Photographer
Marcio Faustino
Posts: 2811
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Neither. A photo of a girl they wish they could be. “Publicity is effective precisely because it feeds upon the real. Clothes, food, cars, cosmetics, baths, sunshine are real things to be enjoyed in themselves. Publicity begins by working on a natural appetite for pleasure. But it cannot offer the real object of pleasure and there is no convincing substitute for a pleasure in that pleasure's own terms. The more convincingly publicity conveys the pleasure of bathing in a warm, distant sea, the more the spectator-buyer will become aware that he is hundreds of miles away from that sea and the more remote the chance of bathing in it will seem to him. This is why publicity can never really afford to be about the product or opportunity it is proposing to the buyer who is not yet enjoying it. Publicity is never a celebration of a pleasure-in-itself. Publicity is always about the future buyer. It offers him an image of himself made glamorous by the product or opportunity it is trying to sell. The image then makes him envious of himself as he might be. Yet what makes this self-which-he-might-be enviable? The envy of others. Publicity is about social relations, not objects. Its promise is not of pleasure, but of happiness : happiness as judged from the outside by others. The happiness of being envied is glamour.
Being envied is a solitary form of reassurance. It depends precisely upon not sharing your experience with those who envy you. You are observed with interest but you do not observe with interest - if you do, you will become less enviable.
... ...
The spectator-buyer is meant to envy herself as she will become if she buys the product. She is meant to imagine herself transformed by the product into an object of envy for others, an envy which will then justify her loving herself. One could put this another way : the publicity images steals her love of herself as she is, and offers it back to her for the price of the product. (P. 128)”
― John Berger, Ways of Seeing
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 6895
Glens Falls, New York, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Neither. A photo of a girl they wish they could be. Okay, phrase it that way then.
Would Maybelline sell more product using cell phone images of Taylor Swift, or Leaf images of an average girl?
And before anyone asks, I don't mean "the girl next door." I mean the actual girl next door.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Zack Zoll wrote:
Okay, phrase it that way then.
Would Maybelline sell more product using cell phone images of Taylor Swift, or Leaf images of an average girl?
And before anyone asks, I don't mean "the girl next door." I mean the actual girl next door. I'm the one who's always saying image quality doesn't matter - that if what's in the photo is emotionally compelling, people will imprint on the technical presentation and perceive it as right.
But the answer to your question is "sell to whom?"
The things that make someone want to be the person in the photo are different for different people. For teens it's obvious enough that no answer needs to be given. For middle aged and older women, what I'm imagining you mean by Leaf image would be the better choice.
You're weighing model against technical or the photographer, but the model is part of the technical because they exist physically. The story is what matters more and that comes from the combination of everything.
If I could only have one element that contributes to the story, I think the model is likely to be the best foundation for the story.
The thing is, sometimes it's the little things that define the story so it's not definite that the model will be doing the most for the story.
Put it this way, I agree with your point, but I don't agree with the premise of quantifying it.
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 6895
Glens Falls, New York, US
You may be right about my wording.
My point is that if the final image is excellent, then all aspects are important. If the final image is unusable, then it doesn't matter which is more important - placing blame becomes a purely academic discussion.
However, most of this discussion has been assuming that those are the only two kinds of photos that we can make. That is simply not true.
You can have a bad photo of a good subject that works well and does what it is meant to do. But an excellent photo of something nobody is interested in is still a photo nobody is interested in. You may get an attaboy for your photo skills, but that's generally as far as it goes.
In other words, the subject/model is more important not because they have more to do with a good final product, but because it can be the ONLY strong point, and still produce a useable image.
Photographer
Eyesso
Posts: 1218
Orlando, Florida, US
Oh, hey....I've been away. Great responses on the thread. I like the response trying to kindly trying to include Thomas Kinkade in the realms of the art world.  In case some of you are curious. Here is one of the photos I was referring to..... There was no make up artist, no hairdresser, no flash, no reflector, just a wall and a bench on the side of a street.....I wouldn't say it is a technically great photo, it's just some black and white for agency uses. Basically it was her face vs. my camera, and she won....because all I did was put her face in the middle of my viewfinder and click a button. https://instagram.com/p/86c-b4kOon/
Photographer
Marcio Faustino
Posts: 2811
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Eyesso wrote:
Oh, hey....I've been away. Great responses on the thread. I like the response trying to kindly trying to include Thomas Kinkade in the realms of the art world.
