Derek Ridgers wrote:

Apologies Catlin, I didn’t mean to kick a hornets nest of different issues.

My intention was merely to cross reference what you had said on this thread with what you are showing in your port and stating in your profile - which I do with everyone on here that writes anything of interest to me.

I could quickly see that I wasn’t getting the full picture which was why I asked the question.

I now have the answer, thanks.

Actually thank You for understanding. Its a bit of a soft spot for me as I would love to put up a few shoots I enjoyed so very much. I did come off pretty harshly. I guess its still angering me. I have some great pieces by some great photographers that a lot of people would find of some interest here.
I have even been at a stand still for 6 to 8 months on getting my modeling website redone. It hurt me fairly deeply.
Once in a while I run across nice people like yourself and would love to just share. You seem like you have genuine interest.
I had to take the road that this is work not a site to share with like minded people. And that is really sad because I love sharing with people that have genuine interests.

Caitin Bre  wrote:

Well a photographer is showing his skill set with lighting exposure editing etc....

A model is showing what she looks like and in a few different angles. Like your Comp Card.
Maybe a couple special poses like in Zoolander. LOL

IMO, a model has just as many talents to show as a photographer.

Caitin Bre  wrote:
Actually thank You for understanding. Its a bit of a soft spot for me as I would love to put up a few shoots I enjoyed so very much. I did come off pretty harshly. I guess its still angering me. I have some great pieces by some great photographers that a lot of people would find of some interest here.
I have even been at a stand still for 6 to 8 months on getting my modeling website redone. It hurt me fairly deeply.
Once in a while I run across nice people like yourself and would love to just share. You seem like you have genuine interest.
I had to take the road that this is work not a site to share with like minded people. And that is really sad because I love sharing with people that have genuine interests.

My experience in the 8 years I’ve been at MM has been 99.9% positive. I’ve only run up against one idiot (I won’t say who because you know him) and, though it was incredibly annoying at the time, one just has to move on.

But this is the internet and everything remains.  So it’s all still out there, if one searches and it was just so unnecessary.

I like these forums.  Plenty of people come here just to say daft things but there are some VERY helpful people too.  I’ve been taking photographs for 40 years and I know I still have much to learn.

Also when one's ego gets out of hand, coming here is a perfect place to take one down a peg or two, and I like that, it’ll keep you grounded.

Bringing it back to the subject of the thread, I suppose I really ought to weed out some of the lesser photos in my own port.  Besides anything else, a lot of the photos show where I was at 8 years ago and I just don’t take those kind of photographs any more.

Yajhil Alvarez wrote:
To be honest, it kinda irritates me lol.  Usually (the people that I see posting hundreds of pictures) their work is not really about quality, it's about quantity.  It's as if they don't know how to edit down to only show their best work in order to look their best.  On top of that, a lot of it looks exactly the same so it makes no sense to show so much of it.  I have only seen like 1 person on here that in my mind can get and is getting away with doing it because their work is reeeally good, but most of the time, in my opinion, that is not the case.

Edit:  But to answer your question, I do look, but at a certain point, if I don't like their work, I lose interest and stop looking.

Good to see accurate use of the word 'edit' .

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
IMO, a model has just as many talents to show as a photographer.

I can’t agree with this I’m afraid.

If one is talking about the few dozen real supermodels in any era, sure.

Or maybe a really hard working MM style freelance glamour/erotic model who works for herself, possibly.

But for the majority of models I’ve worked with, 90% of what they brought to the table was the physical attributes they’d been born with. For the other 10% it would probably be just the ability to turn up on time and have the patience to do the job itself.

This must be true because some models are absolutely perfect without training, on their first job, straight out of high school.

And a great photographer or stylist can cast straight from the street and many of them do.

A lot of very good models have no interest in modelling whatsoever and are just doing it to make money for a few years until they graduate or have enough to do what they really want to do.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

Apologies Catlin, I didn’t mean to kick a hornets nest of different issues.

My intention was merely to cross reference what you had said on this thread with what you are showing in your port and stating in your profile - which I do with everyone on here that writes anything of interest to me.

I could quickly see that I wasn’t getting the full picture which was why I asked the question.

