immateria wrote:
I get contacted by them from time to time. Sometimes, I get asked to do fashion nudes, and I see examples of what they have in mind, and sure, I can do that. I've loved getting back the images from those shoots.

But once in a while, I get an ambiguous "I want to work with you." from a person who doesn't have any nude work in their work either on here or on their websites, and I don't know what to do with it.

I'm never going to be a fashion model. I'm 26, and while the lower end of my weight spectrum makes me fashion-shaped, I spend about half my time being slender, but definitely not supermodel waify. There is no sense for me to build a portfolio that will not realistically translate into getting me paid work.

I guess I'm confused because, after years of hanging round the forums and getting the "Read newmodels.com" sorts of advice tidbits to models with unrealistic expectations of changing the industry, I don't understand why I get encouraged to step out of the realistic expectations I've set for myself as a model.

You are 5'9" and relatively close to Industry Standard, so they are asking you to work with them because you will be of value to THEIR book.  Whether or not it helps your book only you can decide, but in reality it's not their concern.  They simply want to work with you because they see in you something that can help them.

You also have to understand that someone who is Industry Standard AND does nudes is rare here on MM, so most likely you are one of the very few choices they have in their area, so they'd be fools not to ask.

You can always give them a respectful no.  After all, they are asking because they value you... if nothing else it's a compliment. 

K E E L I N G wrote:

You are 5'9" and relatively close to Industry Standard, so they are asking you to work with them because you will be of value to THEIR book.  Whether or not it helps your book only you can decide, but in reality it's not their concern.  They simply want to work with you because they see in you something that can help them.

You also have to understand that someone who is Industry Standard AND does nudes is rare here on MM, so most likely you are one of the very few choices they have in their area, so they'd be fools not to ask.

You can always give them a respectful no.  After all, they are asking because they value you... if nothing else it's a compliment. 

If it was clear that they wanted to shoot nudes, I'd have no issue. It is flattering, and I love fashion photography so getting to meld my genre with fashion work is fun for me. The confusion stems from people who don't seem to shoot outside of the fashion genre whose work would be benefited by actual agency-standard fashion models. Why ask a 26-year-old nude model to do work that is better done by a 17-year-old fashion model?

immateria wrote:

If it was clear that they wanted to shoot nudes, I'd have no issue. It is flattering, and I love fashion photography so getting to meld my genre with fashion work is fun for me. The confusion stems from people who don't seem to shoot outside of the fashion genre whose work would be benefited by actual agency-standard fashion models. Why ask a 26-year-old nude model to do work that is better done by a 17-year-old fashion model?

Maybe they are trying to target an older crowd for a particular project.  I personally feel more prompt to buy something if I see someone my own age wearing it.  Why would I want to buy something 17 year olds wear?  Ya know?

immateria wrote:

If it was clear that they wanted to shoot nudes, I'd have no issue. It is flattering, and I love fashion photography so getting to meld my genre with fashion work is fun for me. The confusion stems from people who don't seem to shoot outside of the fashion genre whose work would be benefited by actual agency-standard fashion models. Why ask a 26-year-old nude model to do work that is better done by a 17-year-old fashion model?

Well a fashion nude at that age may be an issue but really around here there are a lot of models who claim they do fashion but won't do any nudity.  Odd considering that nudity and fashion is very common, at least outside of the US.  But as was mentioned you can pose, have an interesting look, and are very close to standard; sounds like a good model choice.

1namil wrote:

Maybe they are trying to target an older crowd for a particular project.  I personally feel more prompt to buy something if I see someone my own age wearing it.  Why would I want to buy something 17 year olds wear?  Ya know?

That's what commercial models are for.

AJScalzitti wrote:

Well a fashion nude at that age may be an issue but really around here there are a lot of models who claim they do fashion but won't do any nudity.  Odd considering that nudity and fashion is very common, at least outside of the US.  But as was mentioned you can pose, have an interesting look, and are very close to standard; sounds like a good model choice.

