Remarkable Helmut Newton fur fashion images

[roninphy]

I have just uploaded to the Gallery a small collection of Helmut Newton Fur Fashion Images.

 

Some Sample images most are HQ b+w scans they are place in the Vintage photo section as most were shot in the 60's and 70's

 

Cheers

Roninphy

[roninphy]

Helmut Newton (1920 - 2004)

Commentary courtesy of Supersoft ( see http://www.furfashionguide.com/furforum/showpost.php?p=17697&postcount=1)

 

 

A photographer whose work took fetishism and eroticism off the top shelf and into the mainstream.

His fashion work generally carries a heavy erotic charge whether his models are clothed in furs or naked.

He combines humour, with decadence and voyeurism, sometimes adding a hint of sado-masochism with a little of the seedy nightclub atmosphere of accounts of inter-war Berlin.

Newton brought fetishism to eroticism and then took both into mainstream photography at a time, in the 1970s, when they were assumed to belong only to those with rarefied tastes who sought them out on the top shelves.

 

He was born Helmut Neustädter, into a middle-class family in Weimar republic Berlin, where decadence and smoky nostalgia were the order of every film, poster, song or cabaret of the day. In love with Marlene Dietrich, so he said, from the time he attended the American School, where he went at the age of 12, he met her years later when they were both in New York and he was to take her portrait.

 

The meeting was not a success - she took umbrage at a light-hearted comment - and the portrait was never taken. Yet her androgynously sensual presence pervaded his obsessive fascination with strikingly tall models wearing the glossily lacquered hairstyles and the seamed stockings of the 1940s. ( Newton was later able to take Dietrich's portrait see Gallery Roninphy)

 

Newton bought his first camera in 1932, and by the age of 17 had apprenticed himself to the theatrical photographer Yva (Else Simon). The situation in Berlin became increasingly more dangerous for Jews, and in 1938 he left for Singapore, and then Australia. From 1940 to 1945 he served in the Australian Army, and after settling in Sydney, he met and, in 1948, married the photographer and actress June F Browne, also known as June Brunell, and, more improbably, as Alice Springs. Her influence seems to have been considerable: the notion of a model as actress is hardly a new one, but Browne's collaboration with Newton, on both sides of the camera, was substantial.

 

Not only did she dress up and model extensively in a series of storytelling tableaux vivants, but she lent her lighting and scene-setting skills to the preparation of a number of his images. Later on, she would coach his models to pose for him in roles that played on the whimsical cruelties of a dominatrix. This not only enhanced the notion of the photographer/voyeur, but necessarily rendered all viewers fellow-accomplices in the implicitly sadomasochistic sexual fantasy.

 

The Newtons remained in Australia for 17 years. Helmut worked primarily as a fashion photographer, and assumed Australian nationality, but was hankering for Europe. In 1956, the pair spent a year in London before moving to Paris, where they lived until 1981. The shift to French Vogue gave Newton the opportunity to contribute his particular brand of fashion photography to the Jardin des Modes, Elle, Queen, Nova, Marie-Claire, Stern and to Playboy.

 

It was not until the 1970s that Newton began to attract the international attention that would contextualise his work within a different tradition.

 

Newton produced his first portrait of a giant, a large figure somewhat resembling another couturier, Yves Saint-Laurent, with a nude, reduced to the dimensions of a doll and clad only in silver high heels with a red feather boa over her arm, in 1974.

 

Newton rarely granted interviews, although in 1978 he agreed to a 55-minute show for Thames Television. He was disarming in the defence of his output. "I love vulgarity. I am very attracted by bad taste - it is a lot more exciting than that supposed good taste, which is nothing more than a standardised way of looking at things." He then immediately diffused the enfant terrible aspect he had just projected: "All that sadomasochism still looks interesting to me today. I always carry chains and padlocks in my car trunk, not for me but for my photos - by the way, I never make the knots real tight."

 

In a series on hotel rooms, Newton himself appears lying fully clothed beneath his model on an unmade bed. His hand holds what at first looks like a whip but is in fact only the camera release. Newton got a kick out of taking his models to real public venues and exposing their nakedness beneath a fur coat or mack, reversing the role more often associated with the "dirty old man".