In case some of you are curious. Here is one of the photos I was referring to..... There was no make up artist, no hairdresser, no flash, no reflector, just a wall and a bench on the side of a street.....I wouldn't say it is a technically great photo, it's just some black and white for agency uses. Basically it was her face vs. my camera, and she won....because all I did was put her face in the middle of my viewfinder and click a button.
https://instagram.com/p/86c-b4kOon/ Maybe because you have being shooting for so long you just don't have to try or think about Technic. Meaning that even without trying you have the feeling on how to make a photograph well composed and lit.
This shot you took is far better than an average casual portrait technically speaking. Her eyes are well placed as well as her head and the lines on the wall.
I have here a street portrait I took of a man in a cafe. He is doesn't have a model look at all. You actually barely can see his face or who he is. I consider a great shot, maybe because I took the photo.
![https://www.marciofaustino.com/uploads/1/6/4/6/16464874/___________________7316728_orig.jpg]()
Photographer
Refracted Thoughts
Posts: 1348
Vaihingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
This thread brings to my mind Bert Stern's photos of Marilyn Monroe from "The Last Sitting." It's several images of a half-drunk model, back-lit by a hotel window, in various stages of undress. Many of the shots are not particularly flattering. In an interview he gave much later, Mr. Stern freely admits planning to seduce her...unsuccessfully. She hated many of the photos. All the ingredients we think of when imagining a guy-with-camera, and yet he could probably have lived off the royalties of that book. So, in terms of being successful (in the mind of the general public) shoot famous, shoot pretty.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Zack Zoll wrote:
You may be right about my wording.
My point is that if the final image is excellent, then all aspects are important. If the final image is unusable, then it doesn't matter which is more important - placing blame becomes a purely academic discussion.
However, most of this discussion has been assuming that those are the only two kinds of photos that we can make. That is simply not true.
You can have a bad photo of a good subject that works well and does what it is meant to do. But an excellent photo of something nobody is interested in is still a photo nobody is interested in. You may get an attaboy for your photo skills, but that's generally as far as it goes.
In other words, the subject/model is more important not because they have more to do with a good final product, but because it can be the ONLY strong point, and still produce a useable image. Exactly. And you can't have an excellent image without it being a strong point.
Or another way to put it, is the image can only be as strong as the subject.
On a scale of one to 10 a photo with a subject that's a 7 and the technical is a 7 is probably better than one where the subject is a 7 and the tchnical is a 1. A photo where the subject is a 7 and the technical is a 10 is stil only a 7. The technical part can't improve the photo beyond the level of the subject.
Photographer
Marcio Faustino
Posts: 2811
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Zack Zoll wrote:
You may be right about my wording.
My point is that if the final image is excellent, then all aspects are important. If the final image is unusable, then it doesn't matter which is more important - placing blame becomes a purely academic discussion.
However, most of this discussion has been assuming that those are the only two kinds of photos that we can make. That is simply not true.
You can have a bad photo of a good subject that works well and does what it is meant to do. But an excellent photo of something nobody is interested in is still a photo nobody is interested in. You may get an attaboy for your photo skills, but that's generally as far as it goes.
In other words, the subject/model is more important not because they have more to do with a good final product, but because it can be the ONLY strong point, and still produce a useable image. So the model is for some public what the mobile phone and photo editors plugins are for others. Doesn't matter how good or bad is the photo as far the model/plugin effect is attractive.
Photographer
Mikey Yan
Posts: 379
La Habra, California, US
Heh, I have to agree with OP. Not to downplay skill though, but part of the reason why I was able to obtain a decent portfolio on here is because I was lucky enough to convince photogenic models to work with me. I've also tried working with average looking people but I guess I'm not the type that can bring out the beauty of regular people, compared to when I work with photogenic models that make the creative process seem so easy.
Photographer
Dan D Lyons Imagery
Posts: 3447
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Mike Collins wrote:
I really wouldn't say it's the model as much as it is the photographer who can bring it out of the model, or who ever.
The greatest portraits in the world were not because of the person being photographed but the photographer capturing that right expression and pose, that "defining moment." It's the photographers ability to direct their subject to get the shot. This is one reason many fail. They don't communicate well or just think the model should know what to do. No. Your model is only as good as your direction and vision.
Photographers fail because they can't communicate well. Models fail because they can't take direction.