Again, that would make sense, if there was an indication that I would be posing nude. I asked for clarification from one photographer, and granted he might respond asking me to shoot nude, but after the initial contact, I can't assume that I am wanted for the nudity. He has no nudes in his portfolio. His message didn't indicate that he wants to shoot them.

immateria wrote:
Again, that would make sense, if there was an indication that I would be posing nude. I asked for clarification from one photographer, and granted he might respond asking me to shoot nude, but after the initial contact, I can't assume that I am wanted for the nudity. He has no nudes in his portfolio. His message didn't indicate that he wants to shoot them.

Well then maybe its just about your posing and look?

However I could see you doing something like that recent editorial “Stripped” for Drehmoment Magazine #1, but hey that is just me (and its nude).  Even better the Gravure Magazine, Summer 2012 editorial featuring Anastasia Khodkina...

back on topic

edit and PS

http://fashionography.net/2012/06/27/an … mmer-2012/

Neil Snape wrote:
fashion is about the portrait of you, or at least the best is. You are not the norm for fashion, yet thin enough and enough form that you certainly can do some great pix. As long as the stylist knows your size, I can't see any reason you can't.

Just to add confusion...

I was kind of under the impression that fashion was more about, well, the fashion, and not necessarily the body wearing it. No? I don't pretend to understand a whole lot about it.

I can certainly pose for the picture, sure. But that won't lead me to gracing the pages of Vogue Italia or modeling for Dior. All I will really get is that picture, and possibly more photographers asking me to lug around a suitcase of clothing I don't own to hackneyed 'fashion' shoots.

immateria wrote:
The confusion stems from people who don't seem to shoot outside of the fashion genre whose work would be benefited by actual agency-standard fashion models. Why ask a 26-year-old nude model to do work that is better done by a 17-year-old fashion model?

Because they can't get the agency model to agree to a trade shoot, maybe.

immateria wrote:
I was kind of under the impression that fashion was more about, well, the fashion, and not necessarily the body wearing it. No? I don't pretend to understand a whole lot about it.

Well, no, not really.

If I was shooting fashion I'd rather shoot Lara Stone in thrift store garbage than a girl who doesn't look like a fashion model at all.

[url=http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Tyler_Waitt_2207044 wrote:
Tyler[/url] C Johnson] They may just want the option to shoot nude, as in finding a model who can "pass" for a fashion model but would be willing to work with fashion nudes as well. Everyone has to do their first nude shoot at some point (if they plan on doing them) and it may be more comfortable for them working with a model whose shape they are familiar with. I personally would be terrified trying to pose an art nude model but I guess that's a challenge for another day.

Ill tell you one thing, I often take on the oddest projects out of my comfort zone because it helps me expand my range and brings ideas to the table. Doing a non nude fashion shoot may not help your book, but its an opportunity to challenge your skills outside of what you normally do and that can be worth a lot!

I actually thought about starting this thread on the topic of more direct communication, because the bottom line is that every time I get a message of "I'm a fashion photographer, and I want to work with you" and nothing else, I end of pulling my hair going: "What do you want from me?!" until I get clarification. Life would be easier of people were just more upfront about what they are looking to do.

Going outside my comfort zone would be a lot more helpful if I wasn't a very, very part-time art model who gets flaked on so often I don't why I even bother trying anymore.

dave phoenix wrote:

Well, no, not really.

If I was shooting fashion I'd rather shoot Lara Stone in thrift store garbage than a girl who doesn't look like a fashion model at all.

I get that, but isn't the point of opening a fashion magazine to look at pretty clothes, instead of pretty girls? The girl accentuates the clothing, not the other way around. 'Cause no one is buying girls.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Maybe they just like your look and want to photograph you . . . .




Just because they do mostly fashion doesn't mean that they might want to shoot something outside of their normal routine.

Even someone that likes steak and potatoes all the time, will occasionally want some Chinese food for variety.

Why question it ? ?

KM

Then it really comes down to a communication issue:

If you're sending a message to a model who clearly shoots a different genre than you, it helps to state that you want to shoot hers instead of yours. Or just your intent.

immateria wrote:
Then it really comes down to a communication issue:

If you're sending a message to a model who clearly shoots a different genre than you, it helps to state that you want to shoot hers instead of yours. Or just your intent.

OR . . . . YOU could just simply reply:  "What is it that you have in mind to shoot?"

dave phoenix wrote:
Well, no, not really.

