Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
I knew a photographer who did a series of *fantastic* street photos with an iphone.

I love serious (I use that term liberally- I'm referring to anyone who has a legitimate artistic vision and isn't just photographing his personal fap material) photographers who experiment with medium. It's just more experience that I can have under my belt as a model. 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 like your perspective.

dave phoenix wrote:

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

I was saying that in jest!  Not only do I not own an iPhone, nor a smart phone of any kind ... but I detest using cellphones for anything other than making voice calls and occasionally texting.   I do have plenty of film cameras and a nice collection of lenses that fit both my digital and film bodies.  So I was just curious.

Laura UnBound wrote:
As long as you're honest about what you're shooting and its something the model actually wants to shoot, doesn't matter if you're using a phone, a dslr, or a rock.

de0rbit wrote:
This raises the question: can you get the results you want with an iPhone?

If the answer is "Yes" then by all means use any camera that gets those results.  The one guy in that link is using the iPhone mostly for nature photography.  I can see the advantage of shooting with something very compact when out in natural settings that might not be as easy to use a bulkier DSLR.  I just wondered what models would think if a photographer pulled out an iPhone to shoot with?

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).

Like you, I'm a long time film shooter.  Digital is not exactly like shooting film as there are different bad habits one can develop depending on which they are shooting.  Personally, I find that digital encourages laziness because of the instant gratification.   
However I find that you and Shandra differ to the extreme while I say that the differences between shooting with digital vs film are more subtle.  I'd love to get into more detail as to the differences, but that is for another topic entirely!

Shandra Stark wrote:

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?

When I shoot film, I am actually more relaxed and comfortable because I know what I'm doing, AND I am not second guessing myself looking at the results as quickly as I shoot.  I do take my time with models when shooting film, but I can snap off a bunch of frames if I wanted.  It's the cost per frame that causes me to think more about the images.  Really, it's not that major of a difference though.

With digital, I tend to relaxed and comfortable in a different manner in that I can get a little sloppy slamming of frames without hardly looking because it doesn't cost me per frame.  I might look at the view screen and check the images too.    I do try to "think" like I do when shooting film, but I know there are as I said before "subtle differences."   It's probably that way for the model too.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I shoot all formats both film and digital, but for my personal work it's all medium and large format film with a HEAVY focus on LF (4x5 and 8x10).

It's difficult to find models that work well with that medium and I have found the best are ones I have a pre-existing relationship with and who already have a sense of what goes into it.

I rarely shoot more than six frames when I do those portraits and, if I were to be honest, at least four of those are either just insurance, or to make the model feel better (some think they've done something wrong if you're one and done). 

It's nice to know that there are some models who actually appreciate the medium.

Ok, you got me!  There is a big difference between modeling for large format and 35mm ... and even so with medium format.   I shot weddings on medium format, so I should know this.  Although I learned how to use the large format cameras, I never shot a model with one, but I can just imagine.   It is the difference between a 35mm SLR and a DSLR that is subtle to me.

T-D-L wrote:
I recently sold my DSLR and switched to a mirrorless camera.  For those that don't  know, it's a tiny thing, not much bigger than the point & shoots.  I have been waiting for the day a model would have that surprised "Ummm, where's your real camera" look when I pull it out the bag, but none have cared one way or the other.  The few times I've brought it up they were like "Well, I assume your book was shot with that, so why should it matter?" much to my surprise.  I've come to realize that as long as the work you display is strong no one will second guess your judgement or equipment.  I remember when one photographer (popular guy on here) was shooting with just his iPhone....no complaints there either from what I saw.

Interesting!  Some of my digital images in my port here were shot with a point and shoot Lumix camera which was my first digital camera ever.  I doubt that it is easy for anyone to tell the difference?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I recently sold my DSLR and switched to a mirrorless camera.  For those that don't  know, it's a I doubt that it is easy for anyone to tell the difference?

Well, I sure can't tell the difference. FWIW.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Interesting!  Some of my digital images in my port here were shot with a point and shoot Lumix camera which was my first digital camera ever.  I doubt that it is easy for anyone to tell the difference?

Probably not, but the mirrorless has the exact same Sony sensor as my former Nikon body apparently, so IQ-wise it's pretty much neck and neck.  Eventually I'll go back to a dSLR because of clients and their preconceived notions of what makes a professional...but for tests/models I'll probably stick with mirrorless (or even P&S) for the long-haul.

