Catalogue & Print

© simon stewart 2014

For the last few days I have been interviewing female models who replied to an ad my studio ran looking for individuals for catalogue modelling.

Fashion photography is a fairly general term and specifically includes a number of extremely varied disciplines. Not all fashion photographers are suitable for all aspects of fashion photography and likewise not all models are either.

A major part of my business is catalogue work. Some believe it to be the least sexy side to the industry, the "Coalface of Fashion."

Commercial catalogue work is by brief definition: capturing images for designers and manufacturers and or importers/wholesalers/retailers of ranges of garments and accessories with the specific intention of making the garment as appealing as possible while maintaining  a high degree of clarity with respect to garment detail. Catalogue images require the garment to be the hero and the model definitely in line for a bronze if on the podium at all.

So What Qualities am I After ?

My clients generally are looking for a model to fit a UK size 8/10 dress,  shoe size 7 and be a height of not less than 1.7m  Models MUST fit the garment and not the other way around.

There is a bit of flexibility with height and weight - certainly considerably more than in high fashion work - but those are the parameters that we are generally after. In addition, I look for a well proportioned frame with a pleasing torso to leg ratio. No skinny calves if I am shooting legs and no overdeveloped quads if the dress is above the knee or the garment is a short pant.

Good forearm to upper arm balance is also important if I am shooting sleeveless garments. A heavy upper arm will need to be "slimmed" in post production. Uniform and symmetrical features and good skin is a plus as again the sheer volume of images required for catalogue prohibit excessive post production work due to budget constraints.

Poise, balance and grace in movement, relaxed hands and shoulders as well as joint flexibility are all aspects that I desire in a model. A pleasant demeanour and eagerness to accept direction are givens.  Eight hours and fifty garment changes are enough to test any models sense of humour - so best you start out with one.

The "Interview."

Anyone who has been to Studio Yellow knows it's a pretty chilled and comfortable environment. Once the model come through to the studio I always start off with a portrait style headshot. It allows me a few minutes to look at the models features as I set up the shot. We chat a bit, so I get to know the model a bit better and hopefully for her it's calming plus she gets a portrait to take home and give to Gran or whatever.  Frankly by the time the portrait is over - and it never takes longer than 2 to 3 minutes - I know if the model is going to make the short list.

© simon stewart 2014

We then head over to the high key stage and shoot some classic poses;  full on and 3/4 looks
and try a few variations of whatever comes to mind dependant on the model and the garment she is wearing.

© simon stewart 2104

I always shoot tethered and  the images are displayed on a 30 inch Mac cinema screen at the work station for the client to view as well as a 42 inch Sony Bravia opposite the high key shooting area purely for the models to monitor their posing.

At this point I often discuss typical posing problems with regards to hands and eyes, tense shoulders etc not only to try and assist the model for future gigs - hopefully at my studio - but also to ascertain the responsiveness of the candidate and how well advice - which could be construed as criticism - is taken.

Quite often the model may have been influenced by fashion editorial poses and it takes me a while to convince them that catalogue and editorial are worlds apart.

In catalogue the objective is to show the garment off as much as possible. Hands and hair covering crucial detail and elements of the garment structure - no matter how cool or trendy it may look -  will have a client asking for a refund or reshoot in no time.

Generally this exercise takes ten or so minutes and we fire off maybe 20 shots as we chat away. It is always enthralling for me that after such a short time we generally capture a fairly decent useable commercial shot even if the model has had no real previous experience.

Commercial modelling is not for the feint hearted. Too many models chasing too few gigs drives the daily rate down and expect early call times and a full days work. It is however a portal into the Fashion Modelling industry - no matter how humble.

Is CMOS showing CCD the bird

I see that the Danes next biggest export product after Lego and maybe canned pork and butter, Phase One, have introduced a new digital back of 50 Megapixels using a CMOS chip made by Sony. 

Digital medium format cameras up till now have only been CCD chipped (Leaf did have an unsuccessful dab at CMOS in 2001) so this really is quite a departure from design fundamentals. Why you may ask? 

Quick answer - Higher ISO's

The older generation of pros who moved from film to digital were never affected by the low ISO values of digital backs as our backgrounds were such that shooting film at sub 100 ASA's (digital ISO) was the norm. The first Leaf digital back I owned had a native ISO of 25 and a maximum of ISO100, I recall.

A whole generation of photographer exists now that have never used film at all.

That fact coupled with the way that useable ISO has been increasing as DSLR manufacturers dropped CCD (Canon in 2000) and focused on CMOS has meant a development of a new style and method of capturing images with available light. Does this mean though  that finally the CCD will be replaced in high end photography? To draw your own conclusion let's get a tad technical.

Simon Stewart©2014

Both CCD and CMOS chips convert light into electric charge and process it into electronic signals, that's where the similarity ends.

A CMOS sensor outputs digital bits and a CCD outputs an analog signal in the form of voltage.

In a CCD sensor, every pixel's charge is transferred through a very limited number of output nodes (often only one or two) which causes a bottleneck when the analog signal is being sent off chip for processing.

The upside of CCD's though is that all of the pixel can be devoted to light capture and the output's uniformity (a key factor in image quality) is high. As the CCD requires fewer on-sensor electronics this means that each photosite is bigger and can hold more charge.  The result is superior image quality with better dynamic range and more accurate colour rendition than CMOS. So a CCD should have better low light performance as well?  It would if the processing speeds were higher.

In a CMOS sensor, each pixel has its own charge-to-voltage conversion, so that the chip actually outputs digital bits not analogue voltage like a CCD.  With each pixel doing its own conversion, uniformity is lower, but it is also massively parallel, allowing sizzling speed. 

The contradiction here is that the less noisy CCD with bigger photo sites should have better low light performance. Not so - the advantage is that CMOS sensors not only have their own charge-to-voltage conversion but the sensor often also includes amplifiers, noise-correction, and digitization circuits, adding gain to an image. Circuitry is so close to each pixel, the camera can boost the exposure as it is recorded. Microlenses on a CMOS chip  assist photons find the photosites so they aren't "wasted" striking the other sensor components found on CMOS sensors. Tweaked CFA's (colour filter arrays) help improve ISO's albeit at the expense of perfect colour rendition.

The result is that faster on chip processing of a CMOS sensor produces better low light images than a CCD but not necessarily better IQ or CR.

Developments in the world of digital Medium Format are always slower and more deliberate than in 35mm. It really is an expense thing. At $35 000 a pop for a new digital back photographers are inclined to hold onto their equipment as long as it is delivering and meeting clients expectations.
Simon Stewart