Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Bigger models make bigger reflectors. ;-)

Yeah, and darker models reflect less light.  It's all relative.

Love your work with Kristin Anne, BTW. 

Heading back to the Balkans?

-Don

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
At the most basic level, a model reflects light.

One step up from that, she reflects light in a way that her clients like it reflected.

She does this by being attractive, so the image from the reflected light already has the first quality of a good image and makes it easier on the photographer.  She does this also by having some knowledge of how light reflects off her person under different conditions and lighting, and presenting herself favorably in all given conditions.  (This usually takes a bunch of mirror time.)

One more step up involves being able to handle her own grooming - some will argue that this is not part of the model's job, but I don't know of any compent model on any level that is unable to do her own hair and makeup.  Specialty makeup is a different thing though, I'll admit.

Another step up from that, the model makes the job of gathering that reflected light into a box somewhat less painful or more pleasant for her client by being personally pleasant and helpful.  Friendly even.  She does not add to the workload by making special rules or having special demands.  Maybe Kate Moss gets her whims satisfied, but she's a $9mil per anum girl and she doesn't hang here.

And the top step, not accomplished by many, is that of inspiring the client.  This isn't a requirement because if it were there would be maybe a hundred or a thousand models left in the world.  It's also not something a model can set about to do, as it's a talent more like telepathy or magic than something that's learned and practiced.  But I included it in the job description as the capper.

What have I missed?  Probably a bunch, but then again, I'm not a model and really only see them from my side of the prism.

-Don

I love the fact that you do all this thinking so I don't have to anymore.  You always manage to articulate what I know instinctively but fail to verbalize.  Just goes to show that when I decide to admire someone, I'm usually right.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Re: Kristin Anne. Thanks. She's great. Reflects creative energy as well as light. My favorite combination.

Yeah, I'm heading back to the Balkans, and London is big in my plans this fall/winter. I'm looking to make Milan a part of it as well but there are complications. I need respresentation there in the worst way. Useless to go without representation, and that ain't the easiest town to walk into and get a rep with my Croatian portfolio. We're always one season behind, shot on the cheap, and a lot of the fashion we shoot there is cheap stuff. Bummer that we have to have our work judged on such superficial levels, but that's the name of the game and everybody plays by the same rules...

Re: Camille Paglia... when the initial work flurry is over I'm gonna have to comment at length on that piece. As usual she made some inflammatory points, a few cheap points, and some very strong points.

Yeah, Paglia does that, but the nuggets are worth the crap. 

Milan I understand.  Why London?  I wouldn't think that would be your style preference.  Not since McQueen left anyway.  Good luck getting a rep - I think at this point it probably is down to luck. 

Kristin Anne - we've talked but I'm probably pretty scary.  I'd fly up to shoot her though.

-D

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
What have I missed?

Just about everything.

theda wrote:
The best models are actreeses, only very slow actresses.  They project the mood that is called for by by the director of the shoot and make it look natural and easy. S/he is aware of her/his body.

I completely agree.  The best subjects I have shot are all actors and actresses.  It is a learned skill to project an attitude and emotions.  Some people learn it more quickly (that's talent), but most "cute girls" do not have a clue.  A lot of young new models, especially those who are bad in school work and have poor attitude towards any kind of training, think they are all that, yet fail miserably when it comes to telling a story with their bodies.  I sometimes even run a shoot like an acting exercise/class.

I am biased.  Being a trained actor myself, I strongly advocate them to take acting lessons.  I am not asking for a degree or something, just one class will get them to realize the value and the difficulty in learning "skills" instead of relying on this born-beauty, that was out of nothing but luck.

I have always liked Don's reflector theory, it's been quite a while since I first heard it!

theda wrote:
The best models are actreeses, only very slow actresses.  They project the mood that is called for by by the director of the shoot and make it look natural and easy. S/he is aware of her/his body.

The model is aware of his/her market and know how to tailor his/her portfolio to that market.

yea..... what theda said

Cspine wrote:

yea..... what theda said

Yeah... and him too!

One of the 80's "supermodels" said it best. "Models are just actors that do their job at 1/125th second."

area291 wrote:

Just about everything.

"Please be honest, kind and charitable. It's the Human thing to do."  What about the kind part?

theda wrote:
The best models are actreeses, only very slow actresses.  They project the mood that is called for by by the director of the shoot and make it look natural and easy. S/he is aware of her/his body.

The model is aware of his/her market and know how to tailor his/her portfolio to that market.

I completely agree. Alot of photographers liking working with me because I have actting experence. My classes never went to waste. I use them when shooting all the time.