I now have the answer, thanks.

I seriously doubt you're getting the full picture in this specific example.

Yajhil Alvarez wrote:
To be honest, it kinda irritates me lol.  Usually (the people that I see posting hundreds of pictures) their work is not really about quality, it's about quantity.  It's as if they don't know how to edit down to only show their best work in order to look their best.  On top of that, a lot of it looks exactly the same so it makes no sense to show so much of it.  I have only seen like 1 person on here that in my mind can get and is getting away with doing it because their work is reeeally good, but most of the time, in my opinion, that is not the case.

Edit:  But to answer your question, I do look, but at a certain point, if I don't like their work, I lose interest and stop looking.

100% Agree

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
IMO, a model has just as many talents to show as a photographer.

After working on both sides of the camera (you do too). You have to agree that the Skill set that is most important and critical to the final product is that of the photographers.
Even if a model is doing something that doesn't click it is up to the photographer to say something and fix it. It is up to the photographer to direct the shot. Models are very important but the photographer has to prove he can take a shot of a anything and make it look good.
And post isn't what makes the shot either. Good post skills are very important and once again the job of the photographer but you 1st have to have something to work with. Nothing worse than having to try and work with blown out highlights and no material but noise existing in the shadows. And there is soo much more that it can be a thread of its own.

Oh and we all know that angle that makes our ass look like the size of mount grant etc..... The photographer knows that too or he better know it. (if he relies on liquify to fix it he doesn't know what hes doing)

There are a lot of things I look at in the images that a photographer posts.
I 1st look for what I think is the worse image. Then I look at what he thinks is good enough to just let go and post.
I look for how he understands light and sees it. I look at how far he goes in post. I look at how he sees shadows. I look at how he sees color. I look at what angles and plains he finds attractive. I look at how he manipulates and works with light. The last thing I look at is his creativity. Last but important for MM style shooting.

The only thing I have to show is what I look like. What my shape and figure is at the moment. (if my figure changes so do my port photos).
The rest is really just showing up and taking/understanding direction.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
... I'm not one to judge another.

Actually your posting here and what you write in your profile does seem to be rather judgemental of others.

You think that fellow MM photographers that show a lot of work are either the "spray and pray" brigade or they must have been around for decades.  Well guilty here on the latter but I certainly don’t agree on the former.

And the idea that people who show a lot of work will only attract people looking for a lot of images is just bizarre.

I see in your profile that you also consider TFP to be worthless, which seems to be an implied criticism of quite a lot of people on MM.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

Actually your posting here and what you write in your profile does seem to be rather judgemental of others.

You think that fellow MM photographers that show a lot of work are either the "spray and pray" brigade or they must have been around for decades.  Well guilty here on the latter but I certainly don’t agree on the former.

And the idea that people who show a lot of work will only attract people looking for a lot of images is just bizarre.

I see in your profile that you also consider TFP to be worthless, which seems to be an implied criticism of quite a lot of people on MM.

Please don't paraphrase me or put words into my mouth, Derek. Particularly in the way you  "tell me" what I myself think. You seem to be altering my words to be something I have not said (written), then attacking the idea you have created me as to have said. In the fora here on MM we are instructed to attack the idea, not the poster who shared his idea (or thought, wtvr). I'll thank you for doing so, please. And lastly, what is written on my page A) does not contradict anything I've said, ever; B) does not relate to any of my posts in this thread here; and C) does not relate to the topic of this particular forum-thread.

I respect your accomplishments, and regardless of your approach being very different from mine most of the time I still read respect and consider your opinions, and see that they are valid and hold merit for you in your approach and region at the very least. (I'm not inferring they are "only" valid there) From having a group as diverse as MM has, we stand to possibly learn from the approaches of others - based on their level of success and/or failure. However, if we spend our time bickering or for other reason taking the piss and not considering the opinions because we're too busy attacking the poster, we rob ourselves and others of this opportunity to interact with those from abroad and/or those with approaches that differ mildly/drastically. Have a nice day.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
Please don't paraphrase me or put words into my mouth, Derek. Particularly in the way you  "tell me" what I myself think. You seem to be altering my words to be something I have not said (written), then attacking the idea you have created me as to have said. In the fora here on MM we are instructed to attack the idea, not the poster who shared his idea (or thought, wtvr). I'll thank you for doing so, please. And lastly, what is written on my page A) does not contradict anything I've said, ever; B) does not relate to any of my posts in this thread here; and C) does not relate to the topic of this particular forum-thread.

