Forums > General Industry > Limits / agreements / accidents

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Bumped because of an ongoing thread due to a model's concerns.

Short version, for those who won't read more.  Why would anyone benefit from showing images that the model doesn't want public.

Long version, with some context.
I'm trying to understand something I see fairly often in the forums, which can be summed up in the comment I saw recently "don't let the photographer see anything you don't want public."

I'm curious; is that really typical?  It is a LONG ways from how I do things, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from having that sort of an atmosphere.

My process is, more or less;
1. Limits are discussed prior to the shoot, as arrangements are being made.
2. Limits are reviewed and if necessary clarified when the model arrives.  I make it clear that any accidents won't be used, and that if there is a case where there is doubt, the model can check the shot before it goes public.
3. Limits are, as relevant, discussed during the shoot (do you realize xyz is showing, etc.)
4. Model reviews proofs, and lets me know of any "no way" or "I'm not sure about that one" shots.
5. I delete, or occasionally, crop the "no way" shots, and when relevant, do final, but not yet public, versions of images where the model isn't sure.

This seems to work for me, and I find that models seem comfortable with the process, and that it allows for a more pleasant shoot to have the model not worry about accidents.  On occasion, this comfort means I get images I wouldn't have otherwise gotten, in various ways.

So, the question is, why would it be better for anyone, and especially for the photographer, to create a climate where the model is worried about having no say in exposure shown in final images.

And, to be clear, this isn't just a "full nudes" issue.  It has applied with anywhere from shadows or "tone" of open leg shots, to nip slips and accidental upskirts in fully clothed shoots.

Jun 03 12 02:11 pm Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17956

Los Angeles, California, US

the model is not my client. I post the images best suited to either the client (i.e. magazine, advertising agency, product company) or to my portfolio should it be a portfolio shoot.

I have never shot images that are outside the bounds of what the model or subject has expressed, and as such do not have any need to have them approve the final images before print.

If a model wishes final approval they are welcome to hire me to shoot content for them and pay a separate fee for the requirement of final approval on all images produced.

Jun 03 12 02:13 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Star wrote:
the llama is not my client. I post the images best suited to either the client (i.e. magazine, advertising agency, product company) or to my portfolio should it be a portfolio shoot.

I have never shot images that are outside the bounds of what the llama or subject has expressed, and as such do not have any need to have them approve the final images before print.

If a llama wishes final approval they are welcome to hire me to shoot content for them and pay a separate fee for the requirement of final approval on all images produced.

I think you understand, but I'm not talking about approval of poses for being "flattering" and what not.  Just about exposure or "tone."  If you never shoot nudes, or anything where accidents are possible, then I guess this wouldn't apply to you.

On the other hand, in a trade shoot, or when I'm paid, the llama IS my client, and this is one aspect of treating them as such.

Jun 03 12 02:23 pm Link

Photographer

BodyartBabes

Posts: 2005

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US

Star wrote:
the model is not my client. I post the images best suited to either the client (i.e. magazine, advertising agency, product company) or to my portfolio should it be a portfolio shoot.

I have never shot images that are outside the bounds of what the model or subject has expressed, and as such do not have any need to have them approve the final images before print.

If a model wishes final approval they are welcome to hire me to shoot content for them and pay a separate fee for the requirement of final approval on all images produced.

Star,

If someone pays, they are a client.  Whether you believe it to be or not. 

You have an obligation to fulfill what you promise, and that is often left to the lawyers and courts when the stakes are high enough.  One day, they will be, and you'll see.  Models DO NOT PAY, CLIENTS pay. 

When YOU PAY, the subject is a _MODEL_, and you have control, since you are, in effect, the client.

But this thread is heading for a train wreck because there is no one way to view this, and no one answer.  There are more shades of grey than in a rich silver print.

Scott

Jun 03 12 02:32 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

Rays Fine Art

Posts: 6308

New York, New York, US

BodyartBabes wrote:
. . .  there is no one way to view this, and no one answer.  There are more shades of grey than in a rich silver print.

Scott

Scott has summed the question up pretty accurately, I think.  I work pretty much the way "Art" does.  It seems to me to be impossible to be completely certain of not getting a shot or two that is outside the model's boundaries, whether due to accident or due to differing interpretations of the agreements in place.  And given that we so often misunderstand each other, simply because we are human, and all the more so given the fact that any agreement we may reach concerning boundaries is to at least some extent governed by the subtleties of taste,  it further seems to me foolish not to allow some reasonable, appropriate measure of post shoot review and control to vest in the model, before the pictures go to the client for final approval.  (Please note the use of the words reasonable and appropriate, in themselves subject to personal interpretation.)

I wouldn't trust an insurance salesman or a used car salesman that simply shoved a piece of paper at me and said, "Sign this, it's industry standard."  But that's precisely what we often insist that models do.  And if I were a model, as I have sometimes been and even now sometimes am, and were presented with a "My way or the highway!" attitude in response to a  reasonable concern reasonably stated,  my choice would be the highway.

