udor wrote:

LOL... so are you, Vance!!! 

Sorry, neither of you are old enough to be old school.

If you remember using 'flash powder' to light your subjects, then you might be old school.   

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
That's ridiculous (and you can't even manage to get my name right). I have nothing against hobbyist photographers - some are very talented - I myself function somewhere in the middle - my company owns my photography - I make money at it and function at the street level with fashion agencies and the like - but photography isn't my sole revenue stream, so I'm not forced to take pictures of things I have no interest in just to put food on the table. So I function somewhere in the middle I guess. But the sub-group I'm referring to lived in the ranks of the hobbyist/GWC photographers - that's just fact - at that time many of the better hobbyists disavowed these people as they didn't want to be associated with them. But to deny their existence is revisionist and denies the very real problem that was responsible for driving off a whole lot of people that contributed their knowledge to a whole lot of people (both emerging professionals and hobbyists alike) that wanted to learn.

They also had a passionate stance (much like you seemingly from your post), that they absolutely hated/resented anything that smacked of professionalism, perceiving it was somehow a threat to their personal way of life. They not only saw no value in professional procedures/standards/processes/conventions/best-practice,etc. they were consumed with outrage by the mere fact that they were being offered on the forums. So they would attack the pros sharing these practices with endless venom and personal attacks until many of the most knowledgeable said F-it and left.

It is not often I am found agreeing with John Allan (ok, more often than it seems), but I have to agree. I am a relative newcomer to MM (not to photography), and got in at the tail end of the pros getting frustrated and leaving. When you get a 'know nothing' 'know it all' telling Udor 'the truth about runway shooting', you either have to laugh or cry. Many a time I have had to interject in a thread to ask somebody "do you have a clue who the hell you are arguing with and insulting?"

I remember one thread where somebody was telling Ken Markus that he was full of it and did not have a clue how Playboy shoots went. There were a few PM's going around that were pretty much "WTF!" or "LOL".

udor wrote:
I have seen real GWC's, (for the definition, check my response to you above!)... I have met a few and I had to deal with a lot of them as one of the early moderators on MM, when complaints by models were coming in about certain behaviors.

Not getting into details, but shit that happened... I never had an idea that this kind of a cesspool exists!!!

On a local FB group here in Victoria, 2 photographers have been recently turfed.

But please remember that predatory photographers exist among the GWC's and the top pro's/artists.
The GWC, as Udor points out is a sub-species that does not really care about photography.

Remember that David Bailey, Robert Mapplethorpe, and Terry R. would be considered predatory by current standards.
And even back in the late 60's in TO, there were a few notorious photographers known to try to bed every model coming through their studio. The casting couch did and does exist.

Back to regular programing as to who are the best on MM, or at least most recognizable.

Herman Surkis wrote:

Sorry, neither of you are old enough to be old school.

If you remember using 'flash powder' to light your subjects, then you might be old school.   

That might be true... I am only about 50... (12 more weeks), but since I started photography in my early teens... I still remember to be using those:

udor wrote:

That might be true... I am only about 50... (12 more weeks), but since I started photography in my early teens... I still remember to be using those:

I remember the roundish bulbs that fit into the reflector of my father's camera. I really had little interest in photography at the time, but I so enjoyed setting those things off.

Herman Surkis wrote:
<snip>
I remember one thread where somebody was telling Ken Markus that he was full of it and did not have a clue how Playboy shoots went. There were a few PM's going around that were pretty much "WTF!" or "LOL".

Yup. I recall a "how did they light it" thread on one of Chip Willis' photos. Willis eventually entered the thread and explained exactly how he did it. Then some ass monkey actually told Willis he was wrong and couldn't have done it that way..... WTF..... it was garbage like that that led many to say adios. Sad.

Mortonovich wrote:

Yup. I recall a "how did they light it" thread on one of Chip Willis' photos. Willis eventually entered the thread and explained exactly how he did it. Then some ass monkey actually told Willis he was wrong and couldn't have done it that way..... WTF..... it was garbage like that that led many to say adios. Sad.

... or gotten them brigged and then left.

E.g., there was a two times Emmy Award winning MUA on MM (I worked with him as well), who got sometimes fed up when he got heat, just like in Ken's or Chip's cases from people without any credits... when he let them have it a few times... he got kicked off... one of the worst decisions I found had been made.

Years later, they let him back in, he shortened his handle and is flying under the radar now....

udor wrote:

That might be true... I am only about 50... (12 more weeks), but since I started photography in my early teens... I still remember to be using those:

Flash cubes for Instamatics.
MEH.
Still not old enough 

Box Brownie before it had the flash adapter, and you are getting there.

