The Daily Edit – Friday
7.8.11

- - The Daily Edit

NYLON

Art Director: Evan Campisi

Co-Art Director: Chris Segedy

Photo Director: Stephen Walker

Photographer: Hillary Walsh

Heidi Volpe

There Are 55 Comments On This Article.

  1. Steve Hlavac

    All due respect, I really find it hard to believe (apart from the wardrobe styling) a great deal of thought went into this. I’m sorry, but the idea of just dumping an extremely photogenic subject on someone’s front lawn and on the sidewalk in the MIDDLE of the day, IMO does not show much creativity…

  2. Steve, with all seriousness, thank you for speaking your mind. Our industry needs much more candor.

    I agree, these images are quite forgettable.

  3. I’ll be honest too. I haven’t seen a photo posted up on this Daily Edit yet that hasn’t been ripped on. Our different styles are what gives the photo community its variety. I for one like it. Nicely done Hilary & team.

  4. I do see an aesthetic going on here…. 70’s westcoast homegrown zine culture, etc…

    It does seem the images and photo were thought out, to match that idea/feeling, not so much out of pure laziness but out of a desire to recreate a time and place where photographers may have been less lighting oriented….

    I check out Hilary Walsh’s website, and she has a consistent visual idea going on….

    and yes, since day 1, some fashionable photos have been more about the model than the photographer or clothes…

  5. Diane Wallace

    I think part of what makes this set fail, for me, is that the story headline, “… brings a little bit of fantasy to both her music and her style”, really doesn’t seem to work with the images. There’s nothing very fantastic about the images in either the photography style (a snap-shot-y style, not my favorite but I get it) or the wardrobe styling, which is nice but also not “fantasy” in any way. Perhaps it’s more of a copywriting fail. I wouldn’t buy a magazine with this style of photography but I do agree with Matt in an appreciation of variety of styles.

  6. I really liked Hilary’s portfolios and I can see she likes to work with light but this is just blah. So was the creative direction just to take really bland snapshots? Please remind me what the point of this series is again and when will we return to regular posts.

      • No you are not annoying me – you’ll have to try a lot harder to do that. I have really enjoyed discovering the work of most of these photographers that I probably would not have seen if not for this series. But I would like to know more about the conceptual idea and creative brief that lead to these particular images being used. This series has broadened the spectrum of what people are looking for, at least for me. Hey this is my first blog stop each day.

  7. Tim Clark

    As a photo editor, I’m really enjoying this new feature. I don’t have time to check out every magazine I would like to look at on a regular basis, this gives me a chance to see what other magazines are doing.

    No matter what they are looking at, every photographer I know thinks they could have shot it better, it could have been used better in the magazine, they should have used a different image ect.

    Making a magazine is a collaborative effort and most photographers have no idea what’s really involved in producing a magazine. They are too quick to question other peoples work without understanding what’s really going on.

      • Tim Clark

        Scott,

        Really, you think I have a Compensatory Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

        • scott Rex Ely

          Tim, No I don’t think you in particular. I just thought while you were stereotyping “most photographers”, I thought I could try to figure out possibly just what it is about people that react to other people’s work in such a visceral way and maybe there was an explanation from a clinical viewpoint. I think if you look at the list under the Disease Perspective, I think you could find a few consistent behaviors for maybe a few of the worst, but maybe not necessarily for “most”.

  8. Different magazines have different looks–that’s the whole point of having different one. This editorial looks about right for Nylon, and I’m sure it’s readers will like it, which is the only measure of how “good” it is (it’s not trying to be anything else).

  9. c.d.embrey

    Every magazine has a look. These photos are consistant with Nylon’s look. She has worked with Nylon before, so they must like her work. Isn’t pleasing clients a major part of being a sucessful pro?

    • You’re most likely right, and more importantly isn’t survival of a magazine more dependent on the advertisers who provide the revenue, based on that magazine’s readership being their targeted market.

  10. I have to say its sad to see such poor quality images in a professional setting. I took a look at the photographers web sites and saw a lot of great images.

    This just looks like a high school level photo students went on a walk with his girl friend and snapped a few images. I can see the photographers website has a few similar images where the concept worked using better lens selection and prop placements.