 

Visually and artistically literate, he liked to "lead the viewer on a wild goose chase" where the models looked like mannequins and the mannequins looked like humans. He preferred pale skin and abundant curly hair - what he called nordfleisch (northern meat) - as best suiting the "cold women" he said he found attractive.

 

More Helmut Newton Images Credit original posts by Supersoft

 

[Pluto]

Oh look, what kinda nice picture exhibition we've got just around the corner (my corner ):

http://www.weserburg.de/nmwb_deu/1tp_ausst.php?ausst=44 (WARNING: nudity!)

 

Contains copyrighted photo "Charlotte Rampling as Venus in Furs".

[roninphy]

Very nice Pluto - thank you for sharing this.

I loved the Charlotte Rampling in silver fox. If I lived anywhere near Bremen I would be at the museum to see the exhibition for sure.

Newton's prints are said to be flawless.

Best

Roninphy

[FrBrGr]

I must admit that I wasn't very familiar with Newton's work. After having rooted out more of his work, IMHO I find his photography to be startlingly bizarre in some instances, shockingly artistic in others, stirringly erotic (in an in-your-face sort of way) in most, but only a few that I thought were really beautiful. Of course, that's not what Newton is known for. I don't know that I agree with some who call his art to be "trashy," but even he admits that he loves vulgarity and that he is attracted by bad taste.

 

I guess beauty is "in the eyes of the beholder;" I guess I'm more into the "standardized way of looking at things," even though from time to time I like taking walks on "the wild side." I just posted a series of pics in our Gallery (in the "Celebs in Fur" album) that he took of Catherine Deneauve. They're a little more to my liking . . .

[roninphy]

Interesting points FrBrGr.

 

I am never certain about the boundary between art and exploitation, photography can be particularly tricky when dealing with erotic images. I also find that many of Newtons images are not to my liking because of the "in your face aspect" and because of the tawdry scenes depicted. The blend of commercial photographer and sometime artist has a blurred line in this case. Certainly the fashion world has not seen another like him.The Museum exhibition mentioned by Pluto ( above) suggests to me that there is an awareness of Newton as an artist and a critical appreciation of a certain core of artistic works.

 

Newton did also produce in his own words" cheap and vulgar " images. A complicated personality working in a combined commercial and artistic mode. I think the conflicts are brought out in supersoft's commentary.

 

 

Thanks for posting these images I had never seen them attributed to Newton before but I have to agree it is his style

 

[image]http://thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10003/normal_Newton_-_Catherine_Deneauve_03.jpg[/image] [image]http://thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10003/normal_Newton_-_Catherine_Deneauve_02.jpg[/image] [image]http://thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10003/normal_HN_Catherine_Deneuve.jpg[/image]

 

Cheers

Roninphy

[roninphy]

These images posted by Fr Br Gr are interesting they are photocomposites not "original newtons" They are now in the composite image gallery.

 

[image]http://thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10003/normal_NeCD05.jpg[/image] [image]http://thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10003/NewtoCatherine_Deneauve_06.jpg[/image] [image]http://thefurden.com/cpgfd/albums/userpics/10003/Newton_-_Catherine_Deneauve_08.jpg[/image]

 

Cheers

Roninphy

[FrBrGr]

. . . they are photocomposites not "original newtons" They are now in the composite image gallery.

 

Really? How can you tell? They came from here: http://toutsurdeneuve.free.fr/Francais/Pages/Portraits_Photos/Newton.htm

[roninphy]

Hi FrBrGr :Fair enough comment.

First :The Catherine Denueve website is a real find. All of the famous photographers work is represented albeit in very tiny images( 25 - 30 kb).

The images you posted are attributed to Newton on the website.