Mortonovich wrote:

Yup. I recall a "how did they light it" thread on one of Chip Willis' photos. Willis eventually entered the thread and explained exactly how he did it. Then some ass monkey actually told Willis he was wrong and couldn't have done it that way..... WTF..... it was garbage like that that led many to say adios. Sad.

I remember that! Chip told me that's the reason he deactivated his profile on here for like a year. He's actively avoided the forums because of that very thread!

AJ_In_Atlanta wrote:
At least a few years ago there were still many famous photographers on here; however they began using false names.

Well yeah duh. Richard's name was; oldguysrule

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

But not on MM (which was the idea in the title).

- I had no idea Mario Testino was on here - and I've been here for 10 years.

I have no idea who he is and I've also been here 10 years.

rp_photo wrote:

I have no idea who he is and I've also been here 10 years.

He's a fashion photographer.
http://thefashionography.com/lindsey-wi … mber-2014/

martin b wrote:
Michael is a great photographer,  I learned a lot from him.  I still believe that being a Playboy Photographer for the last 50 years trumps being a head shot photographer.   At least as far as fame goes.  Mizuno even outlasted Mr. Freytag.

Michael is a hell of a lot more than a "head shot photographer"...

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
But not on MM (which was the idea in the title).

- I had no idea Mario Testino was on here - and I've been here for 10 years.

rp_photo wrote:
I have no idea who he is and I've also been here 10 years.

Mario Testino is one of the absolute fashion photography legends, up there with Bruce Weber, Annie Leibovitz, Patrick Dermachelier etc...

Check his Wikipedia entry: Mario Testino

Gary Melton wrote:
Easy one...Michael Helms...

+1 for pelican H  .. one of the photographers i work with a lot is friends with him, remember him showing me his work a lot . That and Perry Gallagher. It's funny how you can remember photographers you influenced you, starting out, really well

Gary Melton wrote:
Michael is a hell of a lot more than a "head shot photographer"...

I apologize.  It wasn't meant as an insult.

Gary Melton wrote:
Michael is a hell of a lot more than a "head shot photographer"...

That is funny because his own website states he specializes in headshots. I've never heard of him until this thread and I've been working in that area for 20 years. No bells. Also no national publications or credits listed on his website.

Again this is another thread where people are mixing in personal experiences and disregarding broader audiences.

Dan Howell wrote:
...Again this is another thread where people are mixing in personal experiences and disregarding broader audiences.

I couldn't agree with you more about some of the photographers mentioned in this thread, but just because YOU haven't heard of Michael Helms doesn't mean he is not famous.  Trust me, in the real photography world, Michael is a "rock star".

(Michael is a very modest guy, which is why you don't see many of his accomplishments on his own website.  He is NOT all that well known on MM, but quite famous outside of MM, which is exactly why I brought him up in the first place.)

udor wrote:

That might be true... I am only about 50... (12 more weeks), but since I started photography in my early teens... I still remember to be using those:

I used flashbulbs which came before flash cubes.   

Gary Melton wrote:
I couldn't agree with you more about some of the photographers mentioned in this thread, but just because YOU haven't heard of Michael Helms doesn't mean he is not famous.  Trust me, in the real photography world, Michael is a "rock star".

(Michael is a very modest guy, which is why you don't see many of his accomplishments on his own website.  He is NOT all that well known on MM, but quite famous outside of MM, which is exactly why I brought him up in the first place.)

'Rock Star'? Sorry, but I don't trust you. You're going to have to quantify that. I'm pretty conversant in the real photography world. Also sorry to say that the style represented on his OWN website is quite dated and none of it is Rock Star quality (or notoriety for that matter). You put it out there, so you'll have to defend it. Gavin O'Neil, Navid, and HD5/Marc Adrian are rock stars. You might need to retune your radio.

I'm even pretty conversant in the headshot world. It is a shame that headshot photographers don't get wider recognition, but any honest appraisal of the scope of audience a headshot has versus images published in national magazines or book covers would easily show which has more impact. Though I am not a fan, this guy is certainly more famous in the headshot world:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/2667900

Herman Surkis wrote:
Sorry, neither of you are old enough to be old school.

If you remember using 'flash powder' to light your subjects, then you might be old school.   

Damn young whippersnappers! 

Fwiw, I still shoot with flash bulbs.  Only thing that can light and blur waterfalls where flash can be used to light a subject.  Electronic freezes the water.  Problem is bulbs need ignition prior to shutter opening so I had to make an Arduino computer controller to fire the bulbs and then the shutter (On the black pole with the flashbulb behind the correction filter.).  No modern DSLR cameras have a flash bulb sync anymore that I know of.



