Mert Alas & Marcus Piggott - Photographers

[metal-on-metal]

I think they are amazing photographers but to me their work feels way too manufactured and fake. The colors, textures, and shadows in these pictures are simply unreal. They don't exist. And after awhile it just feels like a glamour overdose, like a pastry that's delicious but way too sweet to really enjoy--it's very 80's, very Bourdin and Grace Jones to me. Inez and Vinoodh's work is also extremely digital but somehow their pictures never seem to lack a sense of humanity and emotion, whereas Mert and Marcus is just sort of over-the-top glamazon. But what does it really say? It's a little bankrupt in that department I think. Either way, I'd hate to be the one that pays their retouching bills.

[A la mode]

^I think they do the retouching themselves?

Anyways here is an interesting article from The New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/040927fa_fact1

[Spike413]

I kind of agree with M-O-M, they do go overboard with the retouching, sometimes I just find myself too drawn to an image of theirs to really mind it, but other times I find myself a little bored by it. I certainly prefer someone like McDean or Meisel who really work to achieve that shadowy lighting but still make it look natural.

[ultramarine]

Hum ... I like fake, I like plastic, I like Alas&Pigot

[Sweets]

[iperlchen]

Click pic to see the rest of this awesome edit from W. The colors are so different from what you usually see. Like they used color filters that only apply to certain levels of the photo.. if that makes sense. I think it's very good

[Arthur77]

^gorgeous story indeed. i've never really liked their overly retouched works, and by overly retouched, i'm referring to the 'plastic skins'. aside from those, they've created some really exquisite imageries that i love.

[Estella*]

those are beautiful, perlefine. the colours are so rich.

in general i share the sentiments expressed by m-o-m, though .... their pictures are too cold for my liking. i can be impressed by the perfectness, but not much more.... i have often wondered why i like inez and vinoodh so much but it must be that there's some emotion i can feel in their work that i can't find in alas and pigott's...

[iperlchen]

I agree with you two. Their photos are thoroughly digital, they don't tell a story, there may be a lot of sun in the pics, they still feel cold. It's perfect for the world we created with this huge amount of technology They are talented for how they used their Photoshop effects, they use it in the way it's meant to be used.

[metal-on-metal]

What bothers me most actually is the blurring of the distinction between what is part of the photographer's technique and what is added in via postproduction. Is that beautiful lighting part of M&M's skilled approach, or are they actually less talented and simply add in breathtaking tones and shadows through retouching? I think a lot of the time it must be the latter, in which case M&M may in fact be "digital technicians" or "digital painters" rather than photographers. I'd be curious to see their raw images before they are worked on in Photoshop.

[metal-on-metal]

Don't get me wrong, I think they have a great knack for manufacturing a beautiful package, which is why the advertising clients line up in droves. Their work is totally accessible, which is more than you can say for David Sims, Inez, Sorrenti. It's the kind of thing you could show to your grandmother who has absolutely no interest in fashion and she could get it and appreciate it and think that it's beautiful. But if you look beyond that surface, I think that their work has shockingly little to say.

[iperlchen]

Me too M-O-M! For some reason I feel it's Photoshop that does the trick for them rather than excelent photography and lighting. Especially when looking at the colors. But maybe I'm wrong.

[iluvjeisa]

Well, I think they're pretty much hit or miss. When they get emotion out of their subjects - like with Angela or Karen they are really amazing. But when it's some model that just looks like a prop - like Amber Valetta for instance - they're rather boring to me. And that, I think, is for the same reason as many of you agree on; the lack of emotion. Images for me don't have to be to mean anything really, except it's nice with some symbolism and some emotion.

M&M for Pop FW w/ Jeisa

[pamelaz]

Love, Love. So talented. I love the artificial factors in their photography.. it's definetely "their thing" so I respect that. You can tell it's their work in a blink of an eye so they have a style behind it that works for them.

[thefashionista]

i'd call M&M computer geniuses, but not great photographers- although, i cannot be definite. as none of us have seen their pre-photoshop work, we can't really say...

however, this photo of theirs captures the female form so gorgeously...i just sigh. wow.


the first one....

from the first page of this thread