For my part, I think we would all be better served, models and photographers alike, if models would take that approach more often.

All IMHO, as always.

Jun 03 12 05:28 pm Link

Photographer

Viator Defessus Photos

Posts: 1116

College Station, Texas, US

I ask models about limits. They vary. Sometimes they just don't want a their name used, sometimes they don't want a particular part showing (even their face). I've gotten some very specific restrictions whereby "you can take whatever, but don't post any pictures that show my face on {X} website." If that's what they want, I either pass if it's unreasonable or if I can't live with that restriction or I might darn sure I obey that restriction. As a result, I tend to have very open, positive, and trusting relationships with the models I work with and we work together several times because they know I'll keep my word.

On model said I could do whatever as long as I didn't post a picture of her on Fetlife that showed her face. I could post pictures of her that showed her face on MM or dA, but not on Fet. I said "Ok." We did the shoot, I gave her all the images I retouched. She ended up posting some of the images that showed her face on Fet because she can restrict those to only her friends, and she's very careful about who she friends. So she has some pretty nice shots  of her up there that I agreed I wouldn't post there, so I don't.

This pays off in other ways too. One woman showed my work to a friend of hers and it seems likely I'll get to shoot with the friend.

Call it karma, call it just plain old being nice. If you treat people with courtesy and respect you'll win out in the end.

Jun 03 12 05:42 pm Link

Model

Laura UnBound

Posts: 27371

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Why would people use images that upset the person in the image? Because people are dicks.

There are people who purposefully try to sneak in or talk you into something once on set so they can look awesome in front of their photographer buddies, or just because some assholes are on a power trip and dont care they're going to upset you because they already have no intention of working with you a second time if they get what they want the first time.

"she said she doesn't do nudes, but look, Ive got tons of nipple slips! HAHAHA! and Im gonna post them because I want to be the only guy with pictures of this models boobs, make all the other guys jealous. Look how cool I am that I got a photo of her changing without her knowing. She wouldn't let me shoot it so I just snuck it in and its my photo so she can't stop me, neener neener"

Theres people who think their idea of the perfect image should trump keeping all parties happy, so if they think that photo of your boob falling out is THE BEST PHOTO EVER, they're going to use it whether you want them to or not, they dont care they agreed not to, their portfolio NEEDS your tits in it or its not good enough.

To some people its a game of 'how far can I go before I get in serious trouble' and its fun to sneak in photos they're not supposed to, it gets them off in some stupid way.


They generally have no genuine intention of "making art" or "collaborating" or any of that, they just want to get the photos they care about and dont care who they have to fuck over to get them. You'd think they'd just work with people comfortable with those types of shoots but maybe its just not as fun that way, theres nothing to conquer

Jun 03 12 05:46 pm Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4344

Asheville, North Carolina, US

On one hand the kind of limits in shooting that Art writes about are totally foreign to me, on the other hand I can think of numerous instances where I've been more concerned about the connections of content to identity than the model has been.

I've worked with several people during the last couple of years where they were either modelling nude for the first time or needed to keep shots anonymous. I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would violate the sorts of agreements regarding limits I have with the models I work with. Instead I've spent a good bit of time discussing issues like crediting, stage names, facial recognition, etc., with models to be sure that we both were clear on our mutual course of action.

Jun 03 12 06:15 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
On one hand the kind of limits in shooting that Art writes about are totally foreign to me, on the other hand I can think of numerous instances where I've been more concerned about the connections of content to identity than the model has been.

I've worked with several people during the last couple of years where they were either modelling nude for the first time or needed to keep shots anonymous. I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would violate the sorts of agreements regarding limits I have with the models I work with. Instead I've spent a good bit of time discussing issues like crediting, stage names, facial recognition, etc., with models to be sure that we both were clear on our mutual course of action.

I don't quite understand the bold part.  This has nothing to do with the specific levels; I've had the issues come up with a bra showing, and with how much labia shows in an open leg shot.

It has to do with communication and respect; as you talk about in the rest of your comment.

Jun 03 12 06:33 pm Link

Model

Dekilah

Posts: 4890

Detroit, Michigan, US

Having shot with you (the OP) along with many, many other photographers I can say that your approach to this is probably the best I have ever encountered. I have said this before, and this is a great place to say it again: you have some of the best communication skills around.

And you are absolutely right, the comfort in knowing you understand limits and are willing to explore the edge with a model, while agreeing to delete photos if the model does not like them. Yes there is a certain degree of trust there, but you build that prior to the shoot.

There have been shoots, not so much recently, during which I did play on the edge of my limits because I did want to have to try to veto those images. There have also been times when I have completely declined working with someone who I could have probably created work that would have been beneficial for both of us because they either did not care to discuss limits at all. If those people prefer a model with more "open" limits, I have no problem with that, but when they continue to state wanting me for the project, but not wishing to discuss details on limits, the only thing I can do is decline.