If I was shooting fashion I'd rather shoot Lara Stone in thrift store garbage than a girl who doesn't look like a fashion llama at all.

immateria wrote:
I get that, but isn't the point of opening a fashion magazine to look at pretty clothes, instead of pretty girls? The girl accentuates the clothing, not the other way around. 'Cause no one is buying girls.

Not necessarily. Depending on audience and intent, they are buying the fantasy of being that girl. To this end faces can be powerful communication tools and maybe the photographers that are contacting you see something in your face that expresses what they want to say.

immateria wrote:
If it was clear that they wanted to shoot nudes, I'd have no issue. It is flattering, and I love fashion photography so getting to meld my genre with fashion work is fun for me. The confusion stems from people who don't seem to shoot outside of the fashion genre whose work would be benefited by actual agency-standard fashion models. Why ask a 26-year-old nude model to do work that is better done by a 17-year-old fashion model?

Almost all fashion shooters shoot nudes.  I would contact you for the same reason, for the same kind of photos - just because I don't put them here means nothing.  I did put one here that reflects a new project I'm working on.

Sometimes you just want to experiment with an idea.  It's not "for" anything, you just want to shoot and play and see where it leads you.  I would shoot you all day long in that context.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

OR . . . . YOU could just simply reply:  "What is it that you have in mind to shoot?"

I do. But I'm sure you can relate when I say that I've spent countless hours this week responding to photographers/artists  trying to squeeze information out of them just to learn on email #12 that for whatever reason it's not going to work out and I've spend all that time jamming my fingers at my keyboard for nothing.

immateria wrote:
I actually thought about starting this thread on the topic of more direct communication,

I actually thought that was your topic to begin with and that nobody was addressing it?!

I'll take a shot: PROBLEM--some people are not thorough in their communications. That wastes the recipients' time and usually engenders unhelpful responses wasting the senders' time too. SOLUTION--I hope posts, like yours, encourage these people to reread PMs before sending and not to hit send until their desires are clearly stated. Write as if the recipient has no idea what you're talking about.

Toto Photo wrote:

I actually thought that was your topic to begin with and that nobody was addressing it?!

I'll take a shot: PROBLEM--some people are not thorough in their communications. That wastes the recipients' time and usually engenders unhelpful responses wasting the senders' time too. SOLUTION--I hope posts, like yours, encourage these people to reread PMs before sending and not to hit send until their desires are clearly stated. Write as if the recipient has no idea what you're talking about.

I hope so

All this confusion makes my brain hurt!

immateria wrote:
Also, I want to point out that I'm not trying to come off as argumentative or ornery.

I don't think you're coming of as argumentative or ornery at all, but I'm confused on one point.  When you say:

immateria wrote:
I've had to turn down shoots with photographers who have quality work because it just wouldn't have benefited my portfolio. I don't enjoy it. If I had unlimited time, energy and resources, I would do it all the time, but I don't have these things.

I don't understand.  If you feel their work is quality, why wouldn't it benefit your portfolio?  Because they are fashion nudes?  If so, how would that detract from your portfolio?

Paramour Productions wrote:

immateria wrote:
Also, I want to point out that I'm not trying to come off as argumentative or ornery.

I don't think you're coming of as argumentative or ornery at all, but I'm confused on one point.  When you say:


I don't understand.  If you feel their work is quality, why wouldn't it benefit your portfolio?  Because they are fashion nudes?  If so, how would that detract from your portfolio?

Because they weren't nudes. Or, actually, a few times when the photographer's work was of good quality but too much like things I already had in my portfolio.

immateria wrote:

Because they weren't nudes. Or, actually, a few times when the photographer's work was of good quality but too much like things I already had in my portfolio.

But how do you know that's what he would shoot with you?

Paramour Productions wrote:

But how do you know that's what he would shoot with you?

When a photographer asks me to bring clothes (ones I don't own, in fact), I assume they want to shoot me clothed.

immateria wrote:
I get contacted by them from time to time. Sometimes, I get asked to do fashion nudes, and I see examples of what they have in mind, and sure, I can do that. I've loved getting back the images from those shoots.