I don't think it's their "look". Model's "looks" run the gambit. It's more of the efforts of the photographer AND the model together working in harmony to get the desired shot. +1
This is my opinion and belief 110%.
~Dan
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22232
Stamford, Connecticut, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
On a scale of one to 10 a photo with a subject that's a 7 and the technical is a 7 is probably better than one where the subject is a 7 and the tchnical is a 1. A photo where the subject is a 7 and the technical is a 10 is stil only a 7. The technical part can't improve the photo beyond the level of the subject. While I agree with the first part, I completely disagree with the second part (as do many art buyers, art directors and creative directors, not to mention many retail art buyers, gallerists and curators).
You have such adamant views on everything (I was just reading your responses in the thread on mirrorless cameras...). I don't understand why so many photographers here think that all photography is what they do, and that everything should conform to their views. Photography is pretty broad, like music and all of us approach it in different ways.
Photographer
Wheeling Tog
Posts: 159
Wheeling, West Virginia, US
OP, I agree. Shooting the right models make great photos almost effortless. Many photogs are sooo cheap they wont pay a dime and are always looking for free nude girls to shoot.
Photographer
Photo Jen B
Posts: 358
Surprise, Arizona, US
Eyesso wrote:
... 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.
.....
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  Oh,
This concept doesn't work for me as I am not looking to shoot just a pretty face but to shoot the face in the best way for me.
Perfect person not required. edit to add: then again...I am here in Clarksville, TN and not shooting models generally.
Jen
Photographer
MMR Creative Services
Posts: 1902
Doylestown, Pennsylvania, US
I shoot to support a business.
I just came back from Paris. Great model. I have a great model coming Sunday, from Russia.
I don't care where they come from but as long as we connect. Plus my great direction and use of my tools we can create magic.
The model does matter and it reflects in her paycheck. Ask any model who has posed for Vogue or W.
Case closed.
Viola~~
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
Wheeling Tog wrote:
OP, I agree. Shooting the right models make great photos almost effortless. Many photogs are sooo cheap they wont pay a dime and are always looking for free nude girls to shoot. It's a delusion that how much you pay a model has any relation to her quality as a model - just look at MM.
Photographer
Whose nudes
Posts: 54
East Hampton, Connecticut, US
i agree, it has nothing to do with the model's rates.
there is so much untapped talent in the nonprofessional field. girls who are just too short, started late, or just wanabes with a childhood fantasy.
as for photographers becoming famous because they took a snapshot of a famous model?... sorry but quality counts. pay all you like, if you're a lousey photographer with lousey pictures of expensive models... you're just another gwc.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
J O H N A L L A N wrote:
It's a delusion that how much you pay a model has any relation to her quality as a model - just look at MM. A photographer has to know which models should be paid and which models shouldn't be paid!
If you don't have the ability to judge which model that you should work with you can get screwed!
Photographer
Mantographer
Posts: 174
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
A photographer has to know which models should be paid and which models shouldn't be paid!
If you don't have the ability to judge which model that you should work with you can get screwed! Which is a skill that can be acquired, for some after much time and frustration.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Photographer
Mortonovich
Posts: 6209
San Diego, California, US
Semi related ramble..... I read an article where a big time fashion guy was saying you have to "find your woman". Meaning the type of woman and face that speaks to you; that you connect with. There's been reams written about the way our brains are wired with the hows and whys of responding to certain face types and a lot of it goes waaaaaaaaay back deep in out subconscious. Back to when we first opened our eyes as babies and (generally) the first thing we see is our parents face. Complicated stuff for a plebeian like me. I find that stuff fascinating . . . You know how some people can photograph a homeless person and they just do it so damn well. Beautiful and dignified . . . that's not easy but that photographer connects well. Why is that? I don't know. Same with women and different types. PDN, September 2010 Article on Nathaniel Goldburg page 22 Testino also gave him a tip for setting himself apart. "I remember Mario telling me you have to find your woman - meaning the [the kind of] woman you really love- and show how you make her look different from other photographers." So, he says, "I love women who look feminine , but I'm really interested when a woman is very feminine but she's in touch with her masculinity. . . . ."
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
While I agree with the first part, I completely disagree with the second part (as do many art buyers, art directors and creative directors, not to mention many retail art buyers, gallerists and curators).
You have such adamant views on everything (I was just reading your responses in the thread on mirrorless cameras...). I don't understand why so many photographers here think that all photography is what they do, and that everything should conform to their views. Photography is pretty broad, like music and all of us approach it in different ways. It's not that I have adamant views on everything, it's that I only express views that I have a clear position on.