I did have one photographer tell me he liked to make his models uncomfortable or put them in situations similar to the mood of the image (sexual, painful, threatened, etc) because it gave him better results. I cannot say whether this works or not because I am not comfortable working in that environment, but maybe he has some success with it? I did like some of his work, but oddly less so when I was told how it was achieved. To me part of being a model is exuding an emotion from internal sources. If someone has to force you into it via uncomfortable situations that becomes more like a snap shot of something you doing, and less about modeling.

Jun 04 12 07:04 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

Justin

Posts: 21892

Fort Collins, Colorado, US

I take the OP's view.

Communication. Full understanding of what's going on, what's looked for, what can get done. If there's something marginal going into the pose or in the end result, run it past the model first.

If a model who prefers not to have bits in a photo is comfortable enough to prance around me naked, then I'm complimented, and the shoot is a little more smooth and a little less awkward. If she's wanting to keep her bits carefully covered from my possible view, that's her limits, and that's fine, too.

Jun 04 12 07:18 am Link

Photographer

Know Idea

Posts: 2954

San Diego, California, US

I'm not sure why someone would do that sort of thing other than they are an asshole.

I suppose if I were some sort of big time celeb photographer and there was a shot of a star where her blouse was maybe a little too shear or something like that and the editor absolutely loved it and wanted to use it but the star wasn't crazy about it . . . . I'd have to ponder that one. Safe to say I'll never be in that situation, though.  smile

But within the context of working with models here, yeah, that's not cool.

Jun 04 12 07:27 am Link

Photographer

RKD Photographic

Posts: 3265

Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

I generally shoot implied-nude with models who shoot art-nude or adult - it just makes life easier if the model isn't trying to be too coy about revealing 'bits'...

I shot a model recently where we'd agreed to shoot up to 'dessous/implied' (lingerie with a bit more skin), though she listed art-nude and fetish among the levels she worked at. Towards the end of a quite successful shoot we both decided that to make the most of her extensive tattoos she'd be better off disrobing from the waist up.
When I contacted her after the shoot, I told her that since 'our' shoot was TFP and only up to lingerie/implied, I wouldn't be using shots where her nipples were visible unless she authorised it. She told me to go ahead and use them anyway, but thanked me for having the good manners to ask first.
I've now booked her for a follow-up nude/fetish shoot, as we decided that we could do with exploring further the shots the last shoot ended with - although most of the shots will be well below that level, it makes life easier in the event we decide to 'go a bit further' so to speak...

Jun 04 12 07:34 am Link

guide forum

Model

Damianne

Posts: 15975

Austin, Texas, US

Money. Most of the things models don't want to show will get you money from a porn site.

That would be one reason to ignore a model's limits.

Jun 04 12 07:36 am Link

Photographer

Abbitt Photography

Posts: 11720

Oakland Acres, Iowa, US

Art of the nude wrote:
I'm curious; is that really typical?

I think images being used against agreements is not typical.   It certainly comes, up, but I think that is atypical of most shoots. 

When it does come up, it's usually due to a lack of communication by both parties, and that's probably the root cause of over half the rants here.   It amazes me how many people go into shoots with no agreement about exactly what the shoot will entail, when images (for TF) will be delivered, etc. and then seem surprised when these things don't magically work out the way they expected.

Jun 04 12 07:46 am Link

Photographer

Jacob Davis

Posts: 858

Boulder, Colorado, US

Art of the nude wrote:
Short version, for those who won't read more.  Why would anyone benefit from showing images that the model doesn't want public.

Long version, with some context.
I'm trying to understand something I see fairly often in the forums, which can be summed up in the comment I saw recently "don't let the photographer see anything you don't want public."

I'm curious; is that really typical?  It is a LONG ways from how I do things, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from having that sort of an atmosphere.

My process is, more or less;
1. Limits are discussed prior to the shoot, as arrangements are being made.
2. Limits are reviewed and if necessary clarified when the model arrives.  I make it clear that any accidents won't be used, and that if there is a case where there is doubt, the model can check the shot before it goes public.
3. Limits are, as relevant, discussed during the shoot (do you realize xyz is showing, etc.)
4. Model reviews proofs, and lets me know of any "no way" or "I'm not sure about that one" shots.
5. I delete, or occasionally, crop the "no way" shots, and when relevant, do final, but not yet public, versions of images where the model isn't sure.

This seems to work for me, and I find that models seem comfortable with the process, and that it allows for a more pleasant shoot to have the model not worry about accidents.  On occasion, this comfort means I get images I wouldn't have otherwise gotten, in various ways.

So, the question is, why would it be better for anyone, and especially for the photographer, to create a climate where the model is worried about having no say in exposure shown in final images.

