Stefano Brunesci wrote:
What if there's nobody else on set and something needs adjusting that you can't do yourself? If the photographer politely asks if he/she can do it will you still refuse?

Part of the business of being a model is getting used to being pushed, prodded, tweaked and adjusted like a mannequin in a window by pretty much all and sundry. If you have an objection to being touched or in some way feel that a photographer who needs to adjust something is automatically a pervert or creep then perhaps you should reconsider whether you're really cut out to be a model?



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

QuietAsKept wrote:
I had a shoot yesterday. Though the photographer didn't touch me inappropriately, he kept tapping my arms and legs with the light meter. He also kept on patting me on the back and I have no clue whatsoever why

He had me thinking that he couldn't "control" himself in front of an art nude model and it really makes me think twice about shooting with another photographer who doesn't have much experience with shooting art nudes.

The trick is to avoid shooting with photographers who use light meters. They are a creepy bunch.

David-Thomas wrote:

The trick is to avoid shooting with photographers who use light meters. They are a creepy bunch.

LOL

Washphoto wrote:
I have read this thread carefully and I am both amazed and sometimes amused by the dialogue.  I have been a photographer for nearly 50 years.  Yes, I am old.  I have done professional work under agency contract and personal work of my own creative effort....in all these years I never once touched a model nor did I have the slightest need to do so.  If the model and the assistants cannot correct it as I see it and feel it....I move on.  Have I lost creative control this way?  Of course.

Then, by your own admission, you have needed to touch a model.  You just decided for your own reason not to address that need.

Washphoto wrote:
A model you see, is an individual that deserves admiration, respect, and deference.  Photoshoots are not about power and control, they are about creating imagery found when the model and photographer become one and are focused on the same outcome.

There is absolutely nothing about what you wrote that contradicts touching the model.  The MUAs, stylists and assistants do it all day.  It's part of their job.  If they can't do what's necessary and you can, then it becomes part of your job.  What is it about being a photographer that you feel makes you such a lowly creature that your touch would sully the model?

I agree with the poster who replied to you above.  I find what you have written to be strangely sad.

Lifestyle_Photographer wrote:
I've not seen this many excuses to act unprofessional in a long while.

Seriously? I do not even understand. There is nothing in your description as a photographer that requires you to touch the model plain and simple.

Oh, really?  As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, and is often mentioned in similar threads, "those ropes and chains don't get there own their own".

I find it absurd that often the same people who wouldn't bat an eye at the way that I bind models would look askance if I were to adjust a strand of hair or the strap of a dress during a vanilla shoot.

It's all about need and intent.  Touching models is not unprofessional.  Touching models unprofessionally is unprofessional.

Stefano Brunesci wrote:

What if there's nobody else on set and something needs adjusting that you can't do yourself? If the photographer politely asks if he/she can do it will you still refuse?

Part of the business of being a model is getting used to being pushed, prodded, tweaked and adjusted like a mannequin in a window by pretty much all and sundry. If you have an objection to being touched or in some way feel that a photographer who needs to adjust something is automatically a pervert or creep then perhaps you should reconsider whether you're really cut out to be a model?



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Agreed.  Since I also do the hair, makeup and wardrobe as well as the take the photos I've never come across this problem.  I'm also a female photographer and that may change the variables in this situation.

Sometimes they just don't understand what you want and they have to be touched..move a hand here, move a strand of hair etc.

exartica wrote:
Oh, really?  As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, and is often mentioned in similar threads, "those ropes and chains don't get there own their own".

I find it absurd that often the same people who wouldn't bat an eye at the way that I bind models would look askance if I were to adjust a strand of hair or the strap of a dress during a vanilla shoot.

It's all about need and intent.  Touching models is not unprofessional.  Touching models unprofessionally is unprofessional.

At that moment you are touching the model with the job description of the wardrobe stylist/rope binder not as the photographer. A photographer who touches the model unnecessarily is unprofessional.