I've learned that if I want to convince someone that I'm at a very skilled technical level of recording music that I should play them only the best music I've recorded regardless of the technical aspects and that if the best work I've done technically isn't the best music, it will have zero effect on convincing people of my technical skill.
People can't separate the two, except for the people who actually make recordings. The people who can listen solely for the technical never actually need to listen to something I've recorded to know what my skill level is. Mainly because they have the same skills and would never need to hire me.
Look at the movie Avatar. I never heard a single person say anything other than it sucked. But I heard lots of people say that you should see it in a theater because of the technical aspects. They weren't saying that they improved the movie, just that it's so bad that if it's not in a theater, the only reason to watch it is gone.
I don't know if you've noticed, but when I've gone back and forth with Zack, he writes "model" and I write "subject". Some of that is because not every person in a photo is a model, but it's also because a person in a photo is not always the subject of the photo. The technical can be part of the subject. In those cases the best the photo can be is still limited by the subject, but the technical part is in there. If we're really going to get into those cases, we have to figure out whether it's every aspect of the technical part that's part of the subject or just some parts.
Everything I'm saying applies to your pulp series too. Ultimately that series is a self-portrait of you as a commercial photographer. The subject is your ability to tell multilevel stories in a single frame or a series simultaneously. To do that you need to show a photo that can stand alone with no explanation, which they all do. They need to be highly stylized both in the reality of what was in front of the lens and the technical presentation because both are important within the self-portrait/self-branding aspect, but within your story having them both be at the top professional level isn't enough, there has to be a synergy between the two, because anyone can hire the best team, but not everyone can get more than the sum of the parts out of the team.
If you had the option of shooting the mummy photo on location in Egypt, would you have done that? I think no because it wouldn't have told one of the layers as well. Any one of the photos makes it obvious that someone could hire you to shoot the mummy photo on location successfully. Part of the story is that you can create the equivalent or better without being on location, so the technical is part of the self-portrait story making CGI preferable to a location.
Ideally you'll end up with photos that work as a postcard you could send to clients, a poster or a gallery print and that any individual photo would work, but they'd all work as a series. Ideally people will enjoy them without perceiving any CGI aspects, yet simultaneously know that there's CGI - at least for the art directors. It will also be important that art directors will be able to tell that this was your vision all along which probably ends up being apparent because the mult-layers of story don't just get in there accidentally.
But that's a very specific set of stories you're trying to tell, and because it's about you as a photographer, the technical part is part of the story. Making the technical part of the series better makes the photos better not because the technical can make a photo better beyond the level of the subject, but because the technical is part of the subject and you're making the subject better.
The technical part of the photos you tell in the jobs you get after won't be part of the story. For instance, if you get hired to shoot an ad for Sub Zero, whether it's color or B&W isn't going to make a difference because it's going to be shot in a nearly all white kitchen. Crisp and clean may matter - you won't be shooting it at 12,800 ISO. If you shoot it in color and there's a green plant in the background, how accurate the green is to real life isn't going to matter. It would be nice if it was perfect, but as long as it's not neon alien green and distracts from the subject, it makes no difference.
As far as conforming to my views, my views on the relevance of the technical part is based on what's important in communicating the story to the viewer rather than what's important to the photographer. I think you're also making assumptions that my shoots aren't very technical and I try for that, but the fact is a lot of the photos you see are far more technical than they appear. I'm often shooting scenes with a wider dynamic range than the sensor can handle. There are a lots of photos where the strobe/flash are so balanced with the ambient that it's not apparent that it's not ambient light unless you really look and start to realize certain things aren't right for ambient light. In lots of cases the technical parts are hidden and in others they're masked because I've either shot in extremely low light or used a filter to force the ISO up so the noise masks whats going on.
But none of that really matters to the story.
If you look at all of the threads where people complain about having their photos copied, the pattern is always the same - the technical part has been copied - the light, the wardrobe, the shape - but never the story. I saw a video where Rankin recreates some famous photos, and again the same thing. He even shot one in the same location, but the stories were never quite right. The thing is, none of the technical mattered in any of the original photos.
Yes there was a technical aspect to the photos in the sense that something technical happened to create the photos, and with film there are chemical choices that can't be avoided, but the element that made those photos famous was the content that provoked an intense emotional response - literally a change in brain chemistry and that was all because of the subject of the photos.