Laura UnBound wrote:
If your portfolio is only built with a dslr and you show up to our shoot with just a phone, yes I'll be upset.

If the part of your portfolio I loved and wanted to shoot with you was your wet plate photography and you only show up with a dslr, yes I'll be upset.

If I loved your iPhone series but you only want to shoot film, yes I'll be upset.



If I tell you I love the photos you took with your iPhone and you show up to our shoot with an iPhone, no, I won't be upset.



Any time that I book a trade shoot with someone based on what they're showing in their portfolio, and I come to find out they're trying to use me as a guinea pig for something completely different, I'm upset, be it the camera or the content or the post work. I didnt realize I actually had to say "I'd like to shoot with you for ONLY what you CURRENTLY showcase in your portfolio", I thought that was sort of self-evident, but apparently not.

As long as you're honest about what you're shooting and its something the model actually wants to shoot, doesn't matter if you're using a phone, a dslr, or a rock.

This makes perfect sense.

I've thrown a small set of experimental stuff into a trade shoot, and even asked if it's OK.  But to show up unprepared to shoot something fairly similar to what you're showing isn't fair at all.

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).

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.

If someone is taking 10-20 frames of (probably) medium or large format film, yeah, it's very different.

But, I can remember movies about the fashion industry from before there WERE digital camera, and they were firing off hundreds of shots.  Maybe not 500 an hour, but probably 200-300 an hour.  Can't recall, but I suspect that they had an assistant loading one camera while they shot with another.

T-D-L wrote:
I recently sold my DSLR and switched to a mirrorless camera.  For those that don't  know, it's a tiny thing, not much bigger than the point & shoots.  I have been waiting for the day a model would have that surprised "Ummm, where's your real camera" look when I pull it out the bag, but none have cared one way or the other.  The few times I've brought it up they were like "Well, I assume your book was shot with that, so why should it matter?" much to my surprise.  I've come to realize that as long as the work you display is strong no one will second guess your judgement or equipment.  I remember when one photographer (popular guy on here) was shooting with just his iPhone....no complaints there either from what I saw.

I remember someone talking about a model mocking him for NOT having a "modern" 35mm.  He was still using the "out of date" large format film camera.`

PhotographybyT wrote:

WOW... imagine the sensor size on that one... potential equivalent to a 4x5 view camera... with zero noise at 1 million ISO... and OF COURSE it's a Nikon...

PhotographybyT wrote:

Select Models wrote:
WOW... imagine the sensor size on that one... potential equivalent to a 4x5 view camera... with zero noise at 1 million ISO... and OF COURSE it's a Nikon...

Look at the lens; it's a "DX."  Just not a very efficient layout. 

Elizabeta Rosandic wrote:
I knew a photographer who did a series of *fantastic* street photos with an iphone.

I love serious (I use that term liberally- I'm referring to anyone who has a legitimate artistic vision and isn't just photographing his personal fap material) photographers who experiment with medium. It's just more experience that I can have under my belt as a model. 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.

Woohoo, we need to talk   

Shandra Stark wrote:
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?

I agree with this.

When you have 12 frames on a roll of MF film or just a few single sheets of 4x5 or 8x10 your approach to each shot is more calculated and thought out, set up and maybe a polaroid test shot or two before loading the film for one pose tends to slow down the process way more than a digital shoot.
If one processes their own film, chances are that photographer knows exactly what each frame is going to look like even before the model is booked, so yes the choice of medium does make a difference on how the photoshoot is conducted and executed.

T-D-L wrote:
I recently sold my DSLR and switched to a mirrorless camera.  For those that don't  know, it's a tiny thing, not much bigger than the point & shoots.  I have been waiting for the day a model would have that surprised "Ummm, where's your real camera" look when I pull it out the bag, but none have cared one way or the other.  The few times I've brought it up they were like "Well, I assume your book was shot with that, so why should it matter?" much to my surprise.  I've come to realize that as long as the work you display is strong no one will second guess your judgement or equipment.  I remember when one photographer (popular guy on here) was shooting with just his iPhone....no complaints there either from what I saw.

I am agonizing the first reaction I'll get, I just picked up my first mirrorless system today (X-E1) and about to sell off all my heavy DSLR gear.
Glad to see you had no issues or disappointed expectations from the model's perspective.