(That is not the same thing as having the specific images listed in a Newton estate catalogue or an academic critical review. Showing the images published in a fashion or Art magazine might also establish provenence )

 

I have worked to develop a critical eye,working with photocomposites of models and furs almost every day. That doesn't neccessarily make me an expert but I face the challenge of fooling the eye every time I do a composite. The better the resolution the harder it is to get it convincing enough to pass as the real thing. Conversely small grainy images can be ambiguous. I think I can demonstrate a few clues or give aways that reveal a composite. Some of the suspect images are skillful others are less so. Note all are small and grainy to some extent. This obscures edge transitions due to compression/re-compression artifact.

 

Consider this image. The first thing is that head angle is subtly wrong it is too stiff and it maybe slightly out of scale with the background, the edges are too abrupt ( Knife like edge )

The abrupt edge reveals an unnatural shadow break. Notice how the shadow on her face does not extend at all into the fur. This is probably the knit line for the superimposed head. Another possible knit line or overlay edge is the unnatural straight contour along her right arm, shown circled in red

 

 

 

 

I have highlighted additional telltale giveaways here. You have to stare at the original but if you do you can see variations in grain in the background. Notice around Catherine's hairline on the right that the background grain is reduced compared to just below and at the same level to her left. This is a tell tale of a blur filter that has been used to obscure the knit line around her head to the right. Another clue is the grain of her face and hands have subtle differences, this is seen best peering at a larger image. ( I can only go to 400pixel and still get them to post here)I can see it on my large monitor quite clearly but again that something I am always trying to get around in my own work. It is a huge pain in the posterior in matching subtle hues in skin tone in color images, if you want to achieve life like realism.

 

So all of the suspect pulled images have similar issues, some are very good but are also small grainy and ambiguous.

 

Cheers

Roninphy

[Guest]

ron;

 

Remarkable insight. Compares with several top photography friends of mine.

 

I knew there was method and insight to your presentations but this brings a new level of respect.

 

Glad you are here with your best

 

OFF

[Worker 11811]

One of the dirtiest little tricks I know is to open up the "Levels" dialog in Photoshop and watch what happens to the picture as you skew the Gamma (midpoint) slider all the way to the left and then to the right.

 

The clipped areas will stand out more due to changes in pixel contrast with the surrounding areas.

 

In some pictures the effect is more pronounced than others but, sometimes, it will show up like a sore thumb.

 

In your picture, Roninphy, it's not very noticeable but it is there if you look.

[FrBrGr]

Hi FrBrGr :Fair enough comment.

First :The Catherine Denueve website is a real find. All of the famous photographers work is represented albeit in very tiny images( 25 - 30 kb).

The images you posted are attributed to Newton on the website.

(That is not the same thing as having the specific images listed in a Newton estate catalogue or an academic critical review. Showing the images published in a fashion or Art magazine might also establish provenence )

 

After having been involved higher education for thirty-five years, I should have known better - ! One of the first things we teach students is to think critically. You're so right! The source is, by all appearances, not refereed, and should be held suspect - particularly when scrutinized through expert eyes. Your comments and explanations are very revealing and interesting. Now that you have pointed out the clues, your suspicions, indeed, seem to be well-founded. Especially the ones targeted at Catherine's head. I don't see the contrast as much with her right arm, and logic tends to make me question if that was part of the composition. Inserting Catherine's head in the photograph makes sense, but why do that with the hands and arms? Unless the original model had a different colored skin, and if that were the case, why not just find another picture to edit?

 

Very interesting commentary, though - ! " title="Applause" /> I am about to take my first, fear-filled steps into this art, and I will include this as one of my first lessons! Thanks!

[Worker 11811]

Sometimes you clip the head and the hands, arms, legs, etc. because of skin tone or because of lighting.

 

If there are specular highlights or contrast areas in the base image that are different in the donor image it makes sense to edit them out or cover them up with other parts of the donor image.

[FrBrGr]

Sometimes you clip the head and the hands, arms, legs, etc. because of skin tone or because of lighting.

 

Point well-taken, Worker, but in order to do this, wouldn't the poses in the two pics in question (i.e., the donor image and the base image) have to be identical? It would seem to me that it would just be easier to find another pic to edit . . .

 

If there are specular highlights or contrast areas in the base image that are different in the donor image it makes sense to edit them out or cover them up with other parts of the donor image.

