Photo Samurai wrote:
Sounds like that photographer doesn't know how to use the clone/patch tool in Photoshop 

I would finish the shoot out of courtesy and retouch afterwords if need be.  If it's reallly bad, then I do feel the model should have said something ahead of time about it.

There was no need to say it ahead of time, she told him before hand she's just had a baby so she's not sure if her body is "nude" material. Because she hasn't lost all weight & due to the stretch marks & the scar. He said she looked great don't worry about minor details. Then turned around & went crazy on her once the clothes were off.

I typically don't see the point in editing out scars unless it's like glamor shot or along those lines. Whenever I do nude shots, I don't edit. I see nudes as being natural/raw, & that's how I keep them.

I just found his approach to it uncalled for, & completely unprofessional.

gwsphotos wrote:
It is not an issue for me, but I mainly do art nudes.  At the opening last weekend a women told me she appreciated seeing natural women.

It might be different for someone shooting glamor/pin up nudes.

I agree with that woman, I hate always seeing these perfect models, nude or clothed.

Nelia wrote:
Very short answer... no I would not consider the model unsuitable as a nude model.  Most models I have worked with have had some sort of scar, stretch marks, moles and / or birthmarks that Photographer may need to retouch.  My opinion is that the "Photographer" was being very unprofessional and a complete Jerk!

It's a simple 5 minute process in photoshop compared to what 30 minutes for a glamor or something? I don't see a problem with a model having some kind of "blemish" I don't want everyone I shoot to look like they're a Barbie.

I think he could have handled that better.

Secretly Cherish wrote:
It's a simple 5 minute process in photoshop compared to what 30 minutes for a glamor or something? I don't see a problem with a model having some kind of "blemish" I don't want everyone I shoot to look like they're a Barbie.

I think he could have handled that better.

Nelia wrote:
Very short answer... no I would not consider the model unsuitable as a nude model.  Most models I have worked with have had some sort of scar, stretch marks, moles and / or birthmarks that Photographer may need to retouch.  My opinion is that the "Photographer" was being very unprofessional and a complete Jerk!

It may or may not be a 5 minute job per image.  Without seeing the Model there is no way I can estimate the time required for the retouch work.  Also, the Photographer gets to decide if he wants to spend his time removing the flaws, not the model. The Model should have been honest with the Photographer abouts her scars, stretch marks, moles, birthmarks, etc. since she was going to be posing nude.  So by not disclosing the information, the situation is also her fault.  However, like I said, the "Photographer" was being very unprofessional and a complete Jerk!

I have had a similiar situation with a nude model who showed up with Tattoos.  She did disclose the information and the Tattoos were not visible in her port.  I did not want to work with a nude model with Tattoos and I was doing a artistic Figure Nude shoot.  I felt I was within my right to not do the shoot.  And before anybody jumps on me, I know I have a couple of heavily Tattooed models in my port.  They were TFP / CD shoots for the models ports.

Secretly Cherish wrote:
There was no need to say it ahead of time, she told him before hand she's just had a baby so she's not sure if her body is "nude" material. Because she hasn't lost all weight & due to the stretch marks & the scar. He said she looked great don't worry about minor details. Then turned around & went crazy on her once the clothes were off.

I typically don't see the point in editing out scars unless it's like glamor shot or along those lines. Whenever I do nude shots, I don't edit. I see nudes as being natural/raw, & that's how I keep them.

I just found his approach to it uncalled for, & completely unprofessional.

Actually, there was a need to say it if that's not what the photographer wants. Now perhaps he wasn't clear enough in the beginning and there may have been a misunderstanding, I don't know.   And that's nice you don't do edits, but that's you and other photographers do.  Still, I think he was rude in how he handled the situation.

Photo Samurai wrote:
Actually, there was a need to say it if that's not what the photographer wants. Now perhaps he wasn't clear enough in the beginning and there may have been a misunderstanding, I don't know.   And that's nice you don't do edits, but that's you and other photographers do.  Still, I think he was rude in how he handled the situation.

No she didn't, cause 1. she's not a model, he asked her to model for him & 2. she already told him WHY she didn't think she would fit as a nude model & HE told her not to worry about it.

wynnesome wrote:
Some photographers want perfect skin with no marks or blemishes; others don't.

As a model, you're being cast (whether for TFP or monetary payment) based upon your looks.  It's irresponsible of a model NOT to describe/disclose significant body features such as scars.  Ideally, the portfolio should include an unretouched image where these marks are visible.

As with ANY other element of the model's looks, you're going to get some gigs, and lose others, because of the physical characteristics.  Photographer wants a blonde and you're a brunette? You don't get that gig.  Photographer wants a model 5'2" or shorter and you're 5'5"? You don't get that gig. Photographer wants unblemished skin and you have stretch marks?  You don't get that gig. Photographer looking to shoot a series emphasizing the textures of scarred skin, and you have perfect skin - you don't get that gig.

Lying about aspects of your look - whether this means measurements, scars, tattoos, hair color/length, or any other features - is just asking for an unpleasant situation to arise on set.  Whether or not the photographer expresses it in polite words, the frustration is quite understandable if a model shows up looking different from what was expected.

That said, insulting a model and calling her ugly is quite rude as well.

You're assuming she's lying or hiding it. She told him before she ever did the shoot that she felt she wouldn't fit for a nude shoot, BECAUSE she just had a baby. So how is that hiding it or being irresponsible? 