I also think my dancing skills help too. Makes me more flexible and natural with movement.  I can also stand in qwark positions for a long time because of this skill. You learn to deal with pain when dancing.

bencook2 wrote:
"Please be honest, kind and charitable. It's the Human thing to do."  What about the kind part?

So, I'll ask a return question.  Is it not kind to direct those to face a little reality?  Or, is it better to give response to those seeking information in an industry that does anything but that?  There was/is a clear misunderstanding of the modeling industry in what was presented.

Sometimes, questions / assertations deserve pointed answers.  To not provide a response that makes people think before they write is the most unkind thing one can do.  There's nothing worse than allowing those to float in their own dimension without helping pull them in to a little sensible reality.

"A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts." 

The existentialism defined in the presentation of topic and as defined in the previous statement has not a thing to do with modeling.  Spout the ideals written to those working in the industry and one is likely to be clearly defined as nothing more than quack. 

Telling the OP that he has literaly missed the boat is a kind gesture to keep those internal musings hidden, and gives others the process to think, "Huh?"

Signed,
Kindly direct with regards.

bencook2 wrote:

"Please be honest, kind and charitable. It's the Human thing to do."  What about the kind part?

That was off-topic and a cheap shot. Refrain from carrying your political drama with others over into other threads that are obviously industry related.

theda wrote:
That was bencook2 telling area291 he was being an ass, which he was. Carry on.

Evidently you felt the OP musings were both pertinent and relative.  Why doesn't that surprise me...

The thread title and what was written would hardly be a response given by anyone in the actual industry of modeling.

area291 wrote:
Evidently you felt the OP musings were both pertinent and relative.  Why doesn't that surprise me...

The thread title and what was written would hardly be a response given by anyone in the actual industry of modeling.

Any reason you don't try explaining your statements to the ignorant masses instead of just continuing to be an ass?

theda wrote:
Any reason you don't try explaining your statements to the ignorant masses...

Oh please...Read the first thing written...the most basic function is to reflect light?  How esoteric, just for the sake of being so.  If proof of that is needed then I suggest you take a little survey of those who actually book models...as their job...and ask them what a "model's job" is and I dare say that isn't going to rate as even close to the first thing they say. 

Beyond that silly statement, there wasn't much credibility given to further definition that would likely be confirmed as a model's job.

Oh wait, that might certainly fall in line with Internet modeling philosophy.  You're right, I'm an ass for thinking the model's job is nothing more than standing there "reflecting light" for the photographer with no other purpose and not explaining that to the masses.

area291 wrote:
The thread title and what was written would hardly be a response given by anyone in the actual industry of modeling.

I am in the aerospace industry and have the avocation of photography.  I was in the modeling "industry" (funny word, that) way back in the '80's when models were (among) my customers.  Now my customers are not models, but mostly photography buyers.

That said, I'll stand by what I posted.  Additions are welcome, however. 

-Don

area291 wrote:
Oh please...Read the first thing written...the most basic function is to reflect light?

You said it, it is, indeed, the most basic function.  How do you shoot someone who doesn't reflect light???  I think Jessica Alba is pretty hot when she reflects light, but not when she is transparent in Fantastic Four...

theda wrote:
That wasn't political drama. That was bencook2 telling area291 he was being an ass, which he was. Carry on.

***Hearts and Smiles***

I thought it was great of D. Brian Nelson to go through the trouble of putting some coherent and meaningful thoughts together on this subject.  Certainly more interesting than our typical "Should Boyfriends..." threads.  Area291 has a long history on this board that speaks for itself.  I thought it inappropriate and certainly not good nettiquette to do a drive by posting when someone goes through the trouble to post such a detailed thread.  BUT, I guess I could also be guilty of a drive by posting because mine was brief and directed to Area291 himself. (the quote in my original post is from Area's MM page, I thought it interesting that he asks others to be kind to him...and yet did not extend the same curtesy)

bencook2 wrote:

***Hearts and Smiles***

I thought it was great of D. Brian Nelson to go through the trouble of putting some coherent and meaningful thoughts together on this subject.  Certainly more interesting than our typical "Should Boyfriends..." threads.  Area291 has a long history on this board that speaks for itself.  I thought it inappropriate and certainly not good nettiquette to do a drive by posting when someone goes through the trouble to post such a detailed thread.  BUT, I guess I could also be guilty of a drive by posting because mine was brief and directed to Area291 himself. (the quote in my original post is from Area's MM page, I thought it interesting that he asks others to be kind to him...and yet did not extend the same curtesy)

My bad and I apologize. I somehow missed the gist of what he wrote and thought this was simply animosity pouring over from off-topic discussion. I'll now bow my head and go to bed.

Candy Lynn wrote:
If all a model to you is a light reflector, then go to the toy store, buy a Barbie doll and pose it for your images.

