4, 2017

Just trying something new out today #dresslikeawoman pic.twitter.com/WVQGRzz2MX

— HoverClosetoInsanity (@HoveringClose) February 4, 2017

I wear a lot of things, but I always #DressLikeAWoman, because I am one. pic.twitter.com/rim7seeGUF

— Samantha Oester (@samoester) February 4, 2017

Sorry @potus I forgot my pearls. I was too busy becoming an #Ironman #DressLikeAWoman pic.twitter.com/2FQHYuENLK

— Becky Aaronson (@RunBeRun) February 4, 2017

Whatever a woman chooses to wear is dressing like a woman. Any questions?

Art / PotD

Fake Nudes

February 1, 2017

http://www.charlesiletbetter.com/then-this-happened/

Because, you know, we’d never publish real naked people. Never. Period.

Trying to stay current

A couple of different Facebook conversations yesterday led to this mini gallery. One came from a photographer who mentioned that his models were not nude, but that they are “alternatively clothed.”

My response was that they must have been wearing the Emperor’s label. If you don’t get it, you must not have been paying attention in second grade.

Then, in regard to my own post about reading articles before liking them, one person commented that she only looks at the pictures.

I can see that. A lot of people prefer the pictures over the stories that go with them. So, I told her I would consider doing a mini gallery of fake nudes. This is that gallery.

They’re not really nude, of course. No, not at all. Not even close. At least, not by White House definitions. This is the way the world works now. We just turn everything upside down and backward and call it whatever the hell we want.

Honestly, I don’t care what you call them. Just enjoy.

This person is not nude

Don’t even think of calling this one a nude

She has a piercing, so she’s not naked

Isn’t the necklace beautiful? See, not nude at all!

She’s clothed in sunlight and shadow

This is not nude. Period.

Look, if she was really nude would she just be sitting there?

This is a figure study and figure studies are never nude

Navel piercing = not nude

Just For Fun / Photography / PotD

Bella Comes To Play

January 31, 2017

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Are you sure you can handle this much cuteness?

Bella’s checking her email

We don’t shoot a lot of pets. You know the rule: never work with children and animals. That’s generally a pretty good rule to follow.

However, Bella’s mommy, Melinda, brought her along to a shoot we were doing with Loren Hawk. Bella, a long-haired chihuahua, was so wonderfully well behaved and so adorably precious that we had no other choice than to include her in some of the pictures.

And who doesn’t need pictures of an adorable little puppy on a miserable Tuesday such as this?

Thanks to Kat for giving Melinda a touch of makeup and hair manipulation. Melinda didn’t come prepared to participate. Surprise!

Enjoy this break from all the worries of the world. Follow Bella’s example and just chill.

Trying to stay warm while the silly humans play in the snow

Ooh, is that snack for ME?

Mommy loves Bella soooo much!

Bella was alert but very well behaved

Bella! International pup of mystery and intrigue

Wait, you want me to kiss you ON CAMERA?

As pretty as Loren and Melinda are, Bella was still easily distracted by the cats roaming the room

Hanging around outside, staying close to mom

Everyone loves Bella!

Bella’s checking her email

Fashion / Photography

Sunday Gallery: Moments Of Beauty

January 29, 2017

charles i. letbetter - moments of beauty

We need to find the beauty in an ugly world

[dropcap]I found it difficult to curate a gallery for this week. My heart just wasn’t in it. Our eyes have been glued to news reports and wire feeds as thousands of people have been stranded, detained, and/or deported at our nation’s airports. They are victims, innocent victims of the president’s illegal immigration order the excludes people from seven countries from entering the US. Never mind that these people have legal work visas and green cards. Never mind that they have family members here who are relying upon them, waiting for them. Never mind they have employers who need them. The president’s order was a giant “fuck you” to all of them without regard, and a “fuck you” to the entire country.[/dropcap]

With all that going on, trying to find pictures along any kind of theme for this morning was impossible. I gave serious consideration to skipping this week’s gallery altogether. But no, when in moments of crisis, we need things that are beautiful. We need to see the beauty in our fellow human beings.