 

True, but in this particular image it would have been very difficult to edit out or cover up her arms . . .

[roninphy]

Wow! Thanks guy's a ton of interest very cool!

 

FrBrGr If you are truly interested in learning technique for photocomposition there are three EXCELLENT reference books available .

I recommend highly the book by Kevin Ames

Working with Photoshop CS "How to Photography Woman" http://www.amazon.ca/AdobePhotoshop-.../dp/0764543180

Kevin is amazing. He is a great teacher and is very clear about how to achieve an effect. Kevin runs workshops in Atalanta GA and as part of the NAPP programs (National Association of Photoshop Professionals) (When I downloaded the book of practice images from his website . He emailed me and we have kept in touch . He even sent me a a pay -your- own- way invitation to cover model photoshoot in Hawaii ! )

 

Another source is a book on layers and compositing by Katrin Eismann http://www.amazon.ca/Photoshop-Masking-Compositing-Katrin-Eismann/dp/0735712794/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221066416&sr=1-4Both are available used on Amazon at reasonable prices - though Eismann is encyclopedic and aimed at the professional graphic artist. You might want to get this through your Library

Steve Caplan's" How to cheat in Photoshop " is very funny and a huge compendium of technique. Steve has included some worked examples on his companion CD. http://www.amazon.ca/How-Cheat-Photoshop-CS3-photorealistic/dp/0240520629/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221066538&sr=1-1

 

I am completely self taught - you just have to be patient and keep trying. The biggest thing is to develop an eye for which images might combine well. Less is more !

 

Worker you never fail to amaze me with the depth of your depth of knowledge and grasp of technical details. In CS3 there are very fancy mathematical filters that allow you to replace specular reflection and to compensate for lens blur and the like. I work in CS 2 so I only got to try the Demo version for 30 days.

 

I knew I was going to raise the bar when I analyzed the photo's ahhh well, its nice to know that people are interested. I am amazed and gratified that the Fantasy model in furs thread has generated 15,000 hits since it was first posted.

 

Technically I think the straight line on the arm in the Catherine image above ( it also has no no shadow) is a "overpainting" with a pen tool edge. Meaning cut and place and then scale the head, then cut out the background fur with the pen tool on the base image, make it into a separate layer . Then align the new layer background over the transplanted head and flatten the image. That is at least how I would approach it.

 

OFF Thank you so much for you kind comments.

 

 

Best to all

 

Roninphy

.

[Guest]

I think this is exactly what we were hoping would develop in this Forum when we were formulating our 'New" Fur Den and The Gallery. " title="Applause" />

 

It is all about the Fur but it's also a lot more. The more interest we can generate in discussions like this and add to our wiki informational pages the better off we will all be

 

OFF

[FrBrGr]

FrBrGr If you are truly interested in learning technique for photocomposition there are three EXCELLENT reference books available.

 

Thank you, Roninphy!

[Worker 11811]

When I do head splices, I put the donor image in a layer above the base image then create a layer mask which reveals only the part(s) of the donor image I want to use. I feather the edges of the mask by 3 to 5 pixels, fading the alpha channel outward from the center of the image, from opaque to completely transparent. This leaves a very faint "halo" around the image of partially transparent pixels which blend in with the base image to hide the edges of the splice.

 

Once you have that in place, you can use the grid tool in CS3 to subtly warp the donor image to match the base image.

 

When you get to that point, duplicate your base (background layer) image and "merge down" to create an intermediate layer. Use your pen tool, just like you mentioned above to blend the seams.

 

Now, here's the final trick. Alter the alpha/transparency of that composite layer above the background/donor layer so it is ever so slightly transparent. Maybe only 5 or 10 percent. You have to experiment.

 

If you do it that way, not only will you hide the seam between the donor and the base but the contrast of the pixels behind the image will bleed through, giving you an overall even tone/contrast range. The trick I mentioned above to detect splices won't work as well and, if you work carefully, you might even create an undetectable splice.

[FrBrGr]

OMG - Do I have a lot to learn!