Eyesso wrote:
The Model Matters...

As does every member of the team especially on Beauty Genre and/or Fashion narratives... Put another way the photographer is no more or less important then the hair stylist, makeup artist, wardrobe stylist, lighting assistant and yes the model(s) selected to convey the narrative story line...

Ask a tenured makeup artist what it takes for model to achieve a excellent beauty story and the reply is nearly always the same... An oval face shape, perfectly symmetrical facial features (eyes, nose, ears, chin you get the idea), flawless complexion i.e. small pore size, glassy smooth surface texture, porcelain skin tone is an industry standard for beauty stories... and no ink...

Ask a wardrobe stylist what it takes for model to achieve an excellent fashion story and the reply is nearly always the same... 5'9" with a willowy physique, extremely narrow wrist and ankles... an amazing range of motion in order to achieve breathtaking pose dynamics... The ability to ability to visualizing a narrative to underscore its meaning and translate concepts into compelling metaphors... and yes tenured thespian skills are highly cherished... a.k.a. being able to emote effectively on camera... and no ink... this is about the designer's textile artistry not that of a tattoo artist.

Ask a hair stylist what it takes for model to achieve an excellent beauty and/or fashion story and the reply is nearly always the same... extremely long flowing tresses that will take and hold a curl... no split ends i.e. well groomed hair styling... and the industry standard is blonde... unless the clothing designers narrative/theme calls for other hue/chroma...  Ideally no color treatments... well conditioned and cared for... and yes no face metal...

Without a highly skilled team of tenured professionals a photographer will unlikely create commercial quality imagery...

That said the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room is the gifted retoucher who has the innate ability to craft digital artwork which can overcome the limitations of each and every team member on the session...  funny how peripheral the photographer of record actually is to aggregate synergy present in a high end project...

Enough said...

Thomas Van Dyke wrote:
...Without a highly skilled team of tenured professionals a photographer will unlikely create commercial quality imagery...
Enough said...

Subject matter certainly is important, but of course most of us have seen those videos such as the Dove commercial video where a team takes a very average looking subject and transformers her likeness into a very different end commercial image.  It's beyond my ability, but I imagine a good team, including someone good with photoshop could take the "average" people on the left in most of those examples and recreate the image on the right.

Vector One Photography wrote:
I totally agree. A number of years ago I remember walking into my lab and saying that if I could find better models I could do better work. The lab owner says he has heard that from many of the photographer that come in.

A portrait photographer has to shoot whatever client paying him and has to make them look their best. And I tip my hat to them when a size 16 bride says to make her look beautiful.  But if you're the one paying, you get to pick and choose who you shoot and it's definitely an advantage.  I used to have a saying, "never take a picture of an ugly model, it fucks up the portfolio.".

The better the model, the better the results.  If you're great and she's great then the picture should be great. If she's great and you're only good then at least, she'll carry the photo. And if you're great and she's only so-so, you can only improve her image so much and no more.

I look at some of my work and think that it would have been a world class shot if only the model was better.  And for the most part, my best shots were done with the best models.

As much as you should judge the model and the photography separately, the truth is the world and most of the people in it look at it as a whole.

models are actors and actresses and there are good actors and actresses. physical beauty only goes so far to making a compelling image.

i've seen some terrible images of really good models. a great image requires all parties to perform their job at a high level.

Vector One Photography wrote:
...

The better the model, the better the results.  If you're great and she's great then the picture should be great. If she's great and you're only good then at least, she'll carry the photo...

I agree!

There was one I worked with and I thought: "I don't even need to be here with her.  Just set the intervalometer to auto-pilot and leave and go have a cheeseburger at McDonalds.  I'll come back at the end of her shoot time."

Someday I may test that theory...

As to actresses and models, they don't always seem to crossover well to the other genre.  Some actresses can look like a deer caught in the headlights and cannot pose at all, while the pro model cannot act for crap.  Sometimes dancers get into the same mess too.  A pro model just has something in their DNA, and I don't think many others can learn it either.  One is always a standout in a pack of models - and the others can only aspire to be that person.