Photographer
Mikey McMichaels
Posts: 3356
New York, New York, US
Mortonovich wrote:
Semi related ramble.....
I read an article where a big time fashion guy was saying you have to "find your woman". Meaning the type of woman and face that speaks to you; that you connect with.
There's been reams written about the way our brains are wired with the hows and whys of responding to certain face types and a lot of it goes waaaaaaaaay back deep in out subconscious. Back to when we first opened our eyes as babies and (generally) the first thing we see is our parents face. Complicated stuff for a plebeian like me.
I find that stuff fascinating . . . You know how some people can photograph a homeless person and they just do it so damn well. Beautiful and dignified . . . that's not easy but that photographer connects well. Why is that? I don't know.
Same with women and different types.
PDN, September 2010
Article on Nathaniel Goldburg
page 22
Testino also gave him a tip for setting himself apart. "I remember Mario telling me you have to find your woman - meaning the [the kind of] woman you really love- and show how you make her look different from other photographers." So, he says, "I love women who look feminine , but I'm really interested when a woman is very feminine but she's in touch with her masculinity. . . . ." The flaw with the idea of "types" is 20 different women shot by the same photographer where they all look similar or to be the same type is that if you could know them all personally, they're probably 20 different types.
However, the types of moments being shot, or the feelings being shot may be the same type.
Take the motocross videos you've posted to FB. I don't recall any with a checkered flag. I don't know if they're all the same engine type or whatever makes one type of motocross different from another. My only recollection is that they're crash/injury related - which of course connects to intense emotional moments. Winning is an intense emotional moment, but it's a totally different emotion.
In someways it's all just vocabulary, but in others it completely changes the meaning. If you're searching for a "type" of woman and there's really no such thing, you'll never find it. If you're searching for a "type of moment" then it's a different type of search and you're searching for women who make that moment happen easily.
Photographer
Marcio Faustino
Posts: 2811
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I can believe that. Another photographer made a similar comment. His average photos sell better. I didn't mean avarege photos but photos with women with avarege look or beauty. It is not the same.
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Marcio Faustino wrote:
I didn't mean avarege photos but photos with women with avarege look or beauty. It is not the same. That is what I meant.
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 6895
Glens Falls, New York, US
Mikey, I once had a very intelligent, overachiever student in my photo courses. He wanted to learn everything at once, and was generally good at it. But it was still all at once.
I remember grading his tests and papers, and frequently telling him to stop writing about three sentences earlier. He would explain aperture's effect on DOF, but then go into a discussion about relative apertures, using all sorts of specs and stats, that was invariably well-meant, but confused.
You obviously know your stuff much better than he - I am not comparing you there. But you could also stand to write less. As could I, if I'm honest.
Getting super specific gives people a lot more chances to argue with you - especially if you're not on the same page to begin with. And I think the years have shown us that you and I often have a conversation one way, while much of the forum secretly suspects we're on drugs.
Photographer
Zack Zoll
Posts: 6895
Glens Falls, New York, US
That said ... If I honestly had to rank my photos - and this is personal work here, not commercial - I'd say that with only a few exceptions my best images are people that I know, followed by people that I paid, followed by everybody else.
Only one or two of the images I have that are generally accepted as the best, or sold the most, are actual paid models - or even rated models that worked without pay. The rest are all people with whom I had a personal connection. There are a LOT of exes in my personal work, and most of them were exes when I photographed them.
That said, I've gotten nothing good from a lot of those shoots. Maybe half of them yielded a strong image? A third?
But I can only remember two times when I worked with a paid model and got crap, and one of them was several years ago.
Since I'm doing personal work, I can afford to spend a year making bad photos. I've been at this project for about three years, so what's another couple? But if I were working professionally, consistency would be key.
Model
Liv Sage
Posts: 431
Seattle, Washington, US
GRMACK wrote:
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. Some of us actually got started modeling by doing our own self portraits by setting up cameras on tripods and setting the timer. That's what I did. I set up a timer on my iphone and took portraits that way. They aren't spectacular, but I have a lot of them on my instagram profile and it got me good photographers who got me great portfolio images. I still work with a lot of them too. Someone I work with calls it dancing for the camera, and that's what some of us do depending on what sort of direction a photographer gives. If you like to micromanage photos and poses, that's fine with many of us, but you can usually get this sort of thing out of most models if you know posing very well. If you want someone to simply dance for the camera while you snap away, you hire a more experienced model, usually one with a dance background.