I respect your accomplishments, and regardless of your approach being very different from mine most of the time I still read respect and consider your opinions, and see that they are valid and hold merit for you in your approach and region at the very least. (I'm not inferring they are "only" valid there) From having a group as diverse as MM has, we stand to possibly learn from the approaches of others - based on their level of success and/or failure. However, if we spend our time bickering or for other reason taking the piss and not considering the opinions because we're too busy attacking the poster, we rob ourselves and others of this opportunity to interact with those from abroad and/or those with approaches that differ mildly/drastically. Have a nice day.

I simply disagreed with what you wrote, that’s all. 

I didn’t put any words in your mouth.

Nevertheless, if you feel that I attacked you in some sort of personal way I apologise. That certainly wasn’t my intention.

KatrinaWhite wrote:
I generally prefer more than 15 photos. I like to know that the person I'm going to work with can consistently take great shots and didn't just get lucky 15 times across the x amount of years they've been shooting.

I would say that if a photographer has 15 great shots taken over x amount of years, then that’s never going to be just getting “lucky”.   Some photographers struggle ever to take one.

I have quite a good friend (he’s not on MM) who is a full-time professional photographer and I don’t think he's managed to take one in over twenty five years.  He’s admitted as much to me himself - he just doesn’t like other people telling him this.  His justification always used to be that he earned a fortune, which he did for a while.  And he was always just interested in the money not the craft.

I’d say it was far easier for a model to get lucky if she’s worked with some good photographers. Although, I suppose, a not very good model wouldn’t ever get to work with a lot of good photographers.

Probably what one could say was that a model might be able to disguise certain deficiencies over 15 photos that would be far harder to do over 50.  And then, if she can still manage it, well they can’t really be deficiencies.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
I’d say it was far easier for a model to get lucky if she’s worked with some good photographers. Although, I suppose, a not very good model wouldn’t ever get to work with a lot of good photographers.

Probably what one could say was that a model might be able to disguise certain deficiencies over 15 photos that would be far harder to do over 50.  And then, if she can still manage it, well they can’t really be deficiencies.

+1

I agree with this strongly! I never really thought about it, but when I'm approaching/approached by models here & on MI or on Facespace, I pay attention to their personality/disposition more (if & when I can). I mean, if no client is footing the bill why would I want to be around a minger attitude for 2 hours straight? Haha!

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
BBM# 24C79149
DBImagery Toronto (Website)
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site)
   
“The vilest deeds – like poison weeds – bloom well in prison air; it is only what is good in man that wastes & withers there.”
~Oscar Wilde

photoimager wrote:

Good to see accurate use of the word 'edit' .

+10!!!!!!!!!

We're being outnumbered by the weekend-warriors that "discovered" photography in the last few years

To speak to the post, I just was auduenve to a Google Hangout put on by the folks at AA & a couple High Profile guest-speakers that are Creative Consultants (AA is Agency Access, and if you don't know who that is your either 'new' and/or you've never had a desire to sell your work Commercially). The topic being discussed was the changing trend in what potential clients wanted to see in our books, and a lot of the talk was about photographers not editing their portfolios to show only their best work that displayed their style & intent consistently. As an aside, they *did mention that most of us cannot edit our own images to choose the very best alone, and we needed the objective eye of another person. Personally, I go over-board and lean towards not displaying *enough work! But, I have sound reason for that - and I'm actively correcting this

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com
https://www.modelmayhem.com/2401686
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1983551
Posted by DBIphotography via his CrackBerry®

"Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes."
~Oscar Wilde

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

photoimager wrote:
Good to see accurate use of the word 'edit' .

+10!!!!!!!!!

