I just joined this site.   My first day, I was randomly going through the critiques and I noticed that many of the replies to the models were really critiques of the photographs, not the models.  Many of the comments were “Get a good photographer.â€?  Obviously, if a photographer asks for critiques, the photos are fair game.  But why does a model have photos up at all?  On here it is to let a potential photographer see what she looks like.  The photo might be lame, but you can still get information about the model.  Just as you can have a brilliant photo that reveals very little about the model’s appearance.  For example (an example of the former, that is), I saw one photo of Suzanne Pitofsky (https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … 341771ecf3), which is not a good photo—dull contrast, little thought to background, what is that red patch?, etc.—but obviously the model has great legs.  (And I asked permission before I cited these.)  Another photo I find downright creepy: https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … 340b7a7874 (did that car just HIT her or does her neck bend that way naturally?) yet it shows a flat stomach and good definition of biceps, pecs, and deltoids.  Based on those two photos, I would hire her for figure work.  Do photographers really need to see a good photograph to know whether someone, or something, is going to look good when THEY photograph her (or it)?  I think that is the essence of being a good photographer, taking the raw materials, developing a desired mental image, then using technical skill to create from the available raw materials the desired image.  Imagine a make up artist, seeing a freshly-washed face, saying “I have NO idea what this person is going to end up looking like, let’s just start putting make up on and see.â€?  Of course not.  I bet a makeup artist has a very good idea where she is heading before she touches the first brush.  I assume a makeup artist would PREFER to see the plain, scrubbed face, rather than a photo of the subject already made up.  Why shouldn’t this be true of photographers?  Who wants to choose a model based on some other photographer's Photoshop skills?  One critique mentioned the importance of having good photos when you go in to an agency.  Wait, the person is STANDING IN FRONT OF YOU and a photographer needs a photograph to know what she is going to look like on film?  (OK, it is nice to have something to remember you by, but still, write it down in the notebook:  Ms. Smith, hot.)

If the model is trying to sell herself to an artistic director, that is another story.  But is she doing that here?  When an advertiser hires an artistic director, doesn’t she typically hire the photographer and hire, or have a big say in, the hiring of the model?  She doesn’t just let the photographer pick.  But I think most people here that are using models are photographers doing whatever it is they are doing and a photographer should be able to see whether a model is any good based on mediocre photos.  I prefer to work from a swimsuit shot taken in the backyard by her boyfriend than some photoshopped oil-painting of someone wearing chi-chi clothes that looks like it was torn out of a fashion mag but tells me next to nothing about what I will be working with.  Just do a front, side, and back in your underwear and why isn’t that enough?

These comments are part question.  I really don’t understand because, with the work I do, I can happily work from some really crappy photos.  (But not ANY crappy photo, really flat lighting obscures muscle tone for example.)  But partly the comments are to encourage photographers to look beyond the photo to the model and to let models know what kinds of photos they really need.

Then when the model, based on looking good, gets some jobs, the photographs will take care of themselves.  I think that might be what is going on here.  Partly it is well-intentioned but misplaced photographic esthetics but also, if a model has good photographs, it proves that she has been able, at least once, to work with a good photographer without their murdering each other.  But just ask whether she is a serial killer.

I also noticed, surfing the critiques, that people have, would you guess?, OPINIONS!  I am about to go on vacation.  When I get back, I expect to see no fewer than 500 replies to this query.

PS:  I came across these two photos that illustrate the opposite, photographs that are interesting and technically well-executed but do not tell very much about the model at all (and they are from the portfolio of a photographer, not a model).

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … 97942704fa

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … 97b3d900cf

Certainly there is much to what you say.  However, you are confusing "mediocre" & "accurate".

Interesting comments from Ivan. To answer one question he posed, I need to see a decent image of the model before I decide to want to work with her, or him. Headshot and full figure. Decent to me, would be clear snapshots. Some of the webcam shots work, but with those, it's a big risk. Webcam shots tend to make the model appear thinner than she really is. Plus, have noise that sometimes obscure the true complexion.

It's not always an exact science, but I try to look real well and imagine the model in some shots, poses, locations, clothing.

Usually, the models whose faces give me mad ideas for shots, they're either too far and, or too expensive. Frustrating as heck, but oh well. Gotta make due with what you can access.

You make some interesting points, and I agree that an experienced photographer can generally get the necessary information to make a decision from a less than perfect set of photos.

If a model is fairly new, then it's reasonable to cut her a little slack and assume that she's working on getting better images... although in practice I've found that many just don't yet know how to judge what makes an image a good one.

But once a model has been around a while, then her choice of what to post, even who to work with tells me a lot about her.  Maybe she still hasn't learned to identify quality.  Maybe she sets her sights too low, doesn't interact with people who could deliver a high level of work.  Maybe photographers in a position to pick and choose won't go near her because she's got a rep as a flake or a drama queen or a no-show... we do talk to each other, after all.

What I know is that my favorite models, the ones I work with over and over, consistently have a range of outstanding work by a number of different photographers.  That means that they know quality when they see it; and that not only will they work with talented photographers, but talented photographers will work with them.  In turn, that means they have a good reputation for reliability and bringing creativity and passion to a shoot.

To sum it up, I won't necessarily turn a model away because her photos are technically weak, in fact I just took a chance on one last weekend.  But I need to be in the mood, and have the time, to look closely, and be willing to assume some slight amount of risk that she may have contributed to the results.  On the other hand, those with lots of solid work are usually a pretty sure bet.

holy shit be a little bit more to the point.