But, even if a model can dance for the camera, a lot of what is good in a photo comes from collaboration on both the photographer's and model's end. Sometimes, I have a concept that I'll try and the photographer will tweak it, and the resulting image comes out better than if I did whatever I wanted. I like to get input for that reason if not outright direction at times. My best images are from shoots with photographers I easily collaborate with and communicate well with. As long as the model is good and can also take direction I think you'll get good photos.
Photographer
David T Thrower
Posts: 93
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Just wanted to say, I have my first shoot ever with a paid professional model next week and I've found this thread to be very helpful. Thanks!
Photographer
petemplinphoto
Posts: 187
Duvall, Washington, US
Gordon Bethune used to be CEO of Continental Airlines. He brought a lot of disparate skills and hobbies to the table: he was a licensed pilot, and rated to fly 757s/767s. He'd participate in flying some of those jets home from the Boeing plants. He also collected watches. Needless to say, he'd usually be wearing a nice watch.
He instituted an on-time bonus program: make the top 5 list of on-time performance, and every non-manager gets $65 that month. When one labor group (perhaps the flight attendants, maybe the pilots) would grumble that another group (perhaps the gate agents, perhaps the reservations call center) was getting the on-time bonus, he'd smile and remove his watch, then hold it up and say, "Which part of this watch does it not need?"
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22232
Stamford, Connecticut, US
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
It's not that I have adamant views on everything, it's that I only express views that I have a clear position on.
I've learned that if I want to convince someone that I'm at a very skilled technical level of recording music that I should play them only the best music I've recorded regardless of the technical aspects and that if the best work I've done technically isn't the best music, it will have zero effect on convincing people of my technical skill.
People can't separate the two, except for the people who actually make recordings. The people who can listen solely for the technical never actually need to listen to something I've recorded to know what my skill level is. Mainly because they have the same skills and would never need to hire me.
Look at the movie Avatar. I never heard a single person say anything other than it sucked. But I heard lots of people say that you should see it in a theater because of the technical aspects. They weren't saying that they improved the movie, just that it's so bad that if it's not in a theater, the only reason to watch it is gone.
I don't know if you've noticed, but when I've gone back and forth with Zack, he writes "model" and I write "subject". Some of that is because not every person in a photo is a model, but it's also because a person in a photo is not always the subject of the photo. The technical can be part of the subject. In those cases the best the photo can be is still limited by the subject, but the technical part is in there. If we're really going to get into those cases, we have to figure out whether it's every aspect of the technical part that's part of the subject or just some parts.
Everything I'm saying applies to your pulp series too. Ultimately that series is a self-portrait of you as a commercial photographer. The subject is your ability to tell multilevel stories in a single frame or a series simultaneously. To do that you need to show a photo that can stand alone with no explanation, which they all do. They need to be highly stylized both in the reality of what was in front of the lens and the technical presentation because both are important within the self-portrait/self-branding aspect, but within your story having them both be at the top professional level isn't enough, there has to be a synergy between the two, because anyone can hire the best team, but not everyone can get more than the sum of the parts out of the team.
If you had the option of shooting the mummy photo on location in Egypt, would you have done that? I think no because it wouldn't have told one of the layers as well. Any one of the photos makes it obvious that someone could hire you to shoot the mummy photo on location successfully. Part of the story is that you can create the equivalent or better without being on location, so the technical is part of the self-portrait story making CGI preferable to a location.
Ideally you'll end up with photos that work as a postcard you could send to clients, a poster or a gallery print and that any individual photo would work, but they'd all work as a series. Ideally people will enjoy them without perceiving any CGI aspects, yet simultaneously know that there's CGI - at least for the art directors. It will also be important that art directors will be able to tell that this was your vision all along which probably ends up being apparent because the mult-layers of story don't just get in there accidentally.
But that's a very specific set of stories you're trying to tell, and because it's about you as a photographer, the technical part is part of the story. Making the technical part of the series better makes the photos better not because the technical can make a photo better beyond the level of the subject, but because the technical is part of the subject and you're making the subject better.
The technical part of the photos you tell in the jobs you get after won't be part of the story. For instance, if you get hired to shoot an ad for Sub Zero, whether it's color or B&W isn't going to make a difference because it's going to be shot in a nearly all white kitchen. Crisp and clean may matter - you won't be shooting it at 12,800 ISO. If you shoot it in color and there's a green plant in the background, how accurate the green is to real life isn't going to matter. It would be nice if it was perfect, but as long as it's not neon alien green and distracts from the subject, it makes no difference.