We're being outnumbered by the weekend-warriors that "discovered" photography in the last few years

To speak to the post, I just was auduenve to a Google Hangout put on by the folks at AA & a couple High Profile guest-speakers that are Creative Consultants (AA is Agency Access, and if you don't know who that is your either 'new' and/or you've never had a desire to sell your work Commercially). The topic being discussed was the changing trend in what potential clients wanted to see in our books, and a lot of the talk was about photographers not editing their portfolios to show only their best work that displayed their style & intent consistently. As an aside, they *did mention that most of us cannot edit our own images to choose the very best alone, and we needed the objective eye of another person. Personally, I go over-board and lean towards not displaying *enough work! But, I have sound reason for that - and I'm actively correcting this

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com
https://www.modelmayhem.com/2401686
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1983551
Posted by DBIphotography via his CrackBerry®

does photoshop let you edit your portfolio?

Caitin Bre  wrote:
There are a lot of things I look at in the images that a photographer posts.
I 1st look for what I think is the worse image. Then I look at what he thinks is good enough to just let go and post.
I look for how he understands light and sees it. I look at how far he goes in post. I look at how he sees shadows. I look at how he sees color. I look at what angles and plains he finds attractive. I look at how he manipulates and works with light. The last thing I look at is his creativity. Last but important for MM style shooting.

I wish more people had such a meticulous consideration of the photos they reviewed in our galleries here! When I was in one of my earliest months as a learning photographer and had just opened my first "Photographer" Page on MM here (at roughly that time, I mean to say) I came across a write-up online about editing your (the photographer's) portfolio. I will never forget one line I read in it: "Edit your images you choose to show with the knowledge that you are only as good as the *worst photo in your book". I'd rather leave people wanting more, than have then get sick of looking at my stuff and "pass". With respect to the shooters who create stunning work and have for many many year, if I were to ever get to that point I'd (personally) likely start categorizing stuff. Perhaps make photobooks outta my archived pix n sell them Then if someone wants to see "more" than my current offerings, they could buy a photobook through my website! HMMM.............

Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com
https://www.modelmayhem.com/2401686
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1983551
Posted by DBIphotography via his CrackBerry®

"Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes."
~Oscar Wilde

Derek Ridgers wrote:

I can’t agree with this I’m afraid.

If one is talking about the few dozen real supermodels in any era, sure.

Or maybe a really hard working MM style freelance glamour/erotic model who works for herself, possibly.

But for the majority of models I’ve worked with, 90% of what they brought to the table was the physical attributes they’d been born with. For the other 10% it would probably be just the ability to turn up on time and have the patience to do the job itself.

This must be true because some models are absolutely perfect without training, on their first job, straight out of high school.

And a great photographer or stylist can cast straight from the street and many of them do.

A lot of very good models have no interest in modelling whatsoever and are just doing it to make money for a few years until they graduate or have enough to do what they really want to do.

You're working with the wrong models.

ultimate dream wrote:

If the images look good, people would take the time to go through them (i think)

I personally dont care how many are in the profile and agree with ^^^,,, but to show professionalism and being able to call out your best work,, of port size 20 max. in an album for those want to checkout your work(photographer or model) then if they want, they can go to the mass,, if they wish,, would help...

The Effective Image wrote:
Used to be10 or 12 images would suffice for a portfolio. Now most photographers I look at here on Mayhem have several hundred images posted.

Now I realize MM tries to entice everyone into an upgrade (more money for them), but several hundred images. Does anybody look at 'em?

Shhhhh!! More pics = more ( @ Y @ )'s!! Don't rock the boat!!!:-)))

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

does photoshop let you edit your portfolio?

Photoshop does not "let me" do anything. It is polite to agree to disagree on things, y'know. There's no need to troll, just because you're so passionately in disagreement. Please attack my idea, not me (the poster). Photoshop does not let me "edit" my portfolio OR the images in it any more than Mr Calvin Klein gets my balls licked by the crazy lady down the hall from me that's a bit of a nympho. I need to find more realistic ways to accomplish those goals.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

Derek Ridgers wrote:
I can’t agree with this I’m afraid.

If one is talking about the few dozen real supermodels in any era, sure.

Or maybe a really hard working MM style freelance glamour/erotic model who works for herself, possibly.