She's not a model, she was just modeling for him. Since he pursued her, she's on entitled to come out of the blue & say "I have stretch marks here & here, I also have this kind of scar & that .. "

G D Peters Photography wrote:
I have shot many models with both and personally if I have chosen to work with them, then it is my responsibility to make sure the model looks her best by photoshopping them out, unless she wishes otherwise.  To get up tight about them is immature behavior in my estimation, since they are normal everyday adult occurrences.

I agree that it was an immature way to handle it. He acted as if he's never seen a scar before, I was offended by the way he handled it & the comments he made.

Secretly Cherish wrote:
My question is, if you're shooting a model nude, would stretch marks & or a C-section scar stop you from shooting? Do you consider a woman with those "unsuitable" for nude shots?

Not at all, scars are real and beautiful.

Secretly Cherish wrote:

It's a simple 5 minute process in photoshop compared to what 30 minutes for a glamor or something? I don't see a problem with a model having some kind of "blemish" I don't want everyone I shoot to look like they're a Barbie.

I think he could have handled that better.

Five minutes of patience would have kept him from seeming to be a dick about it.

JSGPhotography wrote:

Not at all, scars are real and beautiful.

+1

Secretly Cherish wrote:
Personally I find them beautiful, ...

Personally, I don't.

Ken Pegg wrote:
Personally, I don't.

LOL

Secretly Cherish wrote:
...She told him before she ever did the shoot that she felt she wouldn't fit for a nude shoot, BECAUSE she just had a baby. So how is that hiding it or being irresponsible?...

Photographer should have asked for more detail.

C. Scott Photography wrote:
Also, you say that she said that she alerted him ahead of time that she recently had a baby.  But that is VERRRRRRY different than saying 'I recently had major surgery to get my baby out of me that left a large scar'.

+1

Secretly Cherish wrote:
Today I was assisting in a nude shoot, & it just so happened that the model had some stretch marks & a scar from having her baby. When the photographer saw it, he got all mad that she "didn't tell him before hand" & walked out of the shoot saying "her body is too ugly to shoot nude".

Personally I find them beautiful, I don't know if it's because I'm a mother myself or what. But her stretch marks weren't that noticeable & only on the breasts & a little on her hips. So I found nothing wrong with it.

My question is, if you're shooting a model nude, would stretch marks & or a C-section scar stop you from shooting? Do you consider a woman with those "unsuitable" for nude shots?



EDIT: His remark that she didn't tell him before hand, was a lie on HIS part. She told his BEFORE the shoot that she doesn't think her body is suitable for a nude shoot, BECAUSE she had just had a baby. He told her it was no big deal, until she actually took off her clothes.

Well that photographer is a moronic twat.

But stretch marks and scars wouldn't be an issue for me...They have never been hard to edit out anyways.

Photo Dreams wrote:
The photographer was out of order in his response to the model, i would have completed the shoot and PSed the images as best i could.
However; the model should have informed the photographer in detail well before the shoot.
Simply saying "I have just had a baby, so my body may not be suitable" is not enough, the extent of the marks/scar should have been made clear.
Then an informed decision can be made.

I disagree completely. That would have been the photographer's cue to inquire for more information on her body.

Anyway, when someone says something like that I'd just assume they have stretch marks and stuff. But I'd mention the C-section separately. Having a baby and having a C-section are somewhat different. I mean the end result is the same but it completely changes your body when you have a C-section.

C. Scott Photography wrote:
Also, you say that she said that she alerted him ahead of time that she recently had a baby.  But that is VERRRRRRY different than saying 'I recently had major surgery to get my baby out of me that left a large scar'.

As I already said in a reply to someone, she did tell him & all of her marks aren't that noticeable. & I had my daughter via C-section & I can tell you, it doesn't leave a "large scar". Clearly you don't know anything about C-sections or you'd know it's it's about a quarter of a centimeter in with, not that noticeable.

Photo Dreams wrote:
The photographer was out of order in his response to the model, i would have completed the shoot and PSed the images as best i could.
However; the model should have informed the photographer in detail well before the shoot.
Simply saying "I have just had a baby, so my body may not be suitable" is not enough, the extent of the marks/scar should have been made clear.
Then an informed decision can be made.

He asked me before hand if I think she would be up for a nude shoot (she's my brothers wife) & I said I don't know, she's self conscious about the scar & stretch marks. He pursued her even after I had told him about it & told her it's no big deal before she even explained any further what she meant by, she just had a baby & doesn't think it's suitable.

So again, she had no need to tell him, it was all out there before hand. Her watching me work with models, she knows that she needs to let them know about any scars/burns/birthmarks/moles & anything else. She wasn't going to go through with it, if my brother didn't tell her he thinks she should.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
That's the reaction of a GWC, who doesn't know how to use Photoshop.  What does he do when he gets a model with one tiny mole on her face?  "You never told me you had one tiny mole on your face."

I do not think that has to do with the Potographer being a GWC or not.   Your comment seems to imply that only a GWC would act that way and I would disagree with you!  It has to do with the "Photographer" being very unprofessional, rude and a complete Jerk!

Nelia wrote:

I do not think that has to do with the Potographer being a GWC or not.   Your comment seems to imply that only a GWC would act that way and I would disagree with you!  It has to do with the "Photographer" being very unprofessional, rude and a complete Jerk!

I just think he's in the wrong line of work.

Secretly Cherish wrote:

I just think he's in the wrong line of work.

It sounds like he would be a jerk no matter what line of work he were in.

Michael Magers wrote:
Healing Brush -> clone stamp.  Takes 10 minutes tops.

Not all baby bellys can be retouched out in 10 minutes.

This entire problem can be solved with a casting photo.

There is a huge difference in a few simple stretch marks and a hanging baby pouch...