I’m sorry I don’t have pictures of anyone from the countries directly banned by the president. People in that situation rarely make it in front of anyone’s camera. They prefer to live quiet, unassuming lives with their families. They don’t take any chances.

So, for this week, we chose what I call “second glance” images, those pictures I probably didn’t choose on my first pass through a set, but have come to like for some reason or another. I hope they will bring a moment of beauty into your day, perhaps your life. Enjoy.

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”9846″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

Current Issues / Long Read / Photography

Extreme Vetting

January 28, 2017

What if photographers vetted models like the president proposes vetting immigrants?

Is this really necessary

The United States already has one of the most stringent and difficult vetting processes for people who are wanting to immigrate to our country. In some cases, depending on where one is from, it can take over three years for the vetting process to be completed. When the president signed orders yesterday that completely halts the flow of immigration he also ordered “extreme” vetting for those who still have a chance of getting in.

We disagree with the president and his policies on immigration. We not only find them unnecessary, we find them, in many cases, inhumane and possibly cruel. The new policies turn away refugees desperately in need of an escape from unfathomably cruel and hostile treatment in their own country. While there are millions of refugees worldwide, only a handful ask to come to the US. Even under existing law, a significant number are still turned away.

As Americans, we already have blood on our hands dating back to World War II. We repeatedly turned away and refused requests for asylum from jews who were under persecution from the Nazi regime. We even turned away Anne Frank’s family and well all know how horribly that turned out.

While we understand the need to keep our country safe and protect terrorists from gaining access and doing harm, we are largely certain that goal can be achieved while still addressing the humane need to provide a safe haven for refugees and other immigrants. Already, very few actual terrorists make it through our challenging system. It is far more likely that someone who is already here becomes radicalized after witnessing and/or experiencing the process through which we subject would-be immigrants. The president’s new policies are almost certainly going to result in a significant loss of life as refugees, once again, are turned away. Once again, their blood is on our hands.

So absurd it’s funny

To highlight the absurdity of extreme vetting, we wondered what it might be like if photographers subjected their models to the same level of intense questioning given to would-be immigrants. Certainly, there would be a lot fewer pictures being taken, and quite possibly the problem of people canceling for stupid reasons or just not showing up at all might be eliminated. We gave the matter considerable thought (we even slept on it) and imagine that the initial intake interview might look something like the following conversation. P is the photographer. M is the would-be model. Just for fun, let’s assume the photographer in this scenario is large, bald, sporting an unkempt goatee, and smelling of salami.

The model is ushered into a bare, dimly lit room that contains nothing more than a single gray metal table and two matching chairs. On the side of the table facing the door sits the photographer holding a manilla folder containing the girl’s model application. On one side of the table sits a half-full cup of coffee that has already left a couple of brown rings on the table. On the other side sits an unopened bottle of water.

Glancing up from the folder, the photographer begins:

P: Have a seat, Miss … ?

M: Hornswaggle. Periwinkle Hornswaggle.

P: (Scoffing) That’s quite a mouthful of a name you have there, Miss Hornswaggle. You don’t actually expect to make it as a model with a horrible name like that, do you?

M: Well, I don’t know, I hadn’t given it much tho…

P: You’ll have to change it, but we can talk about that later. You have a lot of other steps to complete before you’ll get to that little detail. A lot of steps. You may not make it. In fact, I have to say, the majority of young women I see in here don’t make it. They give up. They go home. They end up having babies and doing drugs. Are you sure you’re up to being a model?

M: I … I guess so …

P: You GUESS so? You mean you aren’t sure?

M: I mean, yes. Yes, sir. I’m definitely up to being a model. I’ve dreamed of this my entire …

P: Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard that before. Everyone has a dream. Only about one percent of those dreams ever come true, though. This is going to be a very challenging process. I hope you came prepared.

M: Well, I think so. I mean, yes, I’ve brought everything that is required, as well as some additional documentation and letters of reference that I hope will help.

P: That’s good. You’ll need all the positive references you can get. We don’t just let anyone model for us, you know. We can’t run any risks. We only accept those who are really committed to our work and to making our photographs great. The greatest, actually. The best in the whole world. Period.

M: I’m ready to do everything I possibly can. You know, I even …

P: Now, the first matter, Miss Hornswaggle, is are you sure that you are human?