And, to be clear, this isn't just a "full nudes" issue.  It has applied with anywhere from shadows or "tone" of open leg shots, to nip slips and accidental upskirts in fully clothed shoots.

Having almost no experience with nudes until the last month or two, I'm trying make out a consistent, comfortable approach. This might be helpful, so thanks for that.

So far my own approach has been clarity of intent up front; discussion of what poses I'll look for, how any sensitive bits will be hidden either through pose or post production.

I also use wording in my model release that prohibits usage of images in which said bits are showing. I don't know that it's technically legally binding, but it is in keeping with my intent and it seems to work with the models.

I find it important to communicate all of this to the model when I'm doing implied nudes. In the studio they may actually be full on nude images with everything showing, to be obscured in post. If I fail to communicate the vision effectively, there is some hesitation.

Jun 04 12 07:51 am Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Damianne wrote:
Money. Most of the things llamas don't want to show will get you money from a porn site.

That would be one reason to ignore a llama's limits.

While "what the llama doesn't want to show" can range to as modest as part of a padded bra, I've shot plenty of images of every inch of a llama.  No one seems to want to give me loads of money for them, porn sites or not.

Jun 04 12 10:45 am Link

Model

Delta LeeAnne Reed

Posts: 8

Cypress, Texas, US

Art of the nude wrote:
Short version, for those who won't read more.  Why would anyone benefit from showing images that the model doesn't want public.

Long version, with some context.
I'm trying to understand something I see fairly often in the forums, which can be summed up in the comment I saw recently "don't let the photographer see anything you don't want public."



I'm curious; is that really typical?  It is a LONG ways from how I do things, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from having that sort of an atmosphere.

My process is, more or less;
1. Limits are discussed prior to the shoot, as arrangements are being made.
2. Limits are reviewed and if necessary clarified when the model arrives.  I make it clear that any accidents won't be used, and that if there is a case where there is doubt, the model can check the shot before it goes public.
3. Limits are, as relevant, discussed during the shoot (do you realize xyz is showing, etc.)
4. Model reviews proofs, and lets me know of any "no way" or "I'm not sure about that one" shots.
5. I delete, or occasionally, crop the "no way" shots, and when relevant, do final, but not yet public, versions of images where the model isn't sure.

This seems to work for me, and I find that models seem comfortable with the process, and that it allows for a more pleasant shoot to have the model not worry about accidents.  On occasion, this comfort means I get images I wouldn't have otherwise gotten, in various ways.

So, the question is, why would it be better for anyone, and especially for the photographer, to create a climate where the model is worried about having no say in exposure shown in final images.

And, to be clear, this isn't just a "full nudes" issue.  It has applied with anywhere from shadows or "tone" of open leg shots, to nip slips and accidental upskirts in fully clothed shoots.

I completely understand where you are coming from and this process is excellent. I am mostly a model but I love working on BOTH sides of the camera. When the model is confident their rights, and vision, are being respected the out come is better for everyone. That includes the client as well. If the client wants certain images that a particular model won't agree to, they don't match for the job. That does not mean you take images (whoops shots or not) and use them if the model did not consent to them or is not comfortable with them. The model is still a person; and legally speaking has rights, especially when the exposure of their body is the argument at hand. Client or not, the photographer, ethically speaking, should not get the right to decide what a model will or will not be comfortable with in the public eye.

Jun 04 12 11:13 am Link

Photographer

Azimuth Arts

Posts: 1490

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Art of the nude wrote:
Short version, for those who won't read more.  Why would anyone benefit from showing images that the model doesn't want public.

Long version, with some context.
I'm trying to understand something I see fairly often in the forums, which can be summed up in the comment I saw recently "don't let the photographer see anything you don't want public."

I'm curious; is that really typical?  It is a LONG ways from how I do things, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from having that sort of an atmosphere.

My process is, more or less;
1. Limits are discussed prior to the shoot, as arrangements are being made.
2. Limits are reviewed and if necessary clarified when the model arrives.  I make it clear that any accidents won't be used, and that if there is a case where there is doubt, the model can check the shot before it goes public.
3. Limits are, as relevant, discussed during the shoot (do you realize xyz is showing, etc.)
4. Model reviews proofs, and lets me know of any "no way" or "I'm not sure about that one" shots.
5. I delete, or occasionally, crop the "no way" shots, and when relevant, do final, but not yet public, versions of images where the model isn't sure.

This seems to work for me, and I find that models seem comfortable with the process, and that it allows for a more pleasant shoot to have the model not worry about accidents.  On occasion, this comfort means I get images I wouldn't have otherwise gotten, in various ways.

So, the question is, why would it be better for anyone, and especially for the photographer, to create a climate where the model is worried about having no say in exposure shown in final images.

And, to be clear, this isn't just a "full nudes" issue.  It has applied with anywhere from shadows or "tone" of open leg shots, to nip slips and accidental upskirts in fully clothed shoots.