    I believe the problem is with nylons staff not the photographer.

  11. I love the look of the shots. They’re free, loose, honest. This style of photography is going to become much more popular in the future I believe. It’s feels “anti-digital” for lack of a better description.

    Think about how popular the film look is now. Anything holga or hipstamatic is hot and the styling of the shoot works very well with the style of the photography.

  12. I’m with ya Steve Hlavac … @Giulio wished they had shot it with a holga or hipsta, would have been more interesting …. yawn …

  13. I find it bland and pretentious. The emperor’s new clothes.
    The lack of skill, craft, and equipment required allows a low barrier to entry, which may insure a constant supply of cheap to free content for the publisher. What does Nylon pay for this job?

    • I understand your perspective Bob but the photography business model from the 80’s and 90’s is over.

      Photography is now more then ever about personality and less technical. The day of being hired just because a photographer was one of few in the city that could use a large format camera is over.

      It might sound silly but I know more and more photographers getting hired for the vision then getting hired because they have an intimate technical knowledge of photography.

      I think the future of our industry is going to be less technical and more about personality and vision.

      • Giulio is right: The times, they are a changin’.

        “…the photography business model from the 80′s and 90′s is over…”

        “….Photography is now more then ever about personality and less technical….”

        “…more and more photographers getting hired for the vision then getting hired because they have an intimate technical knowledge of photography….”

        “….I think the future of our industry is going to be less technical and more about personality and vision….”

        • This may be true to some degree, but I for one am glad I have the technical background of lighting for film with a variety of formats and situations, involving a great number of variables. I think digital has changed the parameters with the vision thing, BUT having a good sense of how to approach a situation is highly advantageous, especially when dealing these days with the majority of people commissioning work who’ve never known anything but digital, which is a snap to light.. I mean who even uses a meter anymore ?

          Personality is great too, but turn in a crappy job that requires a truckload of retouching to a major agency, and see how far personality gets you..

      • @ Giulio Sciorio –

        The BUSINESS model of any era is ROI. Without a return on invest, the business fails. That is no different today than it was at any other time. The times have already changed, and for most the business of creating images presents poor relative opportunity costs, and poor ROI.

        While there were photographers in the 80’s and 90’s well versed in the technical aspects of photography (possibly a higher ratio than today), the idea of “vision” is not new. “Vision” was a catch word I first heard used in 1993 to describe what is necessary to compete in the photography industry. That was 18 years ago. A photographer without an intimate technical understanding has less choices to create their vision, less ability to respond quickly to unforeseen events (possibly less ability to perceive potential problems beforehand) on a given project.

        Also true back in the day, and the present is the crappy to non-existant rates paid or not paid for editorial commissions. Many times costing the photographer thousand of dollars per shoot – sometimes the story would not even go to print.

        The laws of supply and demand have not changed today. In fact there is more supply today than ever – resulting in lower rates.

        “Personality” is subjective. The Emperor’s new clothes may not be perceive any differently in the future than a dancing baby gif is perceived today. The speed at which fads fade is faster than ever, making ROI more difficult.

        These images look like they could be shot remotely by an editor with a camera on a tripod. Almost anyone could shoot these. As more automation enters the hardware side, we may see just that. While “vision” has become the new buzzword AGAIN, ADs and CDs still hire image makers to create the ADs vision. Having some technical chops doesn’t hurt in delivering THE CLIENT’S VISION.

        btw – The center of commercial and editorial photography was NYC back in the day. There were more than few (very talented) photographers using large format equipment back in the day, though other formats were used as well, these other formats still require technical skills, it’s not just about the camera.

  14. I’m split in these, I like the b/w portrait a lot, the main image is nothing special but it’s nice, the drumming picture is lame. I do think they fit in well with what mag’s like nylon would like. I think the reason people mainly gripe here is because it’s more fun. I love the rodney smith shot but I didn’t comment. But when something is lame it’s fun to pick it apart a bit, a little arm chair quarter backing.

  15. Well, sadly it is a kind of ‘hipster’ style. When a magazine wants something ‘raw’ or ‘immediate’ you get something that looks like it was shot with a cellphone (a whole style in itself). It’s a trendy thing that has been a staple of indie mags for a long time. Technical know-how not really required. Vibing with the subject “a must”.

