shaw, you're right. i forgot. and as for the above discussion - i'm in quiet disbelief that
the folks think that it's either stick to what the greats do - or to burst their balls to be 'different'. well, neither is going to work is it. think about it. and to think that we are all, as creatives unaffected by social, cultural, visual and economic influences of our time is naive to say the least. we are ALL affected by our environment. all art is of it's time. to fight this is futile. as creatives we too often react and panic. to acknowledge what is going on around us, to ponder - and to then express is the purest conversation. it's then that we truly create and influence.

I was told by some of the great forum people here,(I understand what you are saying guys) that the only way to make it in fashion photography, is to re locate to Citys where the Mahazines are based, due to the cost of transporting photographers on top of fees.
I stayed in an area, with an extream landscape in a walking, or short distance from where I live in order to develope my own style of working, which is related as much as possible to nature, elements, and the figure.
Lets not forget that some creative people put there art before making money, becouse thats what they are all about.
Earning money from it is a great bonus.
Yes we are all influenced by society and the world around us, and in some cases being held back by the same elements,
being dictated to in our creative thinking processes today.
No matter how new the lens based technology is. New photographers exoperiment with the same effects with technology and so create a similar style of image,thats what happend with photo shop when it first came out, all fashion shots had the same sort of montages of ladies walking over buildings etc.
In the end no matter what the techology is it seems to come back to traditional styles in new form, I guess its what we are used to seeing.
Also, I do not see why photographers and creatives need to be based in one Central opint in order to work for media or magazines in a 21st Century world where wecomunicate across the world in seconds,our world as media junkies has never been better.

When I was young I learnt about Fox Talbot, George Eastmen, Edward Mullbridge,Bill Brandt,and all the founders of the photo techiques and processes, how many people today know who these people are, A lot of photographers think that they are,.
A lot of todays photographers think that tghey are good, but dont even know the techicall side of the camera becouse everything is automated for them.
In the modern photographers I was looking at the work of Will Vandethigsy? sorry I have not checked his full name out again, but he is in showstudios, technicaly his work is very good there is a great play on lighting, painting a black and white image.
To me as well as the greats in the past Ben that you keep refering to, who used platinum printing techniques and bromide Willys work is very good. Flux I am affraid to me lighting does play an important part of the image making, it creates mood.
Some very stromg views here poeple.
Thats why, sorry to mention it again I do not rate Terry very highly

Hi Tal, I've read your post a few times over. I like it. it's quite complex. I don't think that art is something we can ever rationalise. As a whole, there is no right, there is no wrong..it's one great and ever changing form of art work itself. But for the individual there is a dynamic right and wrong.

Or should I say, for the individual there CAN be a dynamic right and wrong.

11:11 thanks for the post. we have to criticise - we do - criticism is a form of rationalisation. the individual is the same as the whole. we make up the whole and are affected by it. my image making has taught me to be aware of the final goal - right or wrong. i realise that i'll be doing this work forever, and therefore my work is what i am now. you can reject what you do - or like it - but to think that makes a peice of work right or wrong keeps the effort contained.

shaw. was tryin to be kryptic but you are too clever - hmm... i thought. he guesssed me - pah. but now i'm honoured you did!

Hi Chris, I didn't say lighting wasn't important - no photos without light! - just that it isn't everything. You're the one person here who keeps mentioning composition, after all. And there's a few other things to play with too.

Also, I don't see why I can't like Horst AND Katy Grannan, or Avedon AND Pierre Gonnord, or Paul Outerbridge AND Sean Kennedy Santos - and so on. What's with all the 'them and us' stuff?

I think we are trying to say similar things...although I don't believe that the individual is the same as the whole. For the whole to be complete it must be both right and wrong.

"..but to think that makes a peice of work right or wrong keeps the effort contained..."

By saying dynamic I meant ever changing. What seems right can often feel or be wrong later. I don't think it's ever possible to contain it.

Sebastion. I liked your post. You do your thing.

11:11 we make up the whole - therefore we and it are the same. thanks for the existential challenge. are you a photographer?

At the end of the day, fashion photography means different things to different people, and thank god or there would be no industry at all! Variety is the spice of life and what one person likes another person does'nt. I wonder what some of you 'expert critics' think of David Lachapelles work? By the sounds of it humour has no place in art or commerce! Good luck enthusiasts!