Read the rest of the original post.  See if you can make it all the way past the first line.

-D

theda wrote:
The best models are actreeses, only very slow actresses.  They project the mood that is called for by by the director of the shoot and make it look natural and easy. S/he is aware of her/his body.

The model is aware of his/her market and know how to tailor his/her portfolio to that market.

What Theda said....

Candy Lynn wrote:
D.

Can I read past the first line?  Your right, models are not very bright.  Are they???

Blah, blah, blah.

I have several PhDs on my site.  And an astronaut and a few engineers, and tons of college graduates and post grads and undergrads.  A few that I remember speak more than four languages.  And of those that don't fall into one of those categories they are for the most part open and intelligent.  A few aren't bright, but not many.

Where did I imply that models aren't bright?  Go read past the first line again.  Or get someone to help you.

And it's "you're right," not "your right."

-Don

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

Blah, blah, blah.

I have several PhDs on my site.  And an astronaut and a few engineers, and tons of college graduates and post grads and undergrads.  A few that I remember speak more than four languages.  And of those that don't fall into one of those categories they are for the most part open and intelligent.  A few aren't bright, but not many.

Where did I imply that models aren't bright?  Go read past the first line again.  Or get someone to help you.

And it's "you're right," not "your right."

-Don

See what I mean?  You insult yourself with every smartass remark.  Need I say more?  Have a good life.

area291 wrote:
Oh please...Read the first thing written...the most basic function is to reflect light?  How esoteric, just for the sake of being so.  If proof of that is needed then I suggest you take a little survey of those who actually book models...as their job...and ask them what a "model's job" is and I dare say that isn't going to rate as even close to the first thing they say. 

Beyond that silly statement, there wasn't much credibility given to further definition that would likely be confirmed as a model's job.

Oh wait, that might certainly fall in line with Internet modeling philosophy.  You're right, I'm an ass for thinking the model's job is nothing more than standing there "reflecting light" for the photographer with no other purpose and not explaining that to the masses.

Those who book models tend, as a whole (yes, there are always exceptions) tend not to be the sharpest knives in the drawer. Very few of them have any idea of what really makes a model, what motivates a Lindbergh, Testino, Von Unwerth, or Richardson to convince their client to book them for a campaign they're shooting. What they generally do is chase the trend and act smarmy about it. Because that's what their life affords. I don't expect thoughtful words on the subject coming from their mouths, that's for sure.

Yes, the topic is esotheric. Why? Because the original poster is an intelligent guy, and he's asking a "what does it all mean?" sort of question. The sort of question that an equally intelligent photographer might ask when examining the basic concept of his work. As somebody who does work in said industry where models are dealt with every day, I don't see what the problem is with this question.

Every single last one of the very best photographers in the world that I've ever met, and quite a few of the best art directors have a thoughtful core to them. The ability to take pretty pictures doesn't spring forth from a vacuum. All art, commercial or otherwise, comes from something.

Candy Lynn wrote:
See what I mean?  You insult yourself with every smartass remark.  Need I say more?  Have a good life.

This is one of those odd combinations of humor and pathos I read so much about.

theda wrote:
The best models are actreeses, only very slow actresses.  They project the mood that is called for by the director of the shoot and make it look natural and easy. S/he is aware of her/his body.

Just like III I completely agree.

lll wrote:
I completely agree.  The best subjects I have shot are all actors and actresses.  It is a learned skill to project an attitude and emotions.  Some people learn it more quickly (that's talent), but most "cute girls" do not have a clue.  A lot of young new models, especially those who are bad in school work and have poor attitude towards any kind of training, think they are all that, yet fail miserably when it comes to telling a story with their bodies.  I sometimes even run a shoot like an acting exercise/class.

I am biased.  Being a trained actor myself, I strongly advocate them to take acting lessons.  I am not asking for a degree or something, just one class will get them to realize the value and the difficulty in learning "skills" instead of relying on this born-beauty, that was out of nothing but luck.

I have always liked Don's reflector theory, it's been quite a while since I first heard it!

III I don't know if I've ever agreed with anyone word for word ever. You literally ripped my thoughts from my head. Yes, modeling IS acting amd it is also a reflection.

Butit's more thaa reflection
of light. It's more accurately a reflection of life...which includes light, emotion, movement, involvement, depth, growth, progression, and, anything else you care to add. Photographers are always better at expressing what is needed. Most models are very slow at adopting this feeling, or as some will  call it..theory.

RE: Kristin Anne, yes she is VERY gifted and natural.
She should be really big. I think a photographer should get with her and the two of you perfect your gifts together. That will be an outstanding partnership.


I SAID IT FIRST!