The reasons why someone might choose to show an image that is beyond the model's limits are myriad.  The only reason I would ever consider showing an image that was beyond the agreed upon limits were because it was a better picture than the others.  But I would NEVER show such an image without first getting the permission of the model.

Anyone who intentionally ignores a model's limit is not acting professionally.

When I shoot beauty shots I will often have the model shoot implied, and my policy is much like yours.  Should anything not within the limits show, the model has the chance to review the image in question and decide what she is comfortable with.  This would apply whether it was trade or she was paid.

When shooting I try to only capture images which are within limits, but it sometimes happens that what appears in shadows on set is not so in the final image.  Also, for beauty shots I am often so focused on the model's face that I might not realize for a couple of frames that her arms have moved.

However, should I capture an image which shows too much I may consider it for use as is and get permission, or I may be able to crop it. 

But I would absolutely never use something a model did not approve of.  There have probably been four cases of images that I thought crossed the model's limits so I asked if she was okay with them.  Two models were okay with the images I had selected.  The other two asked that I not use them as is, in one case I cropped tighter, and in another I selected an alternate shot that was acceptable as cropping was not a viable option.

Just my $0.02

Jun 04 12 11:14 am Link

Photographer

Barry Kidd Photography

Posts: 2521

Red Lion, Pennsylvania, US

I started shooting models for fun in 2006.  Sometimes I'd shoot nudes and sometimes I wouldn't. 

I like women.  I like pretty women and I like nude women.  This is just a simple fact of life.  These days however I almost never shoot nude.  Perhaps I will once every year or two at the outside.  This is because I have found that nudes really don't help my portfolio.  We're not talking about MM mind you but the real world and the types of images that I license in the real world.  The way I see it if I spend 45 min trying shoot a nude photo when that 45 min could have been spent getting that one heroic shot that could have been use in my real world port why waist the time.

As far as nibble slips?  In 2007 I did have one nipple slip of a model that was not shooting nude photos.  Nipple slip or not that was one of the best and most beautiful photos I have ever captured of a human subject.   The beauty of the photo had nothing to do with the models boob but everything else about the shot.  It was just ---- perfect.  soft, sensual and perfect.  Because of the models boob however it was a wasted shot an no one other than the model , my wife and myself have ever seen it.  That shot was one of the reasons I have nearly stopped shooting nudes or often even sexy photos of any kind despite my love of beautiful women and their bodies.  First and foremost I am a business man and if it doesn't help my little business in at least someway there just doesn't seem to be any point to it.

Damn, I'm strange!  Gotta get over that. smile

Jun 04 12 11:21 am Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17956

Los Angeles, California, US

Delta LeeAnne Reed  wrote:
Client or not, the photographer, ethically speaking, should not get the right to decide what a model will or will not be comfortable with in the public eye.

as written that is just ridiculous. So if the model thinks she looks fat or old or she doesn't like that side of her face then Vogue should have to hold off on an editorial?

In the real world that attitude could never hold, and I work in the real world.

Jun 04 12 01:47 pm Link

Model

Laura UnBound

Posts: 27371

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Art of the nude wrote:
While "what the model doesn't want to show" can range to as modest as part of a padded bra, I've shot plenty of images of every inch of a model.  No one seems to want to give me loads of money for them, porn sites or not.

This tends to lean towards the snuck in upskirt or while changing shots. People pay for voyeur pics and things that look actually accidental. a simply nip-slip probably doesn't qualify, and purposefully posed photos definitely dont.

Jun 04 12 01:54 pm Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4344

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Art of the nude wrote:

I don't quite understand the bold part.  This has nothing to do with the specific levels; I've had the issues come up with a bra showing, and with how much labia shows in an open leg shot.

It has to do with communication and respect; as you talk about in the rest of your comment.

I can see where that's not entirely clear.

We're in agreement about respect and limits. I'm an improvised shooter and have never had the need to discuss the sorts of limits that you write about with the models I works with. I suspect that trying to avoid angles or shots would not work for me mentally so I spend some time and effort in pre-shoot communication with the models showing them my work so they can address issues or opt out if that seems right.

As I mentioned, while the kinds of limits you write about are foreign to me I get the concept of respect and cooperation and like yourself understand it as a fundamental part of the working relationship.

Jun 04 12 03:33 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Art of the nude wrote:
I don't quite understand the bold part.  This has nothing to do with the specific levels; I've had the issues come up with a bra showing, and with how much labia shows in an open leg shot.

It has to do with communication and respect; as you talk about in the rest of your comment.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
I can see where that's not entirely clear.

We're in agreement about respect and limits. I'm an improvised shooter and have never had the need to discuss the sorts of limits that you write about with the models I works with. I suspect that trying to avoid angles or shots would not work for me mentally so I spend some time and effort in pre-shoot communication with the models showing them my work so they can address issues or opt out if that seems right.

