In this edit, I used a photo called "La Jeune Fille a la Fleur" and layered broken glass over the top.

FASHION PHOTOGRAPHY

Fashion photography has been in exitence since 1839. Since before then there were always fashionable clothes, but photography came into place to sell and advertise these fashionable clothes. At the start of the 20'th century, halftone printing allowed fashion photographs to be placed in magazines, newspapers and pretty much everywhere else. 

Fasion photography really started to rise in the early 1900's, Vogue & Harpers Bazaar (vogues rival) were the leaders in Fashion photography in the 1920's - 1930's and especially house photographers such as Edward Steichen, George Hoyningen-Huene, Horst P. Horst and Cecil Beaton transformed the genre into an outstanding art form.

Fashion photography started booming in the 1960's where culture, music, political and style movements exploded; ever since then Fashion has been a huge apart of our society. 
Fashion photography has been growing and moving forward very quickly, english-born editoring-chief of Vogue Anna Wintour quoted “It’s always about timing. If it’s too soon, no one understands. If it’s too late, everyone’s forgotten.” 

As one of the biggest fashion magazines, Vogue's total circulation was 1.3 million in 2011; meaning that based upon averages nearly 5 million people read or viewed Vogue's magazine that year. 

Fashion photographers from all around the world are desperate to join the top magazines. Vogue, Elle and Esquire are just a few of the prestigious fashion magazines. One of vogue's most famous photographers was American photographer Irving Penn (1917-2009) who said he never wanted to “be a personage” & was nevertheless one of the twentieth century’s great artists, a photographer with a style so uniquely his own that it had already earned its own “aesthetic copyright,” as Vogue put it, by 1949 when the jeans-and-sneakers-wearing Jersey boy had been working for the magazine for only three years.

He worked for Vogue for seven decades. He shot everything: fashion, still lifes, movie stars, food, nudes, flowers, makeup and 158 covers. 

Fashion & Portrait photography have many similarities, but they have big differences as well. 

Portraiture is focusing on the model: their face, complexion, bone structure - whilst this is similar to Fashion, portraiture is more focused on portraying the emotion, character and feeling of the person.  The shots are usually taken you inspire some sort of emotion upon the viewer. 

Fashion is different, the model's face, skin, complexion and bone structure are all important, however the main point is showing off the clothes - for example in the picture above. The model is the perfect fit for the dress, her weight, hair and eyes are all perfect for showing off this specific dress (It looks good). 

Image manipulation is both portraiture and fashion is hugely common, in no means is this a bad thing. There is a line that must not be crossed in my opinion. Editing software is great to correct colours, lighting, shadows and complexion. However, this can always be taken a step further when we start to get into manipulation of the body (waist ratio ect). I believe in making something look better than is real; however manipulating the shape of a key part of the photograph is not acceptable. Otherwise, you might as well just animate the photo, instead of having anything real in it. 

Extreme physical and edited manipulation

The other bad sides to manipulation are the effect it has on society, many girls (and boys) of all ages are constantly bombarded with beautiful (yet extremely edited) models. This has an impact on their life, they do not feel up to standard in comparison.

The condition of the models are also very poor, there is a huge debate about bulimia and other weight (vainity) related diseases. 

Every photograph that comes out of a Fashion magazine will be edited in post-production: sometimes I think its within reason, however, sometimes the editing is just too much.

Another debate with Fashion is that when is between the creative and commercial side; when is it creative enough? when is it commercial enough? The constant battle between Vogue's chief-editor Anna Wintour and creative director Grace Coddington. 

Both of these people play key roles in Vogue. Grace Coddington is constantly fighting for creative free-reign over Vogue, and Anna Wintour is constantly keeping it balanced between for the commercial side. I think its a difficult thing to keep in balance, creativity is pushing new ideas, when commercial is making them viable for people to understand them (and buy it). 

This works great when there is perfect synergy between the two; and I think Vogue does it very well.

Portraiture 

Portraiture is the displaying of emotion, personality or expression of a person. Ever since the Camera originated, and before that with paintings, portraiture has been around. The first known 'light picture' or photograph was taken in 1839, by Robert Cornelius and began to become very popular in the mid 19'th century with the relatively low cost of daguerreotype, which reduced sitting time for the subject. Eventually it took over portrait painting, more people were having their photographs taken than pictures painted (due to the price, time and validity of photographs, compared to paintings). 

This meant that the world of portraiture became open to the middle, and lower-classes.  Before the only people to be able to have their portrait painted were usually very wealthy, famous or a leader in power. 

The validity and reflection of the subject (appearance, what surrounded him and his expression)  also differs between painting portraiture and photography portraiture. Even though both these art-forms can manipulate the truth to the subjects will, one can distort the truth even more; Henry VIII was a prime example through history - his tyrannical reign of 1509 - 1547 led to a large amount of paintings being taken of him. In the image above (a portrait painting of King Henry VIII) King Henry VIII is depicted elaborately, the extensive background, clothes and jewelry all add to the 'over the top' atmosphere in this picture. 

Henry is envisaged as a kind King - with his arm on a child's shoulder and his wife sitting contently by his side. Ironically, this is far from the truth, most people who have studied history would agree that he was a cruel tyrant. The background of the photo has been exaggerated and everything looks exactly how Henry VIII wanted. 

Photographic Portraiture has similar capabilities, but this can be more freely expressed in the photographer; and what he wants to achieve (without the possibility of his head being cut off). 
There are obviously boundaries and you can cater to the subjects wants, especially if you're being paid by them. However, it's a lot harder to manipulate/elaborate backgrounds and/or appearances - with modern technology and the invention of editing software this is still very possible, and commonly used.

American photographer Diane Arbus (1923-1971) was famous for her portraiture work especially in this case; the Matthaei family (shot to photo above - a member of the Matthaei family). Her technique was incredibly interesting; she not only captures the portraits of the people, but also captures in parallel her own inner thoughts and emotions. 

Arbus had famously said, “All families are creepy in a way,” from the telegenically cheerful Ozzie and Harriet to a young Brooklyn family on a Sunday stroll. This statement maybe reflects into her own past. Up until her suicide in 1979 Diane Arbus did a lot of work in portraiture, from famous to the average person. 

Even famous wartime photographer Tony Vaccaro became very interested in portraiture after WWII. He worked for many prestigious magazines such as Life, look and eventually Flair. His career has spanned over 6 decades and he has taken many photos of 20'th century famed people (above, he took the photo of pablo picasso). 

Vacarro used very clever techniques when it came to taking portrait photos. Instead of wanting them to pose, and getting them to do what he wanted, he used to feign that his camera was not working - this would allow the subject to drop their charade and be in raw form - then he would take the photo. This is a very clever way of getting the results he wanted, he did not want to show them off how they would like to be seen, rather how they are being seen in they're raw form. 

This gave a lot of power to portrait photographers, especially if they used these techniques. It gave different perspectives on the subject - this to me is very important. I'd much rather be looking at this photo of Picasso in his real form, like how he would have been if he was painting; instead of posing for glory or to "look good".

Portraiture photography has changed throughout the ages, with new technology and super fast printing - and/or digital media it allows photos to be seen, edited and put online nearly instantly. 

This allowed many people to take up an amateur stance on portraiture, without using the traditional formats. Social Media like Facebook & Twitter encourage portraits to be taken by everyone - your average mobile phone these days can shoot an adequate portrait. 

To conclude, photography is constantly changing. Like any art-form, new ideas are constantly flowing. This is seen just as much through photography as any other art form. In the future I am sure we'll witness new types and styles of portraiture.