Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
For instance, posing for film photography is a lot different than posing for digital photography. But, because I have posed for film before, the next photog who shoots film with me won't have to teach me how to model for it, saving us both a lot of time.

Interesting comment. How so?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
If it's cool with models, perhaps I should put away the DSLR's and start using the iPhone exclusively?

i carry 3 cameras: DSLR, compact, iphone. the latter 2 fit in one pocket.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
If it's cool with models, perhaps I should put away the DSLR's and start using the iPhone exclusively?

If you have no interested in shooting with a DSLR anymore, then yes - you should put it down.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
For instance, posing for film photography is a lot different than posing for digital photography. But, because I have posed for film before, the next photog who shoots film with me won't have to teach me how to model for it, saving us both a lot of time.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Interesting comment. How so?

I'm curious as well.

PhotographybyT wrote:

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
For instance, posing for film photography is a lot different than posing for digital photography. But, because I have posed for film before, the next photog who shoots film with me won't have to teach me how to model for it, saving us both a lot of time.

I'm curious as well.

I Too...am Curious.

DOUGLASFOTOS wrote:

I Too...am Curious.

Extremely Curious.

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
For instance, posing for film photography is a lot different than posing for digital photography.

I'm not speaking for the model, but I see that a lot of people are curious what she means by this. I am curious as well.

I will say that, as a person who shoots films exclusively (save for one session I did this past week), is that experienced models tend to like film shots, as they are different than what they usually have in their portfolios.

I have encountered several noobie-models that won't do a tf* session with me because I am up front with them concerning the fewer pics they are going to get, and they are often times looking for someone to shoot hundreds of pics so they can receive more shots.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Interesting comment. How so?

Film= much, much, much different, for the model.

Working with a film photographer is not very dissimilar from sitting for a painter (sitting super, super still for potentially a long period of time), but requires even a bit more, since everything needs to be so unbelievably precise, and in a painting, a small movement doesn't matter.

Every time I work for a film photographer, I feel honored, because it feels like you have to REALLY have a certain skill set to move and sit so precisely- not for beginner models.

I mean, obviously people who shoot film do shoot everyday people who've never modeled, but if they want something specific...they need to/should go with a pro.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
There is a thread about some of the great images that some photographers are getting from their iPhones https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=894676

This begs the question; Do you care what kind of camera a photographer shoots with?   Would you be alright with a photographer using an iPhone?

If it's cool with models, perhaps I should put away the DSLR's and start using the iPhone exclusively?

This raises the question: can you get the results you want with an iPhone?

Shandra Stark wrote:
Film= much, much, much different.

I don't really agree with this. I shot film for 25 years before I switched to digital. When I made the switch, not a lot changed (except that my film processing, and printing costs went down a bit:) ). I shoot about the same number of frames with a model as I always did, I use the same types of equipment and locations, I do some post-processing to produce the desired results, just like always (not much is usually required).

Shandra Stark wrote:

Film= much, much, much different.

Working with a film photographer is not very dissimilar from sitting for a painter (sitting super, super still for potentially a long period of time), but requires even a bit more, since everything needs to be so unbelievably precise, and in a painting, a small movement doesn't matter.

Every time I work for a film photographer, I feel honored, because it feels like you have to REALLY have a certain skill set to move and sit so precisely- not for beginner models.

I mean, obviously people who shoot film do shoot everyday people who've never modeled, but if they want something specific...they need to/should go with a pro.

Cindy Crawford was shot on a film for her high school newspaper. She looked great and she did continue to look great for quite a few years in the sense of booking major campaigns. For those photographers who have never shot on film it can be more of a test if they are crossing over from digital, but for models? A photographer can shoot a fast burst of film, it just the cost adds up to a large amount of money. If the model has the look and the photographer has the skill, film isn't that different or difficult for a model from digital. And Cindy Crawford looked good in her first photoshoot for her high school newspaper. On film.

LA StarShooter wrote:
Cindy Crawford was shot on a film for her high school newspaper. She looked great and she did continue to look great for quite a few years in the sense of booking major campaigns. For those photographers who have never shot on film it can be more of a test if they are crossing over from digital, but for models? A photographer can shoot a fast burst of film, it just the cost adds up to a large amount of money. If the model has the look and the photographer has the skill, film isn't that different or difficult for a model from digital. And Cindy Crawford looked good in her first photoshoot for her high school newspaper. On film.

