|
Forums >
Hair, Makeup & Styling >
Are models relying upon photogs to make them look
I wish to start this thread about the state of model's makeup these days. I used to shoot only chromes back in the 60s and 70s and into the early 80s. I never did any post or retouching. I couldn't and didn't need to. I couldn't because with chromes, what you get is what you see. I didn't need to because the models didn't require it, as long as I lit and exposed my them correctly. They didn't have tan marks and knew how to apply makeup in a way that photographed such that it looked like it had been retouched. Also, their hair was freshly washed and didn't need to be retouched. They photographed like a Breck girl. Are today's models relying upon post work to get the result that models contributed to? Oct 03 13 09:54 am Link Rich Images wrote: Not true. Typically there was imperfect skin, but MF etch & dye or retouch pencils was not within reach except with high-end portrait studios and advertising work. A great MUA was always a must. Oct 03 13 10:35 am Link In a way, I sort of agree with the OP, except that there was retouching, although it was expensive (and probably done better than today), and most models came from agencies, because there was nowhere else, and the agencies tended to make sure their models were well presented. But then I have to say that I don't think models today are as badly presented as the OP suggests. So, yes and no, but veering towards no. Maybe. Oct 03 13 10:49 am Link I shot chrome too throughout the 90s. There are two things that for the most part accomplish what you're after and they haven't changed since film. 1) Use girls with great/perfect skin (ie. agency). 2) Use a competent MUA - and/or see #1 Oct 03 13 10:50 am Link Rich Images wrote: You might be describing the difference between true, pro models with modeling agencies vs the "internet models" of today who are often the model equivalent of the GWC. No mentors and these things creep into the culture and for the most part, anything goes it seems. 5' 2" women with DD's and they want to do "High Fashion". Oct 03 13 10:59 am Link Welcome to The New World. ;-) Oct 03 13 11:08 am Link Definitely not me But maybe some models are lazy and don't take care of their skin or even learn how to apply makeup that is complementary to them. I exfoliate, moisturize and get a facial every 3 weeks to keep my skin looking fresh. But some models might be too cheap to even attempt to take care of their looks. I have also encounter models who have yellowed teeth, nasty greasy hair etc. What I have to say to that is work with models who have good skin, teeth and who are at least a bit proficient at applying makeup if you won't be using a makeup artist. Here's a polaroid with no retouching and I don't think it really need it.  Oct 03 13 11:40 am Link Rich Images wrote: Perhaps 1% of MM might know what a Breck girl is. Does that answer your question? Oct 03 13 11:52 am Link Quite a few of my photos have been used without any post-work at all. It all goes back to the model taking care of herself, and/or the makeup artist being proficient. Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm not currently with an agency (of my own choosing), so it's not like you can't get perfect-looking photos with a freelancer. It all depends on PROFESSIONALISM, not who you're talking to to organize the shoot. Oct 03 13 12:31 pm Link M Pandolfo Photography wrote: I actually cringe when I hear someone say that. I think it is almost insulting in a small way to everyone involved- model, makeup artist, and photographer. It's like saying we don't really care to put the effort in, you can fudge it later, right? Oct 03 13 02:45 pm Link Recently I have had the pleasure of working with a few brilliant photographers both as a model and MUA who don't rely too much on photoshop. Not because they don't know how to use it but because they know how to get those perfect angles and work with models/MUAs who take the game seriously. As a model I do everything I can to take care of my skin and body. As an MUA I make sure to only use high quality products that enhance the skin rather than just adding a thick layer. I contour almost all of the models I work with for some extra depth too. I always aim to work as if there was no photoshop. So if that means moving a certain angle to hide a little thigh scar or seeing how things photograph and stepping in with gloss or another layer of shadow...so be it. Oct 03 13 02:46 pm Link i think part of the point of what REALLY is happening is this and just this Agencys now are picking up every girl , weather they have bad skin or "issues" becouse EVERYONE really has come to a places where editing an image , I.E. Photoshop is expected and the standard , so if a girl has bad skin, thin lips , a bad nose ....whatever they still get hired becouse who knows when their look will be the it look , it dosent cost them a dime to take on a girl and throw her in the sea to see if any fish bite , I had the most amazing model show up that was covered in bumps and acne ,,,,, gorgeous bones , horrible skin we hired her for her look knowing everything would be ok once she had loving in ps , another girl had to get a complete nose job in ps , we had no idea based on her pics in her book till she showed up also blame every publication you read today , they created a standard which is practically unreachable without some loving in PS , look at unretouched Kate moss lol Now add a makeup artist who knows there going to be some loving in PS and is over worked with over ambitious photographers that want a bunch of looks in an 8 hour day so then the makeup suffers and hair , becouse to acheive the standard of what we see in mags today takes time , so we pick and choose our battles wisley to get the whole job done on time .....and add the lower budgets and time constraints to create a whole story with hair and makeup changes and theres your problem , I too long for the days when I could enjoy the process to create a flawless makeup and hairstyle and have the time to make it perfect and the budget to shoot a story in a couple of days and not in 8 hours I remember when I started I was making around 3,000 just to do 1 model and had all the time i needed to make her "perfect" , those days are long gone or how about when a photographer would spend a few days building and lighting a set perfectly well before the actual shoot was going to happen thats how I see it anyhow , its not one persons fault , its the new standard and lower budgets , and less