Only one outfit left is still making flashbulbs in Ireland.  Meggaflash PF-330 (Same as Sylvania FF-33) is $75 per bulb so you better have all your I's dotted and T's crossed before hitting the trigger button.  One shot is it.

Oh.  I've shot with flash powder too.  Neat stuff!  Kodak used to sell it in one pound tins, or I make my own with ammonium nitrate and magnesium powder.  Sprinkle a little bit onto some old aluminized Xmas tree tensile for the igniter via a low-voltage relay to 120AC and BOOM!  You got bright light - and some smoke too.  I had some older togger's hat that had the flashpan on the top and a chain to to the foot where you stomp your foot to fire a flint and ignition.  Big mess though and if powder wasn't fine enough or too clumpy, it burned everything around the brim when it flew off much like a wayward sparkler.

Even had some old redwood boxes that held bromine water for the Daguerreotype process.  They turned the silver plates to a neat gold color and was the accelerator for the process back then.

Fun days....

GRMACK wrote:
Oh.  I've shot with flash powder too.  Neat stuff!  Kodak used to sell it in one pound tins, or I make my own with ammonium nitrate and magnesium powder.  Sprinkle a little bit onto some old aluminized Xmas tree tensile for the igniter via a low-voltage relay to 120AC and BOOM!  You got bright light - and some smoke too.

Isn't sale of that controlled heavily? Now this thread is being watched by...

GRMACK wrote:

Damn young whippersnappers! 

Fwiw, I still shoot with flash bulbs.  Only thing that can light and blur waterfalls where flash can be used to light a subject.  Electronic freezes the water.  Problem is bulbs need ignition prior to shutter opening so I had to make an Arduino computer controller to fire the bulbs and then the shutter (On the black pole with the flashbulb behind the correction filter.).  No modern DSLR cameras have a flash bulb sync anymore that I know of.



Only one outfit left is still making flashbulbs in Ireland.  Meggaflash PF-330 (Same as Sylvania FF-33) is $75 per bulb so you better have all your I's dotted and T's crossed before hitting the trigger button.  One shot is it.

Oh.  I've shot with flash powder too.  Neat stuff!  Kodak used to sell it in one pound tins, or I make my own with ammonium nitrate and magnesium powder.  Sprinkle a little bit onto some old aluminized Xmas tree tensile for the igniter via a low-voltage relay to 120AC and BOOM!  You got bright light - and some smoke too.  I had some older togger's hat that had the flashpan on the top and a chain to to the foot where you stomp your foot to fire a flint and ignition.  Big mess though and if powder wasn't fine enough or too clumpy, it burned everything around the brim when it flew off much like a wayward sparkler.

Even had some old redwood boxes that held bromine water for the Daguerreotype process.  They turned the silver plates to a neat gold color and was the accelerator for the process back then.

Fun days....

Old guys rule!

Well maybe not, but we have been around long enough to know when some "Damn young whippersnappers!" are repeating mistakes we learned from decades ago. Love the kids on Creative Live talking as if they just discovered something, that we knew about a hundred years ago. "Wow, isn't it amazing the look you can get with a simple high north light window!". Hmm....specialty of the Dutch School of painters.

Dan Howell wrote:
'Rock Star'? Sorry, but I don't trust you. You're going to have to quantify that. I'm pretty conversant in the real photography world. Also sorry to say that the style represented on his OWN website is quite dated and none of it is Rock Star quality (or notoriety for that matter).

Woah you seem to be taking that a bit too literally dan, cool off.. haha why you so mad? are you upset nobody's mentioned you yet?

what'd i say earlier about negative shit? I hope you know him to be tearing him down that much, like the other guy said he did RR, unsolicited critiquing isn't cool either .. he has an active MM profile:http://www.modelmayhem.com/12886

It's just an opinion, but leave it to MM if there isn't an argument every other thread otherwise this place wouldn't be very exciting.

"NO MY PHOTOGRAPHER IS FAMOUSER THAN YOUR PHOTOGRAPHER"
'NO MINE IS !!'

martin b wrote:
Very cool suggestion.  I like checking out all the photographers mentioned.  I live halfway across the world from the USA and love hearing what is happening in that side of the world.  Out in the Philippines the big Photographers don't go on mm.  Too much english.

That's one big downfall with websites that are so international in user base - language barriers. I wonder if it would help to have some sort of embeddable google translator on here. Twitter and facebook have auto translators. I suppose you can add the extension app but, not everyone uses chrome or a browser that'd support it. .