But once in a while, I get an ambiguous "I want to work with you." from a person who doesn't have any nude work in their work either on here or on their websites, and I don't know what to do with it.

I'm never going to be a fashion model. I'm 26, and while the lower end of my weight spectrum makes me fashion-shaped, I spend about half my time being slender, but definitely not supermodel waify. There is no sense for me to build a portfolio that will not realistically translate into getting me paid work.

I guess I'm confused because, after years of hanging round the forums and getting the "Read newmodels.com" sorts of advice tidbits to models with unrealistic expectations of changing the industry, I don't understand why I get encouraged to step out of the realistic expectations I've set for myself as a model.

Maybe you are looking at it wrong. A photographer asks you to do traditional fashion. Instead of thinking that maybe you don't fit the norm, maybe think that it could be a photographer who wants to change the norm

immateria wrote:
I get that, but isn't the point of opening a fashion magazine to look at pretty clothes, instead of pretty girls? The girl accentuates the clothing, not the other way around. 'Cause no one is buying girls.

If someone wanted to see pretty clothes, they'd look at clothing catalogs. Don't think of a fashion magazine as a magazine with pictures of pretty clothes, with some fashion models thrown in to accentuate the clothing.

Think of it as a guide to a high-end, luxury lifestyle. Imagine you're an alien and you're coming to earth and you want to be seen as a rich, cool, stylish human. A fashion magazine would help you, even if there was no clothing in there whatsoever - it would show you what your apartment should look like, the kinds of places you should eat and drink, the kind of people you should hang out with, the kind of person you should date, the type of posture and facial expression you should use, everything. It would give you a general feel, a general sense of what kind of style is fashionable now.

jsl wrote:
Maybe you are looking at it wrong. A photographer asks you to do traditional fashion. Instead of thinking that maybe you don't fit the norm, maybe think that it could be a photographer who wants to change the norm

Tell that to the average 5'2 130lb aspiring supermodel.

immateria wrote:

I get that, but isn't the point of opening a fashion magazine to look at pretty clothes, instead of pretty girls? The girl accentuates the clothing, not the other way around. 'Cause no one is buying girls.

"Sell the sizzle; not the steak." - David Ogilvy (advertising wiz)

Which means... If Kate Upton wore a burlap sack, one would be wise to buy stock in 'Burlap, Inc.'

dave phoenix wrote:

If someone wanted to see pretty clothes, they'd look at clothing catalogs. Don't think of a fashion magazine as a magazine with pictures of pretty clothes, with some fashion models thrown in to accentuate the clothing.

Think of it as a guide to a high-end, luxury lifestyle. Imagine you're an alien and you're coming to earth and you want to be seen as a rich, cool, stylish human. A fashion magazine would help you, even if there was no clothing in there whatsoever - it would show you what your apartment should look like, the kinds of places you should eat and drink, the kind of people you should hang out with, the kind of person you should date, the type of posture and facial expression you should use, everything. It would give you a general feel, a general sense of what kind of style is fashionable now.

Well, alright! I'll accept that

immateria wrote:
I was kind of under the impression that fashion was more about, well, the fashion, and not necessarily the body wearing it. No?

Nah.

Fashion is about aspiration. How you create that aspiration in the viewer can vary from wild avant-garde pieces where you can't even see the model's face, to fully nude. In the latter case then yes, it certainly is about the body.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com

immateria wrote:
Tell that to the average 5'2 130lb aspiring supermodel.

You took my meaning incorrectly. I am saying that there could be photographers out there trying to bust stereotypes and you (which is odd as you are the one being asked to pose) are being the naysayer.

What the hell's the sense of modeling if you are going to pigeonhole yourself? Okay, I know your time is limited, so do them as paid sessions if someone asks. Or not, I guess.

EDIT: Wait, I just read your bio. You aren't even doing trade shoots at this time. So am I supposed to believe you turn down paid work because the pics won't benefit your portfolio? Aren't you getting paid to pose? I was assuming you were talking about trade sessions. If you are getting paid offers that require you to pose in a genre you are used to working in and the only difference is you have to keep your clothes on, and are turning them down, you'll get no sympathy from me, sorry.