Seven fashion photos that changed the world

Cecil Beaton-1930s, Designer of My Fair Lady. The  ‘White Panama hat’ photo was to promote the hat, not the model. The composition makes it much easier to focus on the hat rather than her. His photo is soft and the model has a look of sadness/awe. Rankin’s photo is too crisp (from lack of age) and the model’s head is too prominent and stiff.

Erwin Blumenfeld– 1950 cover of vogue, pop art effect. The idea of just an eye and lips shouldn’t work but it does. Erwin would actually  paint over his images and the image looks moody, soft and seductive, whereas, Rankin’s looks cheeky and very sexual. The original photo wasn’t as cheeky. The original was smooth and it reminds me of a film when the girl, or man, is across the room and is giving another person a seductive look. It is subtle in the facial movement but when you see the eye you see real emotion. With Rankin’s photo you cannot see that.

David Bailey– vogue 1963. He used a Roliflex double lens reflex camera. When Rankin used the Roliflex he admitted that he had no clue on how to use it. To say he wanted to recreate the images he didn’t use the same props or models. What I mean by this is that he used a blonde model instead of a brunette which changed the dynamic of the photo. It went from an intimate photograph between boyfriend (David Bailey) and his girlfriend to a photo between Rankin and his girlfriend staging the original photo.

Richard Avedon– He was more into European photography and in 1955, Dovina with elephants, became famous for the fashion industry. The original photo is much more natural than Rankin’s. The original image makes it look like the model is actually touching the elephants and that there is nothing holding her back. The elephants, though chained, look more natural and free.

Herb Ritts– 1984, Fred with Tires. Rankin had trouble doing this photo, perhaps due to his sexuality. Rankin, a heterosexual, mentioned that he couldn’t get as intimate with his male model as he could with a female model. Most of Ritts’ photos emphasized peoples bodies and it was rare that he ever emphasized vulnerability or flaws. The photo has perfect exposure and shows the veins and muscles well because of the shadow and light.

Helmut Newton– The Rue Aubriot from 1975 seemed lonely and intimate but it catches the viewer straight away. The image where the girl in the suit is on her own is as if she just paused in the street for a shot whereas, Rankin’s looks like she is uncomfortable, stiff even. It isn’t just one photo in the series, though, no, it is three. The first one is where she stands alone, the second is when the two women stand next to each other and the third is the naked woman and the woman in the suit kissing. Rankin only did the first two images and made the images seem awkward. Helmut made the images new and daring. The story of a tall woman on her own to then meet a naked lady and then to kiss, this was very intimate and could’ve been classed as pornographic.

Guy Bourdin– 1970 vogue. He made his images pop with color and has a great eye for lighting and shadow. The black floor, pink wall and paleness of her skin made it so the outfit she is wearing is the main focus of attention. Rankin’s version is terrible in comparison to Bourdin’s. He dresses the model in red tights, blue heals and her hair is blonde and brown when Bourdin only dressed his model in the black body suit, thin strapy gold/silver heals and her red-brown hair is soft instead of striking. Bourdin’s photo has a more natural feel to the light where as Rankin’s is harsh.




Photogram outcomes

What is a photogram?
“A picture produced with photographic materials, such as light-sensitive paper, but, without a camera”- Google


Why are there pink tints on some of the photograms?
The photogram wasn’t in  the fixer long enough. It needed to be in the fixer for at least five minutes.

The worst image was of a lace ribbon and it hadn’t even shown up on the light-sensitive paper. Instead of getting a crisp image of the ribbon all I got was a black photogram. Next time I will either give it less exposure to light or get an object that is more defined.

The best image I managed to get was of my necklace and ring. I managed to get good detail of the small links on the chain and as the ring was rather bulky it showed up on the photogram.

Some images need to be sharper. The reason it may not be as sharp as it should be is because of the exposure to the light or the amount of time in the developer.


35mm outcome- from Friday 16th, 2016


Above is the contact sheet of the negatives I managed to get from the 35mm camera. The ridges on the film are scuffed and there are scratches on some of the frames as it was my first time developing 35mm film. The images are a little too bright for my liking so next time I could either keep it in the developer for longer or give it a longer exposure to light. I had it exposed for 2.5 seconds so next time I will go for 3 seconds and see how that goes. The two images of the plant (third row of negatives, right-hand side) are a little too dark so I think if I had to just expose those two images then I would use about 2 seconds of exposure. The third and fourth image on the second row of negatives have lost detail as they needed more detail- this would have shown the lines in the faces on the building. The first image on the first row has been cut off due to it being the beginning of the film.

Contact Sheets


  • Photo paper
  • Glass negative holder
  • Black card
  • Negatives

How to make them;

  • Go into dark room with equipment
  • Go to an enlarger or a light where you can adjust the timer
  • Put photo paper on glass holder
  • Put negatives on the photo paper (I cut my negatives into six and then placed them in rows)
  • Set time to one second
  • Place card over about 90% of the negatives and press start on the light
  • Keep moving card over the negatives until there are no negatives left and press the start button each time the card moves*
  • Develop the same as you would with pinhole prints
  • Whatever the correct exposure is you then use on the next contact print- you don’t need the card for this

*At first the negatives you first expose will only be exposed for one second but as you expose the other prints for one second at a time the first exposed negatives will have a longer exposure

The correct exposure for me is usually 2.5-3 seconds but this doesn’t always work.

The 35mm outcomes- before they have been edited/inverted

Overall I managed to take 20 good shots

The trees and plants were good as it showed the negatives and detail. The buildings i took photos of were detailed and the camera managed to get the shadows right. The water feature had definite shape and form but I can’t see a 100% detail, i will be able to when i upload the image online. The signs were good and looked quite retro in b&w.

The one bad photo had half a black frame. This was towards the end of the film.The best photos are the Church and the building above bargain buysThe worst photo was one I took of a shop window as it had a lot of glare on it.

I will know what they actually look like when they are edited.