Eyesso wrote:
I'm not sure I've ever seen a better example of this.....a stylist painstakingly recreated iconic images of famous models, shot by a very talented photographer.  Anyway, a few years ago Lucas Passmore gave me this advice....he said when you are getting started shoot with the best models that you can find, and pay some of them if you have to, it will pay for itself, and your technical skills don't matter as much as the face in the photo.  He was right.

Here is the article...

http://petapixel.com/2015/08/05/fashion … the-model/

Here are a couple of examples of this concept in reverse....

A technically terrible picture of Adriana Lima 
http://cdni.condenast.co.uk/810x540/a_c … 10x540.jpg 

An very poorly (or not lit) photo of Candice Swanepoel 
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EifW7Mv-V-Y/U … oel-32.jpg 

I guess I was reminded of this recently where I received praise for some photos of a model that I hardly spend any time editing.  So I thought I'd share as a friendly reminder that we shouldn't work hard, just work smart 

crapy work will never get you noticed regardless of the subject.

you can buy the most expensive paint in the world, your paintings will still look like shit if you dont have the talent!

The F-Stop wrote:
crapy work will never get you noticed regardless of the subject.

you can buy the most expensive paint in the world, your paintings will still look like shit if you dont have the talent!

Arbus made crap work. Seriously, her technical skills were terrible. Most Japanese photographers from WWII through the 80s had technically poor work as well.

Name a star painter from the last fifty years that had(or utilized) their technical skill. Go on, I'll wait.

For me, Chuck Close is the only one that comes to mind. Even technically gifted painters like Gerhardt Richter are not known for their technically skilled works. He's known for streak paintings.

Yes, Kincaide got great success from his technically proficient work. And with him dead, Hallmark is doomed. The rest of the 'art' world ... They'll move on.

You look at a photograph. The model is your subject. That means that the model is what the photo is 'about.' The model doesn't have to be attractive, well-posed, or anything else - but it has to be appropriate to the image. If not, you need to find a way to MAKE it appropriate. Otherwise, no amount of technical skill will make it a good photo.

What would make Avedon's photos worse:  if they were all grainy, or if every subject had 'say cheese' face?

That said, that doesn't mean that only paid models produce good work. Quite the contrary. But it does men that if your subject is bad, the best you can hope to produce is a technically brilliant image of a bad subject.

We have a lot of that in Upstate New York. It's called Adirondack Photography. And regardless of how many New York City residents buy those images for their second homes up here, there's a reason why it almost never shows up in ArtForum or the NY MoMA. Because despite the technical brilliance, it's boring as shit.

Vector One Photography wrote:
I used to have a saying, "never take a picture of an ugly model, it fucks up the portfolio.".

What if a photographer can turn a below average looking model into above average, using photography techniques?  A similar analogy would be to coach a bad team to overachieve.  Or a makeup artist who can turn a below average face into an attractive one.  Wouldn't that make a photographer even more valuable?

GRMACK wrote:
As to actresses and models, they don't always seem to crossover well to the other genre.

You raise an interesting point.  There are probably others, but, off the top of my head, Charlotte Rampling is the model I can recall who subsequently made a significant career in acting.

Thomas Van Dyke wrote:

As does every member of the team especially on Beauty Genre and/or Fashion narratives... Put another way the photographer is no more or less important then the hair stylist, makeup artist, wardrobe stylist, lighting assistant and yes the model(s) selected to convey the narrative story line...

I agree completely. Photography is like any other chain: only as strong as the weakest link.

GRMACK wrote:
As to actresses and models, they don't always seem to crossover well to the other genre.

Rob Photosby wrote:
You raise an interesting point.  There are probably others, but, off the top of my head, Charlotte Rampling is the model I can recall who subsequently made a significant career in acting.

