On editorial shoots why do photographers insist on thinking they are the most important person there? In most cases the stylist is the one who came up with the idea for the story, booked them and had the overall vision for the shoot. The photographer, like the hair stylist, make-up artist, model and location are all bought together by the stylist because of their particular look or style of work - and the stylist makes sure that everything gels the way he / she wants it to and in the way that he / she knows the editor will be happy with. If we've booked someone because of their crisp contrasty lighting (and tell our editor that this is the way the story is going to look) we don't want to be confronted with the photographer deciding he'd like to try out a new sludgy-shaded lighting set-up on the day.
Of course on ad or music jobs the stylist is oftentimes relegated to mere wardrobe and running duties which is why stylists that spend their time soley dressing slebs (Hi, Rachel!) are omitted from the tome and Camilla Nickerson, Melanie Ward, Carine Roitfeld, Venetia Scott and Edward Enninful are all in.
As a postscript I'd like to reiterate that not all photographers are bad. There are just a few who have their own agenda and don't want to work as a team - but after xx years in the industry I'm in a position where I can steer clear of them. Luckily I have a great core of people I regularly work with, who just 'get' it, and we can create beautiful
(On that note, girls and boys, please never ever ever ever never never ever get romantically entangled with a photographer. It will drive you to distraction and cause many a tear to fall. No, not even if they shoot for Elle on, like, a regular basis*. Promise? 'Kay. Good).
*Extra points in you can guess the movie I'm (quite possibly mis-) quoting.
Photo by Alan Scrymgeour who has nothing to do with the snappers berated herein.