Please note that opening it up for others to think touching a model unnecessarily is ok, is enabling others to find themselves in a world of trouble. Better safe than sorry, and I would not want to be the one enabling someone else to get themselves in trouble. Unless of course, you are just trying to provide an excuse for your own actions, then refer to the statement, " There is nothing in the photographer's job description that requires them to touch the model."

- Phen

Lifestyle_Photographer wrote:
At that moment you are touching the model with the job description of the wardrobe stylist/rope binder not as the photographer.

Only in the narrow sense.  In the broad sense, I'm touching the model as a member of a team whose job it is to get the best results possible.  Since I don't run a union set, there aren't strict, arbitrary rules designed to pad the payroll that restrict who does what task.  Whoever is best positioned and able to do it does it.

Lifestyle_Photographer wrote:
A photographer who touches the model unnecessarily is unprofessional.

Trivially true.  Duh.  Same for the MUA, stylist and the parking valet.  A photographer who doesn't touch a model when it is necessary is also unprofessional, because they aren't doing their job.

QuietAsKept wrote:
I had a shoot yesterday. Though the photographer didn't touch me inappropriately, he kept tapping my arms and legs with the light meter. He also kept on patting me on the back and I have no clue whatsoever why

He had me thinking that he couldn't "control" himself in front of an art nude model and it really makes me think twice about shooting with another photographer who doesn't have much experience with shooting art nudes.

Did you open your mouth and tell him to stop?

exartica wrote:

Lifestyle_Photographer wrote:
At that moment you are touching the model with the job description of the wardrobe stylist/rope binder not as the photographer.

Only in the narrow sense.  In the broad sense, I'm touching the model as a member of a team whose job it is to get the best results possible.  Since I don't run a union set, there aren't strict, arbitrary rules designed to pad the payroll that restrict who does what task.  Whoever is best positioned and able to do it does it.


Trivially true.  Duh.  Same for the MUA, stylist and the parking valet.  A photographer who doesn't touch a model when it is necessary is also unprofessional, because they aren't doing their job.

Make the excuses you will. I know better than to try and reason with the unreasonable, but alas I tried.

QuietAsKept wrote:
I had a shoot yesterday. Though the photographer didn't touch me inappropriately, he kept tapping my arms and legs with the light meter. He also kept on patting me on the back and I have no clue whatsoever why

He had me thinking that he couldn't "control" himself in front of an art nude model and it really makes me think twice about shooting with another photographer who doesn't have much experience with shooting art nudes.

In the 4 years that I have owned a light meter, I never touched a model with my Sekonic. That's what the riding crop is for - (j/k).

Nikki Magnusson wrote:
am I the only one who noticed theres a thread about..

"retouching models?"..

lol..sorry couldnt resist..

Retouching....Nikki I haven't even touched you yet 


But, you gotta think that this whole concept brings to light a different meaning to TFP = Touching for Pleasure

BMI Studio wrote:
Models have allowed me to adjust bras, panties, pull lichen from their bush, brush dirt off their breasts and butt.

LMFAO dude where are you getting your models from?!  The ASPCA?

E6 Project wrote:
This guy nailed it on the first page. Shooting models isn't my profession but my profession dictates being around a lot of it on the "top end" and girls, nothing creepy intended, you gonna get a little manhandled.

touching or adjusting a model does not equal manhandling. the last photographer who grabbed me by the arm and tried to drag me away from another photographer got a death stare that kept him at arms length at all times for a couple of years

though yesterday, I admittedly had something creepy come out of my mouth. don't know where it came from
her hair was sticking up and staticy and I asked if "you mind, if i spit your hair"
she gave me a look and said "yeah, but we can use mine"
*facepalm* bad faith

PETER GEORGAS wrote:

+ 1 !!

+1

Lifestyle_Photographer wrote:
There is nothing in your description as a photographer that requires you to touch the model plain and simple.