There's actually quite a few, depending on just how you define 'significant':

Audrey Hepburn
Marilyn Monroe
Lauren Bacall
Rene Russo
Cameron Diaz
Brooke Shields
Elizabeth Hurley
Milla Jovovich
Sharon Stone
Charlize Theron
Uma Thurman
Angelina Jolie
Megan Fox
Cobie Smulders
Mark Wahlberg

(And a lot more who were child models then became actors.)

Tony Lawrence wrote:
There are reasons why modeling agencies are so choosy with their models.   The best ones want the best visually appealing models.   Height, figure, skin, teeth and overall look are critical.   Its also important for photographers looking to shoot fashion, beauty or commercial.   Art directors and clients will often trust you to be able to pick models that work for their products or clothes.   A photographers book is often judged as much if not more by the model he shows then his work.   A so-so shot of a Jourdan Dunn will be more valuable then a great shot of a sub par model.   This doesn't matter as much for art shooters.   Avedon was a fashion and art shooter who did very well in both worlds.   If the plan is to approach fashion or commercial clients then you MUST develop a relationship with local agencies.

Having the right models in your book can mean the difference between getting it in front of a AD or not being considered at all.

I'm not disagreeing, I want to expand on a small portion.


A person's physical appearance comes from the inside. I don't mean that in an "everyone's a winner" way, I mean that everyone can look horrendous - think of that one Beyonce concert shot.

While there are certain physical attributes that have a huge influence on someone's appearance, the way they are feeling and what they are expression is what drives their face and body language.

The appearance of the model in the photo is influenced by the photographer in non-technical ways.

Zack Zoll wrote:
It depends on the portfolio. If you were an 'art' photographer, you would be best served by photographing as many ugly people as possible. Fashion, the opposite. Commercial, your best bet is to photograph ugly people so that they look pretty - with a snapshot so that you can see how ugly they really are, of course.

But that's assuming that every client is as rational and procedural as you are. In reality, it almost never works that way. Art outlets like uncomfortable people, and everybody else likes pretty people. Even though the mark of a good commercial photographer is to hide blemishes and the like, nobody wants to be part of that. Everybody wants to see a bunch of perfect faces, so they are 'one of the cool kids', and they can belong.

Nobody wants to see the magician's tricks, even though it SHOULD be the best portfolio.

Trust me, I've tried the A/B thing. Most clients say,'Wow, good work. I think I'll look elsewhere.'

Why are ugly people better for art?

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I would say that for the vast amount of what's shown here it doesn't matter all that much.   Nudes no matter how well done just tend not to sell well.   [...]

Last time I was in a flea market selling my prints, I sold more nude photographs than landscapes and still. And the comments I heard was that my nude photographs was real art.

So I assume it depends on the kind of nude,

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

Why are ugly people better for art?

No idea. But you'll see way more Iggy Pops than Iggy Azealeas in MoMA. Most of the Azeleas you do see will be without makeup, and looking sad, or spaced-out, or otherwise not at her best.

Maybe it's because good-looking people are too glossy. I think it's the obsession with 'the other', which happens less with attractive people. If you grow up incredibly good looking, you're less likely to fall into a subculture, because the regular culture is more likely to accept you.

But either way, your average unattractive person is more likely to land you a spot at one of those prestigious places than your average hottie.

Unless that hottie is a famous dead person, of course

Eyesso wrote:
Here is the article...

that is comparing apples to orange crates. using unretouched images of a purposely older and somewhat heavier face is loading the deck. while the purpose was to intentionally demonstrate the "ordinary" to "ideal" it's not the same as doing a good job with an "normal" person. more likely "ugly" to "ideal"

for advertising, the best possible subject with best staging and best photographer is used to illustrate a point. we get so picky that in most instances, we use a hand crafted carefully chosen soap bar for the product shot - not a package off the production line. a good photographer knows tricks to improve any model. from setting up the subject into the right frame of mind to choosing the right moment for the shutter to open.

there are also images where the subject or model is the point of the shoot. not just to sell something. portraits and ads have different purposes. but the way the photographer chooses to portray the subject - for good or bad, is just as important.