Cindy Crawford always looks good.  Totally null.

I never said an image on film will magically make a model look like shit, and that digital is in any way better than film.

As an art model, who has been doing this just about every day for the better part of a decade, I can feel a difference.  I can't just randomly move through dozens of poses rapid-fire.

Working with someone who is spending the money to shoot film, and who only has a few precious shots who needs you to do everything "just so" is different than working with someone with endless memory cards.

Have you modeled before?

Ken Warren Photography wrote:

I don't really agree with this. I shot film for 25 years before I switched to digital. When I made the switch, not a lot changed (except that my film processing, and printing costs went down a bit:) ). I shoot about the same number of frames with a model as I always did, I use the same types of equipment and locations, I do some post-processing to produce the desired results, just like always (not much is usually required).

Everyone's process is different.

The people I work with shoot about 12 images, total, and could not possibly have a wiggly, squirmy, new model.

I am not saying that shooting film is drastically different.  I'm saying that being a model for someone working with film is different.  This is the modeling forum, after all.

Shandra Stark wrote:
Film= much, much, much different.

Working with a film photographer is not very dissimilar from sitting for a painter (sitting super, super still for potentially a long period of time), but requires even a bit more, since everything needs to be so unbelievably precise, and in a painting, a small movement doesn't matter.

Every time I work for a film photographer, I feel honored, because it feels like you have to REALLY have a certain skill set to move and sit so precisely- not for beginner models.

I mean, obviously people who shoot film do shoot everyday people who've never modeled, but if they want something specific...they need to/should go with a pro.

Oh - maybe you're thinking about large format film (8x10).
I shot transparency film (35mm and some MF) for like 8 years and now digital. In terms of model movement / model interaction / anything the model needs to be concerned about, there's not really much difference.

Shandra Stark wrote:

Everyone's process is different.

The people I work with shoot about 12 images, total, and could not possibly have a wiggly, squirmy, new model.

I am not saying that shooting film is drastically different.  I'm saying that being a model for someone working with film is different.  This is the modeling forum, after all.

I agree to an extent, but I know a few photographers that used to shoot film that still shoot the same-- very slowly, very few frames. It makes me process a little slower, but not to a huge degree.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

Oh - maybe you're thinking about large format film (8x10).

Yep!

Shandra Stark wrote:

Film= much, much, much different, for the model.

Working with a film photographer is not very dissimilar from sitting for a painter (sitting super, super still for potentially a long period of time), but requires even a bit more, since everything needs to be so unbelievably precise, and in a painting, a small movement doesn't matter.

Every time I work for a film photographer, I feel honored, because it feels like you have to REALLY have a certain skill set to move and sit so precisely- not for beginner models.

I mean, obviously people who shoot film do shoot everyday people who've never modeled, but if they want something specific...they need to/should go with a pro.

This.

Shandra Stark wrote:

Film= much, much, much different, for the model.

Working with a film photographer is not very dissimilar from sitting for a painter (sitting super, super still for potentially a long period of time), but requires even a bit more, since everything needs to be so unbelievably precise, and in a painting, a small movement doesn't matter.

Every time I work for a film photographer, I feel honored, because it feels like you have to REALLY have a certain skill set to move and sit so precisely- not for beginner models.

I mean, obviously people who shoot film do shoot everyday people who've never modeled, but if they want something specific...they need to/should go with a pro.

I'm glad that at least a few people understand this.  Thanks for explaining it this way.

PhotographybyT wrote:

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
For instance, posing for film photography is a lot different than posing for digital photography. But, because I have posed for film before, the next photog who shoots film with me won't have to teach me how to model for it, saving us both a lot of

MelissaAnn  wrote:
The camera has to be HUGE, or really tiny.  I refuse to compromise & shoot with people who own medium-sized cameras.

Is this huge enough??

PhotographybyT wrote:
Is this huge enough??

oh yeah....

Shandra Stark wrote:

Yep!

Okay. Large format is completely different from 35mm film. The transition from 35mm to digital was basically seamless for me, and (I suspect) for most that made it.