As I mentioned, while the kinds of limits you write about are foreign to me I get the concept of respect and cooperation and like yourself understand it as a fundamental part of the working relationship.

I'm pretty sure we're on the same page as a philosophy, but I still don't get the bold part.  You don't have the need to discuss limits, and you spend time and effort on pre shoot communication about those issues . . . .

Simple example.  Here's an "implied" shot
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6126/5999 … e7d4_o.jpg

Here's another shot from the set, which many models, including many "nude models" wouldn't be comfortable with.  As it happens, she selected both of them. (18+)
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6139/5999 … 231b_o.jpg

Jun 04 12 05:55 pm Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4344

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Art of the nude wrote:

Art of the nude wrote:
I don't quite understand the bold part.  This has nothing to do with the specific levels; I've had the issues come up with a bra showing, and with how much labia shows in an open leg shot.

It has to do with communication and respect; as you talk about in the rest of your comment.

I'm pretty sure we're on the same page as a philosophy, but I still don't get the bold part.  You don't have the need to discuss limits, and you spend time and effort on pre shoot communication about those issues . . . .

Simple example.  Here's an "implied" shot
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6126/5999 … e7d4_o.jpg

Here's another shot from the set, which many models, including many "nude models" wouldn't be comfortable with.  As it happens, she selected both of them. (18+)
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6139/5999 … 231b_o.jpg

My compliments on the images and we are on the same page as to respect.  I understand the point you're making as regards what's showing in the images. With my process I'd pass on the shoots if it became clear that limits on what was showing were important or required.

I'll use your earlier examples to illustrate.

1. Bra strap showing - I never shoot any clothes. The closest I get to shooting coverings is draped fabric, ropes, blindfolds, fur, and it's usually arranged in ways that reveal intimate areas. As I mentioned I've worked with people who wished to remain anonymous and this was the only issue I've ever dealt with regarding clothing reveals.

2. Labia or genital area showing - when I'm in session with a model the rules are that I'm shooting anything at all that I see that interests me for the duration of the session.

The only limit on vision/ shutter that I've ever accepted is anonymity. Other than that the challenge that I'm working with during a session is to try, in the most absolute terms, to collect images of exactly that which interests me with no other considerations or restrictions on vision.

That doesn't mean there are no limits, the material is arrived at through discussion: some models will work with animals, some wish not to, some are good with bondage, others prefer not, some can tolerate very close camera work better than others, etc..

I appreciate your starting this thread and the philosophy that you have espoused. Some of the models that I've worked with have done other work at my home from painting to childcare, some have stayed as guests for weeks. The idea of somehow tricking these people or trying to rip them off is quite far from how I view the relationships with people that I view as having gone out of their way to help me with my projects.

Jun 04 12 07:02 pm Link

Model

Laura UnBound

Posts: 27371

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
My compliments on the images and we are on the same page as to respect.  I understand the point you're making as regards what's showing in the images. With my process I'd pass on the shoots if it became clear that limits on what was showing were important or required.

I'll use your earlier examples to illustrate.

1. Bra strap showing - I never shoot any clothes. The closest I get to shooting coverings is draped fabric, ropes, blindfolds, fur, and it's usually arranged in ways that reveal intimate areas. As I mentioned I've worked with people who wished to remain anonymous and this was the only issue I've ever dealt with regarding clothing reveals.

2. Labia or genital area showing - when I'm in session with a model the rules are that I'm shooting anything at all that I see that interests me for the duration of the session.

The only limit on vision/ shutter that I've ever accepted is anonymity. Other than that the challenge that I'm working with during a session is to try, in the most absolute terms, to collect images of exactly that which interests me with no other considerations or restrictions on vision.

That doesn't mean there are no limits, the material is arrived at through discussion: some models will work with animals, some wish not to, some are good with bondage, others prefer not, some can tolerate very close camera work better than others, etc..

I appreciate your starting this thread and the philosophy that you have espoused. Some of the models that I've worked with have done other work at my home from painting to childcare, some have stayed as guests for weeks. The idea of somehow tricking these people or trying to rip them off is quite far from how I view the relationships with people that I view as having gone out of their way to help me with my projects.

So basically you dont have a need to discuss detailed limits because you and the model have arrived at a general understanding of "if you dont want me to photograph it, dont show it" ? Thats what it sounds like you're saying to me.

Which is I suppose a valid way to do things and it doesn't seem to bother you or your models and thats good. There are of course other people out there who use that same mentality and let it cross over into compromising pose-changes, wardrobe changes, etc where they SHOULDNT still be shooting, but they do, and use the "well you shouldn't have done that if you didn't want it shot!" excuse.

Jun 04 12 07:41 pm Link

Photographer

Borgia

Posts: 766

Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom

If you take it on the sly , you dont need to ask why you shouldn't use it.