Zack Zoll wrote:
No idea. But you'll see way more Iggy Pops than Iggy Azealeas in MoMA. Most of the Azeleas you do see will be without makeup, and looking sad, or spaced-out, or otherwise not at her best.

Maybe it's because good-looking people are too glossy. I think it's the obsession with 'the other', which happens less with attractive people. If you grow up incredibly good looking, you're less likely to fall into a subculture, because the regular culture is more likely to accept you.

But either way, your average unattractive person is more likely to land you a spot at one of those prestigious places than your average hottie.

Unless that hottie is a famous dead person, of course

I am not surebwho said it, but I read once one of theses famous and respected visual artists saying that every peace of art has something melancolic and lonely on it. The commercial/fashion/glamour imagery is about the oposit I supose.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Why are ugly people better for art?

Zack Zoll wrote:
No idea. But you'll see way more Iggy Pops than Iggy Azealeas in MoMA. Most of the Azeleas you do see will be without makeup, and looking sad, or spaced-out, or otherwise not at her best.

Maybe it's because good-looking people are too glossy. I think it's the obsession with 'the other', which happens less with attractive people. If you grow up incredibly good looking, you're less likely to fall into a subculture, because the regular culture is more likely to accept you.

But either way, your average unattractive person is more likely to land you a spot at one of those prestigious places than your average hottie.

Unless that hottie is a famous dead person, of course

He's right about this, follow modern art photography and you'll see the trend clear as day.  Post-Modernism at it's best.

Unless the photographer is famous, the subject always matters.  If you're shooting fashion/beauty it doesn't matter how good the photography is, or even the story (that I know is so important to you), if your book contains faces that are "wrong" it just won't be taken seriously.  In art circles, it's kind of the same way.  I would say, however, that the inverse of what Zack said is also true, take a beautiful person and make them look haggard, or strung out, and the response is basically the same.

In commercial (not editorial fashion which is basically art photography) photography it's different.  Same with retail.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Why are ugly people better for art?

He's right about this, follow modern art photography and you'll see the trend clear as day.  Post-Modernism at it's best.

Unless the photographer is famous, the subject always matters.  If you're shooting fashion/beauty it doesn't matter how good the photography is, or even the story (that I know is so important to you), if your book contains faces that are "wrong" it just won't be taken seriously.  In art circles, it's kind of the same way.  I would say, however, that the inverse of what Zack said is also true, take a beautiful person and make them look haggard, or strung out, and the response is basically the same.

In commercial (not editorial fashion which is basically art photography) photography it's different.  Same with retail.

Are you saying content is king?

mophotoart wrote:
so...to take this another step forward...the subject matters more?...be it a model or landscape, not the photographer...not buying it....it is about the image....and what made that image...the beautiful model made a poor photographer look good, a good photographer that can make anything look good...mute point.....it helps when all things fall in place...great model or whatever subject, good tools to get the shot, good skills to perfect the image...it is all about the image and what made it right...not always the model or the quarterback...sometimes it is the model, sometimes the photographer, mostly a combination, so the model is only part of it, not what matters most.

You sound right.

Otherwaise what would differ a good photographer from a bad one, or a magazine photograph from a snap shot? The model?
I don't think so.

Marcio Faustino wrote:

You sound right.

Otherwaise what would differ a good photographer from a bad one, or a magazine photograph from a snap shot? The model?
I don't think so.

The ability to control the story that the photo tells.

Look around MM. There are tons of amazing photos of something other than what the photographer intended.

Eyesso wrote:
The Model Matters More

lol.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Just to take an extreme view, I'm curious which the Maybem thinks would sell more cosmetics: a bad photo of a girl with excellent makeup, or a good photo of a girl with bad makeup?

Neither. A photo of a girl they wish they could be.