People. I photograph people, because I love to do that. Photographing people is fun, enjoyable and totally absorbing, with an end product, but the trouble starts with categorising all of the resultant images. The reason why I write this is because I shoot weddings, and my choice of categorisation could put off potential brides and grooms. Please humour me and read on, then I’ll ask for your opinion.
I like taking portraits, but when is a portrait not a portrait? Perhaps it could be a themed shoot, in which case the picture could classed as retro, 50s, 60s, rock and roll, pin-up, Hollywood, glamour or any combination of numerous other categories. It’s not easy to decide which one to choose either, as one man’s glamour is another’s pin-up or vice-versa. Lingerie or boudoir? Art nude or erotic? What happens when one part of the shoot is in one style and other parts in differing styles?
There are two images of Frankii Wilde here. Clicking on either of them will open up another window so you can see a larger version of the picture. I think the upper shot falls firmly into the portrait category, but the shoot was styled as retro and burlesque. In the upper shot Frankii’s hair is in a beautfully prepared 50s style, but is that alone enough to make the shot retro and not a portrait? I called this set retro portraits and you can see it by clicking here.
The lower shot for me could be retro, 50s or burlesque. Frankii is a burlesque artiste, as well as being a model and studio owner, making her a very busy young lady, and burlesque was the how I originally intended to classify the shots in this series. I could, equally credibly I think, also categorise that particular shot as retro or pin-up. In the end, I went for a compromise and called the set retro glamour. Here’s a link if you want to take a look.
So, here is the question. My websites have galleries defined by image categories. When you visit my sites, do you look at categories other than the category that the link took you to?