But for the majority of models I’ve worked with, 90% of what they brought to the table was the physical attributes they’d been born with. For the other 10% it would probably be just the ability to turn up on time and have the patience to do the job itself.

This must be true because some models are absolutely perfect without training, on their first job, straight out of high school.

And a great photographer or stylist can cast straight from the street and many of them do.

A lot of very good models have no interest in modelling whatsoever and are just doing it to make money for a few years until they graduate or have enough to do what they really want to do.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
You're working with the wrong models.

Actually, my experiences have been quite similar to Dereks. To be fair though, I've never been nor aspired to be a Fashion Photographer - and I'm years and years away from becoming established as a "Commercial Photographer" - by *anyone's guesstimate! I previously shot various events while I shot Emm Emm models on the side of that developing/figuring-out what I wanted to shoot with people, now I shoot Portraits then events. I hire or shoot Creatives with MM models, to have attractive - but not supermodel nor Fashunmodel looking - subjects to "advertize my wares" I *prefer inexperienced models, and subjects that may technically "model" for me but are not necessarily pro models. That is what suits my needs. And for this type of "model", yours truly does most of the planning & arranging - and guides the session through execution.

I mean, really now......I'm a 38-y/o grown man. I'm browsing & posting in the fora - as I often do - on my BBerry 9780!!!! (My 9900 died, I'm using my backup til my Z30 arrives. This thing has a keyboard made for *midgets!) I had to pick-up the fine art of fast-texting and deciphering & speaking in rapid text-talking - to help me snag ideal "models" to shoot Creatives with!!!!!

Arranged one night/morn @ 2am, via Facebook Mobile. This has *no elements photoshopped in, this happened exactly as it appears! A 5'7" DD-cup Asian "model" in the median of a busy street in our downtown-core (Toronto) in pink lingerie!!!!!! (High ISO so it could be done fast with a fairl quick s/s, if you wondered. ISO 8000, 6 Hours retouching, in my 11x14 ) Some of us don't need agency-repped pro-pro working models.




Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com
https://www.modelmayhem.com/2401686
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1983551
Posted by DBIphotography via his CrackBerry®

on my monitor the lingerie is blue instead of pink. anybody else see it that way?

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

on my monitor the lingerie is blue instead of pink. anybody else see it that way?

Yea, + the girl almost looks like a drawing instead of a photo because the excessive post processing

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
You're working with the wrong models.

This seems a very arrogant thing to say, would you care to explain please?

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
... I've never been nor aspired to be a Fashion Photographer...

I’ve never aspired to be a fashion photographer either, which is odd because almost all the photographers I most admired growing up were primarily fashion photographers -  Cecil Beaton, Irving Penn, Terence Donovan, David Bailey, Richard Avedon, Helmut Newton et al.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
Some of us don't need agency-repped pro-pro working models.

It depends what you mean by “need”.  If you have a shoot that involves several clients, stylists, hair and MUAs and you’ve cast someone from the street or a nightclub, how sure can you be that they will actually turn up or haven’t just found something better to do?

Besides, in a big city like London it’s very hard to find tall, slender, beautiful young women who aren’t either agency represented or, at least, turned down the chance to be.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

This seems a very arrogant thing to say, would you care to explain please?

I agree 100% with Alabaster Crowley on this, from the photographer side.
Each model brings something different but if you have seen an experienced one at work they do not resemble what apparently Derek is running into.  There is a  need to direct the shoot overall, back up sometimes for a different angle, and make sure specific shots are collected, but beautiful poses and angles just seem to flow into the camera.   I have been blessed.  :-)

Btfineart wrote:
I agree 100% with Alabaster Crowley on this, from the photographer side.
Each model brings something different but if you have seen an experienced one at work they do not resemble what apparently Derek is running into.  There is a  need to direct the shoot overall, back up sometimes for a different angle, and make sure specific shots are collected, but beautiful poses and angles just seem to flow into the camera.   I have been blessed.  :-)

I’m very happy for you that you are blessed but I’d prefer not to get into a kind of “I’ve photographed better models than you” type argument.

I’d rather my photographs do the talking for me on this point.