As far as conforming to my views, my views on the relevance of the technical part is based on what's important in communicating the story to the viewer rather than what's important to the photographer. I think you're also making assumptions that my shoots aren't very technical and I try for that, but the fact is a lot of the photos you see are far more technical than they appear. I'm often shooting scenes with a wider dynamic range than the sensor can handle. There are a lots of photos where the strobe/flash are so balanced with the ambient that it's not apparent that it's not ambient light unless you really look and start to realize certain things aren't right for ambient light. In lots of cases the technical parts are hidden and in others they're masked because I've either shot in extremely low light or used a filter to force the ISO up so the noise masks whats going on.
But none of that really matters to the story.
If you look at all of the threads where people complain about having their photos copied, the pattern is always the same - the technical part has been copied - the light, the wardrobe, the shape - but never the story. I saw a video where Rankin recreates some famous photos, and again the same thing. He even shot one in the same location, but the stories were never quite right. The thing is, none of the technical mattered in any of the original photos.
Yes there was a technical aspect to the photos in the sense that something technical happened to create the photos, and with film there are chemical choices that can't be avoided, but the element that made those photos famous was the content that provoked an intense emotional response - literally a change in brain chemistry and that was all because of the subject of the photos. I didn't see this a year ago when you posted it, or I would have responded. You make some excellent points. I've been going through quite the existential crisis over the past couple of years, I think that impacts the way I see photography, mine in particular.
Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Ultimately that series is a self-portrait of you as a commercial photographer. The subject is your ability to tell multilevel stories in a single frame or a series simultaneously. Yes, that was the goal and I think I succeeded in creating the necessary promotional materials. There will be a couple more in the series, but otherwise, I'm pretty much done (maybe three or four more over time). Having said that, I'm not certain, I'm happy. I watched the HBO documentary on Mapplethorpe last night. I grew up with him and other art photographers influencing me as a kid. I grew up musically outside the mainstream too. There is a civil war constantly being waged within me, and I'm not sure which side I'm on...
You make some very good points; I'll think on this a bit.
Clothing Designer
GRMACK
Posts: 5436
Bakersfield, California, US
David T Thrower wrote:
Just wanted to say, I have my first shoot ever with a paid professional model next week and I've found this thread to be very helpful. Thanks! You'll be in for a treat then.
I recall the first good pro I ever used. Made me look really good over what I normally did.
For what it's worth, I could have just set up the lights, put the camera on its intervalometer setting to self-fire, and gone and had a cheeseburger somewhere and let the model do her own thing. No need for me to even be there.
Good luck!
Photographer
Shadow Dancer
Posts: 9779
Bellingham, Washington, US
I am glad this thread got dredged back up, many interesting viewpoints to consider. I just want to share a story, I don't have an opinion on this topic because I have NEVER worked with a model in the professional sense. Of course under some definitions anyone that poses for you is a model but that does not seem to be the definition being used in this thread and I am not here to rock that boat. I am not at the level many of you are, I have dabbled in photography - went to school for it but it is not my chosen "art". That is another story entirely. Back story - I was horse trading and wound up with a Goerz Dogmar lens for 4x5. The focal length was marked in inches - if I recall correctly it was about 165mm when converted. Old, uncoated, mounted in a working shutter. I had no shade for it. I made a mount out of wood that slipped over the front of my Mamiya RB67. Test roll showed no light leaks and I wanted to try it out with a subject. I asked a friend to model for me, a tall, slender redhead. She was "cute" in real life but not a "standout" to my eyes as a beauty. Still - cute, reliable, we got along well so convenient choice. We went to the park and did some shooting. I suppose she put a bit of makeup on, that would be the total extent of any styling. No different than her usual look. The shot posted below is from the end of a color roll, I shot another frame or two on black and white film that looked similar in composition, expression, etc. We were both lab assistants at the college so I went in during her shift and processed-printed the black and white film. She and I were sitting at a table taking a look at the first print and a good friend of hers sat down with us. I handed her the print, she looked at it for a minute and said "Who is this?" I told her. She did not believe me at first. My friend told her. She was still skeptical. She thought we were trying to play a trick on her. She held the print up to my friend's face and shook her head. It really did not look the way my friend looked in day to day life. She had something special to give to the camera, I don't think it was my photography "skills" (LOL). So, I don't have a point to make - draw your own conclusions or share similar stories. I could have told another story about a stunning friend who was impossible for me to take a good "model-worthy" image of but that is another post. ![https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/160115/10/56993bc495a82.jpg]()
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 21526
Chicago, Illinois, US
I've seen early amateur shots of Cindy Crawford done by members of this site. She looked great. A model who has it can go to an agency and get signed with snaps while another model can have a book shot by local solid fashion shooters and be passed over. Photographers looking to go pro or show their work to art directors or approach fashion/beauty or even commercial clients. Its important to use and show real fashion models. So often I see great work. Wonderful lighting. Great composition and ideas but substandard models. Your model is often more important then the best make-up and outfits.
