Derek Ridgers wrote:
I wondered where I’d gone wrong and hence this posting.

I don't think you have done anything wrong since during the shoot the model say nothing.
Generally I think that's delayed second thoughts show lack of professionalism regardless of the experience gained from the subject and can not be justified in any way at least on real professional models.
While regarding don't professional models when something like that happen usually depend from bf, parents, future idea of "standard" jobs, etc.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
The above model had ‘erotica’ checked her list of genres.  I went through her huge portfolio and couldn’t really find anything sexy at all.  But I only did this afterwards.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
I wondered where I’d gone wrong and hence this posting.

It sounds to me like you made an error in model selection because you didn't do your research beforehand. Your expectations weren't supported by previous data. Assuming that the model will be able to bring forth "X" without demonstrated ability to do "X" probably has a significant risk of failure.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
At one point I asked her to be "more sexual" and when that failed to have the slightest effect, I asked her to "think of her boyfriend". 
. . .
The above model had 'erotica' checked her list of genres.  I went through her huge portfolio and couldn’t really find anything sexy at all.  But I only did this afterwards.  Leading me to conclude that maybe she doesn’t actually know what erotica means.

I feel that the model's personal relationship is none of my business.

Each model has her own 'look' and her portfolio gives me a clue as to what I can expect from her.  I would rather that she express herself than to try to fit into my mold.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Did you end up getting what you were after?

No, not at all. 

But I may have another go and just try to shoot what she’s good at.  I love taking photographs and I’m happy to shoot other stuff besides erotica.  I hate the idea that I made this model feel uncomfortable and I’d like to redress this, if I could.  She was very friendly and charming so why not?

ValHig wrote:
Regarding the specific directions: I don't think I've ever spoken to a model who didn't hate 'pretend it's your boyfriend'. It's a bit cringy and, at best, makes me want to tell the photographer to take the bin out. 'Be more sexual' is also really open to interpretation and isn't a very helpful direction. I can understand why someone would be a bit stumped about what that actually means, to that person, in that context. since 'being sexual' is a pretty personal thing and may be very far from what you want to achieve on the shoot.

I agree.  I see that now and I feel I let myself down.  I think I've learnt from this episode though and that has to be good.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
But you can’t always tell what a model is good at simply by looking at their portfolio (although I suppose that should usually be the case).

Some models are natural, some require coaching or interaction. Others just have different "posing" methods. Since a portfolio is a selection from the model's work, it's not necessarily the best indication of their work. There also have been models with so-so books that have worked very well with me. The model's work can vary with the photographer. They may not interact well with you or with you at that particular time frame.

As a general observation - most art models, NOT all, tend to be more detached - because the pose, background and light are important. Also "erotic" has too many meanings to many people. Just because a model checks "erotic" does not necessarily mean they have the requirements for the "erotic" you are looking for... You need to look at their pictures and talk to them with an eight ball in the other hand.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
But you can’t always tell what a model is good at simply by looking at their portfolio (although I suppose that should usually be the case).

It feels like you're assuming (or hoping) that a "good" model is good at everything, or good at what you want. Lots of people are good at something; rarely is someone good at everything. A good ballerina may have only modest tap ability. A good defender may be lousy at PKs. Expecting that because someone is talented for one genre, they will also automatically be adept at another, well, that assumption might get you exactly where you ended up.

While you initially listed several desirable qualities for the first model, none of those should have necessarily led you to believe that she would be a viable subject for erotica/emotion/sexy. If you had looked at her portfolio before booking/shooting her, there's a better chance that her strengths and weaknesses would have been apparent to you.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
So… I’m interested in how other photographers operate when faced with a beautiful, highly experienced but emotionally unengaged model?

I structure a shoot that predominantly or exclusively plays to their demonstrated strengths, provided those are something I'm interested in shooting (or being paid to shoot). That said, pretty people who can't both pose and emote are less likely to be subjects in front of my lens.

AgX wrote:
It feels like you're assuming (or hoping) that a "good" model is good at everything, or good at what you want. Lots of people are good at something; rarely is someone good at everything. A good ballerina may have only modest tap ability. A good defender may be lousy at PKs. Expecting that because someone is talented for one genre, they will also automatically be adept at another, well, that assumption might get you exactly where you ended up.

While you initially listed several desirable qualities for the first model, none of those should have necessarily led you to believe that she would be a viable subject for erotica/emotion/sexy. If you had looked at her portfolio before booking/shooting her, there's a better chance that her strengths and weaknesses would have been apparent to you.