M: Human?

P: Yes, Human. We need to be quite sure that we aren’t allowing any aliens in front of our camera. Bad things happen when aliens get in front of cameras. A light flashes and their little slitted eyes don’t know how to respond and we get pictures that look just absolutely horrid, not to mention the whole tentacle problem.

M: Tentacle problem?

P: Tentacle problem. Aliens have them, you know. Tentacles. Long. Slimy. Reaching for things. Just ruins the equipment. Absolutely ruins it.

M: Well, yes, I’m human.

P: Can you prove that assertion, Miss Hornswaggle?

M: Prove? I’m not sure I understand what you mean. You’re looking at me. Can’t you tell that I’m human?

p: Visual appearance isn’t enough. Those aliens are tricky, you know. Always disguising themselves. I had one a few years ago that disguised herself as a floor lamp. She was bright as hell, too., Very bright. The brightest. Then we took her to the studio and she showed her true form. Scary. Very scary. And sad.

M: What kind of proof would you like?

p: We’ll need to do blood test unless you have a certificate from your doctor confirming that you are human.

M: Uhm, well, I brought my medical records as you requested (she hands him an inch-thick file).

P: (leafing through the papers in the file) Okay, we’ll have to confirm all of these, of course, but they seem to be sufficient for now. Are you hiding anything?

M: Hiding anything?

P: Hiding anything. You know, like drugs, alcohol, weapons, bobby pins, alternate hair colors, wigs, alternate gender replacement pieces, toe rings, anything that might ruin a photograph.

M: How do bobby pins ruin a …

P: That’s not a detail we need to get into, young lady. Now, are you hiding anything or not?

M: No, I’m not hiding anything at all.

P: Are you sure?

M: Yes!

P: (leaning forward) Are you VERY sure? I can have someone do a body cavity search, you know.

M: Yes! I’m positive! I’m not hiding anything!

P: Fine then. If we find out later that you’re lying you’ll be tossed out of here on your butt. Do you understand?

M: (looking frightened) Y-y-y-yes, sir.

P: How many parents do you have?

M: Uhm, two?

P: You seem a little unsure about that.

M: No, I’m certain I only have two, my mom and my dad.

P: And they’re both still living?

M: Yes.

P: How’s their health? How old are they? Neither of them are about to die, are they?

M: (confused) Uh, no, they’re both fine and healthy. I mean, my dad still smokes some when he thinks mom’s not looking, but …

P: So, he has cancer.

M: No! At least, not that anyone knows.

P: He’s keeping his cancer a secret?

M: He doesn’t have cancer!

P: What about contagious disease? Does your dad have any contagious diseases?

M: No, neither of my parents are contagious.

P: Do you live with them?

M: Who? My parents?

P: No, a herd of elephants. Of course, your parents.

M: No, I have an apartment with my boyfriend.

P: Oh, you have an undeclared boyfriend? What manner of worthless bum is he?

M: He’s not undeclared. I put his information on the form they gave me outside. And he’s not a bum. He works construction with his dad.

P: Okay, so you’re mooching off his old man.

M: No! We both work and we pay our own bills. We’re not mooching off anyone.

P: (Scoffs) Right. Does this boyfriend of yours have his own car?

M: Yes, we each have our own car.

P: What piece of junk do you drive?

M: A three-year-old Ford Escort.

P: Three years old, huh? That’s just about the time things start breaking on a car. Do you make enough to cover the repairs?

M: (uncertain) I-I suppose. I keep my oil changed and my tires rotated. You know, all the routine maintenance.

P: Yes, but what happens if you go out and your battery is dead? Would you be stuck?

M: I have jumper cables.

P: Do you know how to use them without blowing something up?

M: Yes.

P: (snorts) Sure. That’d be a first. What about a cell phone. Do you have a cell phone that actually works?

M: Yes (pulls phone from purse). Right here.

P: Is your service all paid up and active?

M: Yes, always.

P: Do you always keep it fully charged?

M: I do my best. I carry a mobile charger with me just in case.

P: You don’t have any annoying ringtones on that thing, do you?