Art Silva Photography wrote:

I am agonizing the first reaction I'll get, I just picked up my first mirrorless system today (X-E1) and about to sell off all my heavy DSLR gear.
Glad to see you had no issues or disappointed expectations from the model's perspective.

I will admit, last week a MUA saw my camera and exclaimed "OMG!  What is that?  Is that a toy?", but that's the only negative one so far in about 3 months.  None from models so far, but I'm sure eventually one will have reservations.  Was talking to someone else recently who did the mirrorless thing for about a year...his advice, don't try to explain technical mumbo jumbo to the model, don't try to rationalize your decision for going smaller....just tell them "My portfolio was shot with this" and leave it at that.  Should be enough to allay their fears/concerns.

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?

No model is ever going to admit in a public forum that "size matters". Yet we've all seen volumes of bios (and I'm guessing the reason for the thread), where models state, "If you use a P&S, don't even bother contacting me...I'm a professional and I expect you to be the same..." and similar quotes that indicate that it does matter to THAT model.

I will say, if the purpose of that type of line is to weed out the GWC (the true GWC, as it's defined by the intent of the photographer, and not any level of expertise), there are much better ways than the type of camera used.

T-D-L wrote:

I will admit, last week a MUA saw my camera and exclaimed "OMG!  What is that?  Is that a toy?", but that's the only negative one so far in about 3 months.  None from models so far, but I'm sure eventually one will have reservations.  Was talking to someone else recently who did the mirrorless thing for about a year...his advice, don't try to explain technical mumbo jumbo to the model, don't try to rationalize your decision for going smaller....just tell them "My portfolio was shot with this" and leave it at that.  Should be enough to allay their fears/concerns.

I'll keep that in mind, thanks.
Fortunately most models I work with are camera geeks themselves and this would be one to throw into the shop talk sessions 

- BP Photo - wrote:
I can tell the difference between pictures shot with my thousand dollar Nikon lenses and my $400 Tamron.  Every time I see people saying that an iPhone can be used for pictures other than snapshots for facebook or instagram, I wonder what planet I am on.  So really, the lens doesn't matter anymore?

One thing tho is that the one behind those lenses are the ones that makes the difference. Some know how to use what is handed to them some do not.
Time and technology is also rapidly changing, my brand new Fujinon XF35mm 1.4 is out performing all my Nikon glass at the moment.

Art of the nude wrote:
But, I can remember movies about the fashion industry from before there WERE digital camera, and they were firing off hundreds of shots.  Maybe not 500 an hour, but probably 200-300 an hour.  Can't recall, but I suspect that they had an assistant loading one camera while they shot with another.

Some high-end SLR's had removable backs that were loaded with bulk film, and these could be switched out.  I think some loaded to 100 frames or more (35 mm).  There were some special, non-removable backs that could be retrofitted to a normal camera and would load 250 frames.  I believe this was the preferred system, as a bayonet mount lens was just moved from camera body to camera body.  There were also reusable cassettes available to the "normal" pro where one could load 40 to 50 frames, which is what I did.  Great for weddings, etc.

Personality Imaging wrote:
Film photographers who don't do their own darkroom work are not really film photographers.

Yeah...gotta take the whole process womb to tomb.  Mix the chemicals and all.  'Nothing like the smell of a darkroom, though.  But all that temperature control stuff...that was a pain.

RKD Photographic wrote:
Film Photography = Real Photography.

Everyone knows that if you shoot digital you're at best a dilettante and at worst a sweaty pervert only interested in seeing bare skin.

Digital photographers have absolutely no talent, as the camera does it all for you. All you have to do is take off the lens-cap, point in the general direction of 'away' and hey presto! instant Masterpiece.
...and if you do happen to get it wrong (or rather if your camera gets it wrong), you just 'Photoshop' the image: upload to the computer, open image, click 'photoshop' and it does it all for you while you sit back and write a blog about how awesome you are.

Whereas as everyone knows, with film you have to be a true artist in order to allow that 24-hour Supermarket photo-Lab to process your images properly in chemistry that probably hasn't been checked or refreshed in over three months.

Models know this and have perfected their posing techniques to account for it - that's because they're special.

Unlike digital photographers, who are bottom-feeders and scum of the first magnitude.

Film Photographers are also guaranteed a place at the Right Hand Of God Almighty (Praise His Name!), whereas digital photographers are accursed unto the fortieth generation and will Burn For All Eternity In The Fiery Pits of Hell...