I structure a shoot that predominantly or exclusively plays to their demonstrated strengths, provided those are something I'm interested in shooting (or being paid to shoot). That said, pretty people who can't both pose and emote are less likely to be subjects in front of my lens.

i never judge a book by it's cover.

if i am the artist, if it is my vision as the photographer, then in the end everything falls on me. the pose, the expression, the wardrobe, etc, etc.

i have no problem with someone showing up not knowing how to pose or "emote". for me good rapport and conversation solves all of that.

but that's my style, my philosophy.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Did you end up getting what you were after?

Derek Ridgers wrote:
No, not at all. 

But I may have another go and just try to shoot what she’s good at.  I love taking photographs and I’m happy to shoot other stuff besides erotica.  I hate the idea that I made this model feel uncomfortable and I’d like to redress this, if I could.  She was very friendly and charming so why not?

"Friendly and charming" is definitely sexy.  Do you want more?

Koryn wrote:
In my experience, for better or worse, when many photographers say they want to shoot "erotica," what
that often actually means is, "Pretend that you're masturbating" OR, "Get on all fours, stick your bare ass up in the air so genitals are fully visible, and look back into the camera." For others, it means more explicit behavior, like spreading labia open with the hands, and up close crotch shots. Few will put it in those words, but that's often what it boils down to. Some variation of those poses are what they are seeking.

If this has been your prevailing experience maybe you’re not working with the right sort of photographers?

Koryn wrote:
If this sort of thing is what you want to shoot, but you just can't bring yourself to say it in such a cut-and-dried way, send models photos of people doing "erotic" things (whatever you consider erotic). If it offends them and scares them away, then clearly they were not the model for your idea.

Since everyone's definition of erotica is so different, it will always be totally unclear until the model see pictures of what types of poses the photographer is needing.

It’s not, by any means, as easy as that. 

First of all (agreed, not in the above case) I usually do extensive research into the models I want to shoot.  I recently shot a couple of models that I’ve been following on social media for several years.  So I usually know what kind of work the models I pick do.

Almost always I’ll use a moodboard.  But often I find models are not particularly interested in looking at photographs of other models.  A few maybe but the majority only give the images a cursory glance.

And the moodboard might only point in the direction of fallback ideas anyway - I’m always trying to come up with things I haven’t seen before.

Recently I’ve been working (or rather, trying to work) with visual metaphors.  This isn’t always the easiest thing to try to explain and even if one could explain it, would that help or hinder the shot?  I don’t want to overthink things or over discuss everything, that never seems to work.

Lastly, I don’t always know what I’m going to do.  I like working in that way.  Sometimes it leads to failure but when the successes come, it often seems to lead to something interesting.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
I’ve been shooting erotica in its various forms for nearly 30 years now and only in the last few weeks has it started to occur to me how difficult this genre can be.

A couple of weeks ago, I photographed a very beautiful model.  She had great hair and make up and wonderfully clear skin.  She was friendly and seemed intelligent.

She’s worked with hundreds of good photographers and has a huge portfolio.

But she just wasn’t sexy.  Or maybe I should say, not sexy for me. 

I just couldn’t seem to get her away from the glamour and art nude poses she does so well and into an area that was sensual and dramatic.

At one point I asked her to be “more sexual” and when that failed to have the slightest effect, I asked her to “think of her boyfriend”. 

She seemed okay at the time but afterwards she emailed me and said she was uncomfortable with this approach. 

Obviously I apologised and her message left me feeling embarrassed, contrite and very stupid. 

I admit, I have said this kind of thing before because, with most models, I like to shoot a range of different emotions during a shoot.

I wondered where I’d gone wrong and hence this posting.

The above model had ‘erotica’ checked her list of genres.  I went through her huge portfolio and couldn’t really find anything sexy at all.  But I only did this afterwards.  Leading me to conclude that maybe she doesn’t actually know what erotica means.

Maybe I was just persuaded to leave my brain unengaged because of her beauty?

So… I’m interested in how other photographers operate when faced with a beautiful, highly experienced but emotionally unengaged model?

I never give directions like that. There are some things a model isn't going to do because you directer her or asked nicely.

When it comes to the issue of erotic/explicitness, I tell the model I'm comfortable shooting anything and that if she wants to explore that direction she should just do it without being directed. That way there's never a time when a model is asked to shoot something she's not comfortable with.

It's only going to happen if the model wants to.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
I never give directions like that. There are some things a model isn't going to do because you directer her or asked nicely.

When it comes to the issue of erotic/explicitness, I tell the model I'm comfortable shooting anything and that if she wants to explore that direction she should just do it without being directed. That way there's never a time when a model is asked to shoot something she's not comfortable with.

It's only going to happen if the model wants to.