Would be interesting to gaze into the pro world of what it looks like over in asia. There's some amazing photographers and models over there. Most notably, models; liu wen is a favorite of mine ( in general, not on MM that I know of)

---
Moving on..Another fairly well known photographer I've heard of who has an MM profile (recently active): . https://www.modelmayhem.com/1243881 Holly Randall.. erotic photographer. Twitter following in the 6 figures: https://twitter.com/hollyrandall

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

Isn't sale of that controlled heavily? Now this thread is being watched by...

Magnesium powder may be.  Roger George (A major special effects supplier.) in LA has it, but you do need a pyrotechnic license for it.  Some stuff they have you sign some agreement for proper use/wavier/etc..  They sell the Meggaflash bulbs too at $75 per bulb ( http://www.rogergeorge.com/special-effe … flash-bulb ) and those don't need a license, but you need a way to integrate it to new cameras to sync (Camera Ax maybe, which is an Arduino controller much like the one I built on the pole above.).  Other ways using magnesium ribbon and a fine bastard file too, or even substitute aluminum with a file as that was the flashbulb (wool) ingredient.  Only takes a pinch to do it and equivalent to an old AG-1 flash bulb in output too.  For whatever reason, maybe a broader spectrum, the color off the bulbs is very nice over that of xenon electronic flash too, imho.

I'm old enough to remember buying almost any chemical needed from the toy stores (Imagine that! Teenagers buying chemistry sets with real chemicals in them out of toy stores!) and hobby stores too when "Perfect Chemistry" sold their chemistry sets there.  That stuff was in their educational kits sold back then and you could make flash powder and sparklers with their set - and a lot of other stuff that is probably banned now too.  Even in high school and college when I played with the Daguerreotypes and Ansel's Gold Toner that needed gold chloride we had a local chemistry supply shop that you could go in and buy the stuff you needed, even fine mesh mag. powder.  They even had real chemists who could tell you a better way to do it or a sub.  They never asked your age either, but then neither did buying a pack of 25 cent smokes out of a vending machine for your mom even if you were only 6 or 7 either.  No one cared, and now everyone is over the top on anything.

Sadly, lots of stuff now is illegal.  Don't know how people get away with boiling mercury for Daguerreotype development either (after I coated all the knobs in my parent's garage by boiling the stuff under the exposed silver plates), but apparently some still do that too.

Fun times...

GRMACK wrote:

Magnesium powder may be.  Roger George (A major special effects supplier.) in LA has it, but you do need a pyrotechnic license for it.  Some stuff they have you sign some agreement for proper use/wavier/etc..  They sell the Meggaflash bulbs too at $75 per bulb ( http://www.rogergeorge.com/special-effe … flash-bulb ) and those don't need a license, but you need a way to integrate it to new cameras to sync (Camera Ax maybe, which is an Arduino controller much like the one I built on the pole above.).  Other ways using magnesium ribbon and a fine bastard file too, or even substitute aluminum with a file as that was the flashbulb (wool) ingredient.  Only takes a pinch to do it and equivalent to an old AG-1 flash bulb in output too.  For whatever reason, maybe a broader spectrum, the color off the bulbs is very nice over that of xenon electronic flash too, imho.

I'm old enough to remember buying almost any chemical needed from the toy stores (Imagine that! Teenagers buying chemistry sets with real chemicals in them out of toy stores!) and hobby stores too when "Perfect Chemistry" sold their chemistry sets there.  That stuff was in their educational kits sold back then and you could make flash powder and sparklers with their set - and a lot of other stuff that is probably banned now too.  Even in high school and college when I played with the Daguerreotypes and Ansel's Gold Toner that needed gold chloride we had a local chemistry supply shop that you could go in and buy the stuff you needed, even fine mesh mag. powder.  They even had real chemists who could tell you a better way to do it or a sub.  They never asked your age either, but then neither did buying a pack of 25 cent smokes out of a vending machine for your mom even if you were only 6 or 7 either.  No one cared, and now everyone is over the top on anything.

Sadly, lots of stuff now is illegal.  Don't know how people get away with boiling mercury for Daguerreotype development either (after I coated all the knobs in my parent's garage by boiling the stuff under the exposed silver plates), but apparently some still do that too.

Fun times...

I remember that too - going to the hobby store you could easily buy the ingredients for gun powder. At about age 12 I actually purchased about 100' of fireworks fuse (the thick red kind that was used in M80s). It was great fun playing James Bond.