  16. I think its a look of cheap nothing more nothing less. This style is nothing new, look at the last 10 – 15 years of PDN under 30 issue. Besides a few magazine, has any one seen this style in print advertising? I would be more worried when you start to see major ad campaigns using this look.

  17. I think this previous comment from APE was prophetic. Still it is interesting how polarizing most of these posts have been. The initial post said Heidi would be featuring “great editorial content” and I wish she could have added a paragraph on why she selected the content.

    \\A Photo Editor July 2, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    The new column is not for photographers. I wouldn’t expect many of you to like it at all. The other posts will return week after next along with these, so you can simply come back then.

  18. Boy, if these comments don’t reinforce the stereotype that the internet peanut gallery is made up of sour grape’d tools….

    How’s all that bellyachin’ working for ya? Got ya any new work? lol

  19. Wow… checking back in here to find some real resentment bubbling up in some (not all) of these comments. It’s true, there is virtue in being well versed and experienced in the analogue foundations that many here are proud of. But why does another way have to be wrong in order to make that way virtuous? Can’t two things be true at the same time?

    Photographers do not control the editorial world.. if they did, the fees would be a lot higher. I thought the point of these posts was to show that editorial output is a team effort. The layout displayed on this page is the collective result of an effort to have the images, text and design look precisely this way. Comment on the whole thing, not just Hillary. That way you can like it… or dislike it on it’s merits without making it such a personal affront to your professionalism.

  20. stop analysing and start taking photos. get off the freakin internet and go “take some photos”. Boooring.

  21. One side of me says great job team. The other side of me says, wow, really, a high school photography student could of took these.

    I’m not sure what to think. I feel like everyone is getting their undies in a bunch because these photographs are not really any thing special, lack really any technical skill, and feel really cheap to me. People feel like anyone could of took them so why can’t they become a editorial photographer and make money, or just even make money in general.

    But then maybe that is what the subject represents in her music. In which case it would fit a indie mag and the subject.

    I wasn’t there and don’t really know, so whatever.

  22. ….But Hillary got the gig. Ain’t that half the work right there? “Anyone” can’t get the gig. I’m sure there are other “anyones” out there who would have done this job for less than what Hillary collected…. but again: Hillary got the gig. It’s not an open call; the magazine chose her. I still don’t get why the criticism of these images has to be taken so personally by some.

  23. elizabeth

    You guys realize Nylon doesn’t pay, right? That’s right: NYLON DOESN’T PAY. Sometimes a couple hundred if you’re lucky, for an advertorial. But it isn’t about that with Nylon. Hillary isn’t getting rich from this kind of job. It’s more about being able to work creatively with a model/stylist/whatever in a freer environment than commercial lets you do.

    So quit with the jealousy, it’s making this comments entirely exhausting and depressing to read.

    • Nylon doesn’t pay. Hmmm. Then it’s like published ‘personal work,’ more or less at your own expense. Thanks for sharing that, Elizabeth.

      • elizabeth

        If you think that the root of all of embarrassing and vitriolic responses isn’t “I’m furious because I wish I had gotten the gig so I’m going to shit-talk the entire thing on the internet behind a wall of anonymity,” then you’ve got a far more blissfully ignorant take on human nature than most.

        • Either that or it’s a position of moral superiority without ever having to qualify the reasoning behind the stance. Sickening, either way.

        • its enjoyable listening to those who never quite forged a career. very entertaining. It must be sad sitting at your cubicle office wondering why you never had the balls to try and create your own career. So sad.

  24. I know of Hillary’s situation personally. Chances are she was not paid, and with her it is a given she is rolling in with an armory of vintage film cameras in natural light only. Which, to me, makes her a very brave photographer.

  25. hey! if any of you want to go take photos for magazines, be my guest! This is my first time looking at any blogs because I am sick in bed…and look what I found!!! lots of criticism. cool guys! why don’t you put your work out there and we’ll all have a go at it? As for no technical skill. well that’s funny. i’ve been doing this for 15 years now?! if a highschool student could do this, i urge them to.
    best wishes in all of your own ventures.
    hilary