time, and the agencies , thats also why they have models that make 10,000 20,000 a day and they have 200 dollar a day girls hope that helps a little explain whats happening now Thats how I see it anyhow Oct 03 13 05:48 pm Link ^^^^^ This is what I see as well. Agencies do not have the same standards they had even 5 years ago. And 5 years ago they were already relaxing their standards from the previous 5 years. The problem is when you are shooting a project with lots of shots (catalog) and want a clean look. I shouldn't really say some of the things I've seen or heard of specifically, but I can say that there are agency girls flown in by a major client here in the PNW that come from NYC and Toronto with cold sores, acne, etc. that would make you cringe to put your brush on, yet it doesn't seem to phase the ADs at all and the MUAs are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The MUAs are tasked with the impossible and I'm sure there is a lot of stress about whether or not they will be asked to return the next day, despite the fact that they have no control over these things. I find this very confusing since there has got to be local talent available with better complexions and similar looks for less money. It used to be that you brought talent in from NYC or other big markets in order to have a more predictable level of quality, but if that's what you're getting than I'm not seeing the advantage of the more prestigious agency model anymore. For whatever reason, while all the other aspects of the shoot have adjusted to the new digital age, ADs seem to be stubborn about sticking with talent from large markets come hell or high water, even though it's no longer proving to be more reliable. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they adjust that aspect as well. Oct 03 13 06:29 pm Link what themakeupman said... It's a new world now. I also recall when we had to wait for the proof sheet and a loop to see if we made errors in makeup.... Artists that learned over 20 years ago are normally technically the best because we could NEVER rely on photoshop. We never got a "do over" every shot cost money (it was film and expensive...you had to get it right the first time) I do recall when models, artists and photographers were all very good or didnt work.. before everyone started showing up with these titles on the net. It's now a blurred world of amateurs and pros that collide on the web. The bar has been lowered for sure because of photo editing capabilities. You can now make some average young lady look like a model, you can make some photographers look much better and you can make a makeup artist look good....AFTER the shoot is over. All of this has brought the rates down in these fields...Makeup artists used to make a lot of money... and they earned every penny, perfection had to be met on every single shot. Models had good skin or went home, cellulite could not be fixed so if you had it you lost the job... and Photographers had to rely on their skills 100% of the time. Times have sure changed Oct 03 13 07:50 pm Link Going from air brushing to photoshopping forever changed the rules of the game. Oct 03 13 08:03 pm Link GQ The Couture Model wrote: I actually welcome the change even though it hurt me financially on one front...on another it helped me. My rates took a hit, my skills were no longer appreciated as they were years ago...but now I make money on all the new "makeup enthusiasts" with my store. The key to success in any career is to be adaptable... Make lemonade out of lemons. I try not to cry about "how things used to be" and embrace how the changes can make my life better and these changes will always make your life better if you embrace them...thats the key. I love how my work looks now...I love that I can change the lip stick color after I see the shots! Oct 03 13 08:31 pm Link One thing that has changed from the 1980's is that back then, I'd get cancellations from a model if a pimple popped up the night before. Now, even with professional models, I'll get a call telling me about the pimple and asking me if I can take care of it in post. I recently photographed an excellent model, but she had very dry knees. It was no problem taking care of that in post. I even occasionally am able to straighten a tooth or so. Oct 03 13 08:50 pm Link I'm glad I posted this. The responses were very interesting and informative. I was very pleased that someone picked up on my Breck reference. Thanks to all who replied. Oct 04 13 04:53 am Link I've actually been in situations where the pictures came out amazing in the camera, and then the photographer had to muck it up with way too much post-processing. Maybe it's my own photographer side coming out, but I prefer "get it right in camera". Nothing irks me more than people who shrug their shoulders and say, "We can just photoshop that out." Some right lighting, good makeup (which I can only provide the "natural makeup" look. Great for my fitness/lifestyle gigs, but no bueno for anything else), and - tada! - photos that look like they could immediately go public. Most professional models (including internet freelancers) have that exact same attitude. I feel like the only time you'll find models who genuinely expect photoshop to make everything right are the GWPs (Girl With Profile). Oct 04 13 05:17 am Link Julian W I L D E wrote: Pretty much.. The times they are a changing! Oct 04 13 05:20 am Link I wonder if it's also that the nature of photography has changed? I look at a lot of older photos, and I see a lot of things what would be considered flaws today. They're not so pristinely edited and glossed over. I don't know if it's so much the medium that's changed things (or even if there's been such a big change at all), but that the overall aesthetic may be different. Oct 06 13 03:34 pm Link A long time a go a photographer I regularly worked with told me every image you shoot should be able to be placed on a magazine cover. You should always do your best no matter what the model looks like. And boy we shot a lot of people that we knew would never be models. Money was tight and we needed to work. We gave them 100%. We never delivered less. And they were happy. And sent their friends. My first shoot with Playboy I was told don't worry about the makeup being too heavy, they can correct it in post if they have to. Excuse me? You hired me to do a job. I would never want anyone correcting my work because I gave them less then I was capable of. And I have the magazine covers to prove it! R- Oct 07 13 04:30 pm Link |