If you are only looking to produce pretty pictures it may never matter but if the plan is to try and hook the big fish you need a book of models who are either listed with a fashion agency or could be. Otherwise you're largely wasting your time.
Photographer
crx studios
Posts: 469
Los Angeles, California, US
Obviously you have to know when to stay out of your own way. If the model is naturally gorgeous, the best shot may in fact be the simplest.
On the other hand - the last thing I want is to show my portfolio to someone and have them say “Wow - look at all those beautiful women” instead of “Look at all those incredible photographs.” Non-professionals may give the photographer credit for the beauty of the subject matter, but not other pros. We definitely notice when the models are doing all the heavy lifting and the photographer is just along for the ride.
Photographer
IMAGINERIES
Posts: 2048
New York, New York, US
Some people can dance...Regardless of physical appearance..And some models can pose regardless of......
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22232
Stamford, Connecticut, US
There seems to be a very large misunderstanding of where the OP is coming from and I'm wondering if people read the articles...
I won't speak for other markets, but I can discuss fashion in NYC. If you go to an agency, with a "fashion portfolio" and it contains the wrong faces, you will be laughed at - maybe not to your face, but certainly behind your back. It implies you don't understand casting and you certainly don't understand fashion. As photographers, we might be able to extrapolate and see photographic technique, those involved in fashion typically do not.
And to be clear, this isn't just model "stats" which so many here are hung up on, but the actual face needs to be right as well.
Photographer
Shadow Dancer
Posts: 9779
Bellingham, Washington, US
Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
There seems to be a very large misunderstanding of where the OP is coming from and I'm wondering if people read the articles...
I won't speak for other markets, but I can discuss fashion in NYC. If you go to an agency, with a "fashion portfolio" and it contains the wrong faces, you will be laughed at - maybe not to your face, but certainly behind your back. It implies you don't understand casting and you certainly don't understand fashion. As photographers, we might be able to extrapolate and see photographic technique, those involved in fashion typically do not.
And to be clear, this isn't just model "stats" which so many here are hung up on, but the actual face needs to be right as well. I get that, the thread seemed to have expanded in other directions so I tossed in something that I found interesting since it only happened to me once.
I know very little of fashion but I am fascinated by some faces and you will see faces that could be fashion faces once in a while in the real world. Pretty rare that the face is attached to a head that has the desired neck holding it onto the correct body type for an overall acceptable outcome. Fashionista or Fascistonista?
I have spent some time photographing ballet and similar standards are held for that art. Only those who can really dance well and look "just so and no other way" have any real potential to do well in ballet.
In that respect (where judging is concerned), both fashion and ballet have striking similarities to breeding horses or dogs, true?
Photographer
Marcio Faustino
Posts: 2811
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
There seems to be a very large misunderstanding of where the OP is coming from and I'm wondering if people read the articles...
I won't speak for other markets, but I can discuss fashion in NYC. If you go to an agency, with a "fashion portfolio" and it contains the wrong faces, you will be laughed at - maybe not to your face, but certainly behind your back. It implies you don't understand casting and you certainly don't understand fashion. As photographers, we might be able to extrapolate and see photographic technique, those involved in fashion typically do not.
And to be clear, this isn't just model "stats" which so many here are hung up on, but the actual face needs to be right as well. Does it means that doesn't matter the photos, as far as you have agenced models in your portfolio? It is all it takes? The photographer work doesn't matter? Any dude who hired agenced models has better chance doesn't matter what?
Not that I care. i have no interest on this pretentious world. I am just curious about the point on trying to be a good photographer while agencies only want to know if you had used their product to build your portfolio.
|