Please don’t get me misunderstand me Mikey, at no point was I trying to persuade my model to pose in a more explicit way than she wanted to. 

I’d never do that. 

My difficulty was simply with her facial expressions.

Until she retired, my muse was the British fetish model Vanessa Upton (she was one of Bob Carlos Clarke’s favourites too).  She very seldom shot nude and, even then, nothing gynaecological.  But she was as sexy as anyone would ever wish for IMHO because with her it was genuine and not just put on for the camera.  I knew her when she was off camera too and that’s how I know it was all very real.

But to you substantial point, I think you are correct.  I need to do my picking more carefully in the future.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

Please don’t get me misunderstand me Mikey, at no point was I trying to persuade my model to pose in a more explicit way than she wanted to. 

I’d never do that. 

My difficulty was simply with her facial expressions.

Until she retired, my muse was the British fetish model Vanessa Upton (she was one of Bob Carlos Clarke’s favourites too).  She very seldom shot nude and, even then, nothing gynaecological.  But she was as sexy as anyone would ever wish for IMHO because with her it was genuine and not just put on for the camera.  I knew her when she was off camera too and that’s how I know it was all very real.

But to you substantial point, I think you are correct.  I need to do my picking more carefully in the future.

I didn't think that at all.


There was one particular shoot a few years ago that was a big learning experience. I'd shot some photos that were 100% real and so revealing of how the model was feeling.

At first, I was all impressed with myself for capturing that much truth, but after about 45 minutes I realized that it wasn't me, that the camera always captures the truth.

You can see this in all sorts of ways, but it's one of the reasons there's so much "erotic photography" that's not erotic. It's not that the photos are bad or that model was bad. What happens is there are great photos shot of a model faking their feelings. There are plenty who can fake it well enough that you don't know it consciously, but subconsciously you don't react as intended because you can feel it's not real.

There's nothing erotic about fake. You can say or do anything you want, but you're not going to get "real" unless the model chooses to give real. So I don't really see any point in asking. It only risks saying something that prevents it from happening.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
I just couldn’t seem to get her away from the glamour and art nude poses she does so well and into an area that was sensual and dramatic.

Well, c'mon!  That, in a nutshell, is the challenge of photographing people in general & models in particular:  how do we create & capture the atmosphere we have in our  minds?  Sometimes, perfectly lovely models just don't fit (or can't fit) the concept.  I always say, "chemistry" is the most important element.

I've only dabbled in erotic photography, and I was surprised about how intimate it could get, not only for the models who are doing the posing but also for the photographer who is doing the direction.  Although there is no touching, it can feel very intimate for me.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
At one point I asked her to be “more sexual” and when that failed to have the slightest effect, I asked her to “think of her boyfriend”.

Yeah, no -- that never works (at least for me).  That's akin to asking a model to smile -- often, you get the lips in the appropriate formation, but the eyes are dead.  C'mon -- can't you tell when a smile is faked (at least most of the time)?

Instead, I work hard to create an atmosphere -- quiet & sensual music being played, textures that have a great feel, food & drink that is also sensuous (I don't provide alcohol), chocolate, sumptuous furnishings, romantic lighting, and so forth.  I encourage movement, I express my pleasure, I encourage boldness.  Yes, it's work, but that's also the fun.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
She seemed okay at the time but afterwards she emailed me and said she was uncomfortable with this approach.

That's a big problem.  I tell models up front, before we agree to work together, that she gets to set her own limits and that she should never do anything that makes her uncomfortable.  She may be a "trouper" and push through, but if she's uncomfortable, it'll show in the pictures.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
I admit, I have said this kind of thing before because, with most models, I like to shoot a range of different emotions during a shoot.

I wondered where I’d gone wrong and hence this posting.

We weren't there -- we can't say where you went wrong (or if you, indeed, went wrong at all).  But everyone could stand to step up their game -- be proud of what has worked in the past, but don't try to repeat past successes.  Instead, raise the bar, and try something more challenging.  Also, as photographers, we all can stand to think about your sessions from the model's perspective -- for example:  Go!  Be sexy now!  Think about your girlfriend!

Justin Matthews wrote:
Far more models will see it and you may get the answer you're looking for.

I think I have the answer and I’m grateful for those that helped.  I think I have to pick my models more carefully and try not to say anything daft.  I also think I’ll stick to shooting models that I’ve shot before and I know are totally comfortable with my approach.

I find shooting erotica hard.  Far harder than shooting portraits or fashion.  I find I’m conflicted about erotica and my confidence waxes and wanes. 