Jun 04 12 08:01 pm Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4344

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Laura UnBound wrote:

So basically you dont have a need to discuss detailed limits because you and the model have arrived at a general understanding of "if you dont want me to photograph it, dont show it" ? Thats what it sounds like you're saying to me.

Which is I suppose a valid way to do things and it doesn't seem to bother you or your models and thats good. There are of course other people out there who use that same mentality and let it cross over into compromising pose-changes, wardrobe changes, etc where they SHOULDNT still be shooting, but they do, and use the "well you shouldn't have done that if you didn't want it shot!" excuse.

Laura, The view of yours that my mentality at shoots is the same as someone who is somehow trying to compromise or trick a model is interesting. I've made it clear that I would pass on shoots with models who need to only shoot while posing, require wardrobe or have some limits on what they are showing that I'm supposed to restrict myself to.

There's no trickery but neither is there an artistic or personal meeting of the minds with models who wish to operate with rules that place restrictions on my vision.

As I mentioned earlier I shoot anything that interests me during a session. This is a condition for working with me and is not negotiable except for the anonymity exception. As I also mentioned the wishes and well-being of my collaborators is something I concern myself with and I do in all cases support the autonomy and ability to make decisions of anyone I'm considering working with. This includes models who may have restrictions that conflict with my shoot rules. The solution is simple, I just don't work with people that I can't match ground rules with.

Jun 04 12 08:31 pm Link

Model

Laura UnBound

Posts: 27371

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:

Laura, The view of yours that my mentality at shoots is the same as someone who is somehow trying to compromise or trick a model is interesting. I've made it clear that I would pass on shoots with models who need to only shoot while posing, require wardrobe or have some limits on what they are showing that I'm supposed to restrict myself to.

There's no trickery but neither is there an artistic or personal meeting of the minds with models who wish to operate with rules that place restrictions on my vision.

As I mentioned earlier I shoot anything that interests me during a session. This is a condition for working with me and is not negotiable except for the anonymity exception. As I also mentioned the wishes and well-being of my collaborators is something I concern myself with and I do in all cases support the autonomy and ability to make decisions of anyone I'm considering working with. This includes models who may have restrictions that conflict with my shoot rules. The solution is simple, I just don't work with people that I can't match ground rules with.

Obviously its not a comparison of you and skeevy dishonest people because you specifically work in those conditions and tell your models of such, which is what I was trying to clarify. "if you dont want it shot, dont do it/dont shoot with me, because I'm going to shoot it", yes?

All I was saying was that there are people who use that line AFTER the fact, because they DO work with models who actually have limits and they actively crossed those limits, and when confronted, give the same "if you didn't want it shot you shouldn't have shown it" explanation.

Jun 04 12 08:39 pm Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4344

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Laura UnBound wrote:

Obviously its not a comparison of you and skeevy dishonest people because you specifically work in those conditions and tell your models of such, which is what I was trying to clarify. "if you dont want it shot, dont do it/dont shoot with me, because I'm going to shoot it", yes?

All I was saying was that there are people who use that line AFTER the fact, because they DO work with models who actually have limits and they actively crossed those limits, and when confronted, give the same "if you didn't want it shot you shouldn't have shown it" explanation.

Okay, we've got the two clear areas: where both parties agree before the shoot and where the same reasoning is used as a post event excuse. I think we can agree the former is ethical and the later... well, I'd describe it as anything from a misunderstanding or unclear communication to a violation or theft.
I think the third possibility of conflicting ground rules interests me. What are your views of a situation where the photographer has described his ground rules as , "if it shows shoot it" and the model has a different set?

Jun 04 12 08:49 pm Link

Photographer

Mike Hemming

Posts: 359

Easton, Maryland, US

I have not used or cropped out nipple slips a few times.
One model loved a shot we did except that it showed her pubic hair. I used cloning to cover it with the leaf of a corn plant and with her permission then went ahead and used it in my port.
I follow the models limits we set before the shoot and will remove from my port anything she doesnt want. One model after going beyond her limits of her own accord asked that I not use them. So they have never been seen again.
Models treated with respect are easy to get to work with you again

Jun 04 12 08:52 pm Link

Model

Laura UnBound

Posts: 27371

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:

Okay, we've got the two clear areas: where both parties agree before the shoot and where the same reasoning is used as a post event excuse. I think we can agree the former is ethical and the later... well, I'd describe it as anything from a misunderstanding or unclear communication to a violation or theft.
I think the third possibility of conflicting ground rules interests me. What are your views of a situation where the photographer has described his ground rules as , "if it shows shoot it" and the model has a different set?