M: I guess that depends on what you mean by annoying. I have some that are music, but …

P: They’ll have to go. I can’t tolerate anything but the normal ringtones. And I’d better not catch you sending text messages, either. I hate those things. They’re nothing but distractions. If you’re going to be a model you’ll have to be totally focused on the photoshoot at all times. No distractions of any kind. How many grandparents did you say you have?

M: You hadn’t asked, but I have three left.

P: (stands up and leans over the table) Don’t you be giving me any sass, young lady! I’ll toss you out of here so fast your hair will braid itself. Do you understand?

M: (backing away) Y-y-yes, sir. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean any disrespect.

P: You need to watch that mouth of yours. (huffs, then sits down and picks up the folder again) Now, how many grandparents do you have living?

M: Three. My grandpa on my mother’s side died before I was born.

P: Are they in good health? None of them are about to die, are they?

M: Well, my one grandma, my mom’s mom, is in a nursing home. She’s 96, so …

P: She could croak at any minute. Got it. What about the other two?

M: Yeah, uhm … (feeling emotional) They live in Florida. We don’t see them often. I guess they’re doing okay.

P: Florida? How lame. That’s just sad. Very sad. I suppose you’ll be going down there when one of them kicks the bucket.

M: (choking back tears) Well, yeah. Wouldn’t you?

P: Of course not! Why would I go to your grandparent’s funeral? I don’t even know them. They probably smell of lotion and ointment, anyway. I can’t stand people who smell of lotion and ointment. By the way, who normally cuts your hair?

M: (caught off guard by the sudden change of topic) Uhm, Allison at Topix Salon. Why does that matter?

P: Are you giving me sass again, young lady?

M: (shuddering) I’m sorry, no. I apologize.

P: What about tattoos? Do you have any tattoos?

M: Just one. I have my brother’s initials on my wrist. He was killed in a car accident last year. (She extends her arm to show him the tattoo)

P: Initials, huh? Are you sure that’s not part of some gang sign or terrorist code?

M: What? No! DNH. Donahue Notwithstanding Hornswaggle.

P: God, your family has stupid names. Okay, I’m ready for you to take your clothes off.

M: Excuse me? I didn’t think that was part of …

P: Look, I’ve got to know exactly what we’re dealing with, here. I don’t know what kind of mess you might be hiding under the clothes. We’ve had people try to sneak all kinds of propaganda into their shots. They think I don’t notice, but there’s nothing that gets past me. Stretch marks, c-section scars, boob jobs, hidden tattoos, nipple piercings—there’s none of it getting past me.

M: I’m not sure I’m comfortable …

P: I really don’t give two shits about whether you’re comfortable. Just strip and let’s get it over with. You don’t have anything I haven’t seen before. Just get to it.

M: I didn’t think you were allowed to …

P: I’m allowed to do whatever the fuck I want, young lady, and if you really want to be a model you’d better take those clothes off right now. I’m not letting you get any further in this interview until I see you naked.

M: (standing up and gathering her things) I’m sorry, that’s just too much. I … I don’t think I want to be a model anymore. (she begins to move toward the door)

P: Hold it right there, you little brat. I didn’t give you permission to leave. You walk out that door and there’s absolutely no chance of you ever being a model. I’ll blackball your ass. Doesn’t matter if you come back ten years from now and talk to a different photographer. They won’t let you through. You leaving now just proves what a horrible person you are. I’ve had my suspicions about you from the moment you walked in here. You don’t have what it takes to be a model! You can’t handle being a model! No other photographer is going to take you, either. I’m the greatest photographer in this town. No one else is as great as I am. I am the greatest and I don’t let just anyone model for me. You leave now and you’re pathetic. Just absolutely pathetic. Sad, even. Very sad.

M: (leaving) Yeah, I think being a fashion editor is easier than this bullshit. (door shuts behind her)

P: (Pulls out phone and starts tweeting) “Just turned away another pathetic wanna-be model. Didn’t have what it takes. Sad. She should have attended my workshop. #ExtremeVetting #MakePhotographyGreatAgain”

Now, if extreme vetting seems stupid in that situation, imagine just how much more ridiculous it would be stretched out over years of investigation. This is not making America great again. This is a disaster.