Erotica is a very, very oversubscribed area and unless one has something different and interesting to say, I suppose one is best leaving it to those that have.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Models engage and emote only when they are comfortable with the photographer and the build a trust over time.  You have undoubted experienced this in your 30 years of erotic photography.

But to my taste most photographers miss the mark entirely when they talk about erotic imagery.  To me the erotic should tell a story. Like an Anais Nin short story as opposed to a clinical description of fucking.

Just shooting spread shots of Vulvas, labia minor, and vaginas seems rather gynecological to me.

That being said you are one hell of a photographer  who tell that story so well.

i agree... its the comfort level and how experienced the model is.

models dont realize their job is acting the part. this is where experiance plays the most important role.

to let yourself go in front of a total stranger is extreamly difficult to many women especially sexual expressions n feeling.

but the exabitionest in some women makes photographing them such a pleasure!

Modelphilia wrote:
Thus, your having a lot of intuitive situational awareness –at every moment!– is of paramount importance both to your success and to her present comfort, as well as to her willingness to do any future work with you.

I agree with this.  I think I comprehensively failed in this particular case but it's usually something I pride myself on.

But it's not easy.  More often than not, I'm photographing models I've never met before.  And they've never met me - a man very often old enough to be their grandfather.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
So… I’m interested in how other photographers operate when faced with a beautiful, highly experienced but emotionally unengaged model?

In cases like that, maybe it'd help to shoot it more like an editorial?

Give them a storyline to proverbially act out. Get them the challenge themselves creatively & to step outside their comfort zone. Might help (if you had not done so already) to give them the vibe you're looking for whether its a written description or as visual references during pre-shoot communication.

The kind of shoot you're describing is not for everyone & that's ok. Better to have someone back out prior to than waste time & money after the fact.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

I think I have the answer and I’m grateful for those that helped.  I think I have to pick my models more carefully and try not to say anything daft.  I also think I’ll stick to shooting models that I’ve shot before and I know are totally comfortable with my approach.

I find shooting erotica hard.  Far harder than shooting portraits or fashion.  I find I’m conflicted about erotica and my confidence waxes and wanes. 

Erotica is a very, very oversubscribed area and unless one has something different and interesting to say, I suppose one is best leaving it to those that have.

I'd be interested to hear about your experiences if you did a shoot where you decided that shooting erotica would be easy during that shoot.

Everyone has something different to say. It may not be drastically different and some people may not have the skills to see the difference, but you can't eliminate your perspective unless it's not there because you're trying to copy someone else or be something you're not.

I think it's a mistake to judge yourself while shooting, or near shooting, or maybe even at all.

Maybe your erotic shoots are better than you think or maybe they're not very good, but they're the experiences you need to have to get from where you are to where you need to be. You can't know that, and other people can't know your intent well enough to give you feedback on it.

The way to deal with all of this is to just keep moving forward and then keep moving forward.

Eventually new and different things will become apparent and you can either focus on them or stay aware of them and keep moving forward.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

I agree with this.  I think I comprehensively failed in this particular case but it's usually something I pride myself on.

But it's not easy.  More often than not, I'm photographing models I've never met before.  And they've never met me - a man very often old enough to be their grandfather.

I pretty much always talk for an hour or so before shooting - no subject in particular. It's usually not about the shoot, but it could be. The shoot is always a reflection of that conversation.

I don't think it's possible to be grandfather age and not have something to share that someone model age would be impressed by or inspired by - not that you need to try for that. Maybe try to find it in the model and then see where the conversation goes from there.

The only difference between you and the model is wrinkles, grey hair and experience.

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
I've found that when I don't get the expressions that I want, moving in closer is the answer.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you invade her personal space; a long enough lens will get you plenty close from the other side of the room (for Canon, the 100mm macro is my go-to lens but I'll also take the 70-200mm; for PhaseONE or Hasselblad, I go with the 150mm). In other words, sometimes the erotic story that you're telling visually is less about her face and what her body is doing/expressing. It might just be her hands. Maybe it's the way the profile of her neck and chin look in the light. It could be the way she lets her heel slip out of her shoe when her legs are crossed.

In other words, I try to find the story in the little details instead of trying to make the story in one, singular photo where she is telling it with her body and face and the setting etc. But, I'm more inclined to tell stories via multiple pictures anyway (and is a reason I gravitate towards cinema). If you don't find what you're looking for in her overall expressiveness (be it full body or face-focused) go find it in the tiny details and create the story you seek.

I think erotica should always be shot with short lenses in the first place.

I think subjects of any shoot are more comfortable being shot from up close than far away.

There's no need to worry about invading their personal space (in terms of distance) if they're letting you in in the first place. It's not proximity that causes the invasion, it's the way you get close.