If in the third possibility is including honest and open communication of what both parties hope to shoot, and they dont match, then they just dont shoot, unless one party chooses to compromise, at which point they need to stick to whats agreed on otherwise its incredibly unethical. There can't be any "well I know I agreed not to shoot your ass while we walked up the stairs to the other location, but...I did, and look how great it is! Im gonna use it anyway, even though I said before the shoot that I wouldn't even take the photo. Deal with it"

Jun 04 12 09:03 pm Link

Photographer

Christopher Carter

Posts: 7688

Indianapolis, Indiana, US

http://mnemosyne.smugmug.com/photos/i-zdJZKQ7/0/X3/i-zdJZKQ7-X3.gif

Jun 04 12 09:21 pm Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4344

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Laura UnBound wrote:

If in the third possibility is including honest and open communication of what both parties hope to shoot, and they dont match, then they just dont shoot, unless one party chooses to compromise, at which point they need to stick to whats agreed on otherwise its incredibly unethical. There can't be any "well I know I agreed not to shoot your ass while we walked up the stairs to the other location, but...I did, and look how great it is! Im gonna use it anyway, even though I said before the shoot that I wouldn't even take the photo. Deal with it"

I was addressing the possibility of conflicting or unclear pre-shoot communication, but no matter. I've no problem in condemning behavior involving lies or trickery, it's wrong and a violation.

Jun 05 12 05:38 am Link

Photographer

Gary Melton

Posts: 6394

Dallas, Texas, US

I try hard to find/hire models with very few, if any, limits.  I am not interested in taking photos that are extremely sexual and/or blatant in a crude, sexual way (though very occassionally, I capture an image that is fairly explicit).

I typically accomplish this by hiring only models who have images in their portfolios that are equal to or beyond the content of anything I want to shoot.

For the most part, I've never hired a model who had a content limit that was less than what I was interested in shooting.  It's a bit like shooting a model who's limit is "implied nudity"...it's way too easy to accidently show too much.  I don't want to have to worry about that - it gets in the way of my artistic process.  It's much easier to just hire models with virtually no limits.

Jun 05 12 05:51 am Link

Model

katlyn lacoste

Posts: 492

Tacoma, Washington, US

Well.... Depending on models limits, Example Spreads.

Its really dumb if a model praises all over her page that she is not into showing a spread, and then in the shoot has the knees spread as far as they can, and then the photographer takes a picture, and she hounds him for liking the picture or hates that he has it.

I am sure that happens often.

However if a photographer keeps pushing your limits and keeps wanting more when your not cool with it. Your facial expression will be awful. and hes a jerk.

Its definitely not worth posting pictures that one of the girls isnt happy about. Also depending on the taste level. Everyone on this site talks. Youll hear about someone being mad.

*If its outside of hobbyist shooting and for a magazine, editorial, high end fashion. The model has no choice at all. She is just hired, paid, and then on to the next project.

However you can make a lot of money with copyright infringement... If a magazine keeps publishing out of their agreed period.

Jun 05 12 08:57 am Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Star wrote:
as written that is just ridiculous. So if the model thinks she looks fat or old or she doesn't like that side of her face then Vogue should have to hold off on an editorial?

In the real world that attitude could never hold, and I work in the real world.

If the model said, IN ADVANCE, that she didn't want the left side of her face in a shot, and they agreed to use her, they should honor it.

If a model says she doesn't want XYZ in a shot, the photographer / client is free to not use her.  But, if they choose to do so under those conditions, they should honor it.

Jun 06 12 06:07 am Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4344

Asheville, North Carolina, US

Art of the nude wrote:

If the model said, IN ADVANCE, that she didn't want the left side of her face in a shot, and they agreed to use her, they should honor it.

If a model says she doesn't want XYZ in a shot, the photographer / client is free to not use her.  But, if they choose to do so under those conditions, they should honor it.

+1 I believe I've heard of informed consent as an issue even in the "real world".

Jun 06 12 08:35 am Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

Another thread has reminded me of an important aspect of communication.  I use PICTURES to show what I mean. 

As in "are you comfortable being the model in this shot". . . . 

Terms like "implied nude", "topless", or "full frontal", "nude" or "anything but nude" which can seem clear to one party might well be interpreted differently by someone else.

Jun 06 12 05:26 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

This issue has come up again where a model has expressed concerns about images showing more than she intended, and she's trying to find ways to keep those images from being public.

To emphasize what I've said before, it's simply not possible for the model to know or control, at all times, what winds up in the final images.  Even without the totally offensive actions like cameras hidden in dressing rooms, the amount of light, the angle of the camera, the zoom of the camera, the amount of light, the post work, and so forth, make a huge difference in the final outcome.  Plus, simply, accidents of angles, the drape of hair that is supposed to hide a nipple, or whatever.

Like most photographers, I'm trying to create the best images I can.  If the model is worried at all times about "accidents" or not so accidental images, she can't possible give her best work.  That harms me. 

To illustrate the "light" part of it, aside from shadows, these are basically the same angle (both quite 18+ and both have model consent):
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4027/4313 … 4535_o.jpg
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4054/4369 … 8e6c_o.jpg

Dec 08 12 05:26 am Link