#Resist

#StayAngry

#WriteYourCongressperson

Current Issues / Fashion

Wet Seal Dries Up

January 27, 2017

Fashion retail takes another hit

The Short Version

Less than two weeks after American Apparel announced the closing of all its stores, teen-focused retailer Wet Seal announced yesterday that they are closing all 173 stores after failing to find an investor or alternative source of capital to continue funding operations. The closure marks another serious blow to traditional retail fashion as fast-fashion stores such as H&M and Forever21 continue to dominate the sector.

(more…)

Art / Just For Fun / Photography

#AlternativeFacts: A Mini Gallery

January 24, 2017

Because no one tells lies anymore

#AlternativeFacts became one of the leading headlines over the weekend and we just couldn’t resist the temptation to play with some of our own. While we’ve seen some creative memes, we went more for the obnoxiously overstated. These are some of the most “alternative” facts we could find. All are things we’ve heard said in the past by real people who thought they were being smart. At the time, we thought they were idiots. Now, we find out they were just being “alternative.”

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”9765″ layout=”contain” columns=”2″]

Photography / PotD

Strong Women: A Gallery

January 22, 2017

Beauty and glamor does not make a woman any less powerful

Over the years, I’ve photographed hundreds of thousands of women. Many were beautiful models, but many were not. Every last one of them, however, has been a wonderfully unique individual. So, when someone comes along disparaging women in any way, I tend to take offense. I despise the stereotype of the air-headed model who doesn’t know anything more than how to look good. Sure, there have been a couple over the years who seem to match that description, but the vast majority are far from that. Even those who might appear somewhat clueless are usually hiding strong qualities that are not immediately evident.

So, for today’s gallery, I decided to choose a group of photos specifically highlighting some of the strongest women I’ve known, specifically focusing on images from 2003-2008 just to keep things under control. Among those, you’ll find photos of Cherokee women quilting and doing beadwork. You’ll also find the late Anne McCaffery, author of the Dragonriders Of Pern series. You’ll find musicians, dancers, actors, designers, accountants, lawyers, immigrants, and so many others that I can’t remember them all.

If I were to include all the strong women I’ve ever shot the gallery would go on for pages. They are the rule, not the exception. Enjoy.

[Remember, click on an image to view the gallery in slideshow mode.]

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”9692″ layout=”contain” columns=”4″]

12 3 4 5 6 7

Page 1 of 7

glamor

Share this:

Like this:

Sometimes we just want to try something different

Share this:

Like this:

Fashion retail is failing because we prefer to dress like bums

The Short Version

Defining The Situation

A Slow Progression

Fashion On The Ropes

Unpopular conclusions

Share this:

Like this:

Not every choice is a good one.

Share this:

Like this:

Monday’s news fuels Tuesday’s fallout

Share this:

Like this:

Current trends and historical comparisons don’t paint a pretty picture for the fashion industry

The Short Version

The Long Cut

Share this:

Like this:

Sometimes the best photos are overlooked

Share this:

Like this:

There are a few that will always stand out

Prabal Gurung

Calvin Klein

Marc Jacobs

Burberry

Antonio Marras

Missoni

Dries Van Noten

Christian Dior

Andreas Kronthaler For Vivienne Westwood

Stella McCartney

Share this:

Like this:

Rethinking the ethics of Photoshop is missing the point of Photoshop

The Short Version

A Bit Of Background

They Made Me Angry

What Does The Retouchers Accord Say

About that “fake news” line

The Image

The RAW image

First revision

Second Revision

Third Revision

Fourth Revision

Fifth Revision

So, where’s all the fake stuff?

The Proper Place For Fake Images

Conclusions and considerations

Share this:

Like this:

Still too busy to edit anything new

Share this:

Like this:

Found on the digital floor

Share this:

Like this:

We’ve been a bit busy

Share this:

Like this:

Fashion powerhouse LVMH is on the prowl

The Short Version

A Little More Detail

Share this:

Like this:

Retailers don’t care who Ivanka’s daddy is, they’re not carrying her junk.

The Short Version

A Little Background

What The President Said

The Fallout

Share this:

Like this: