Lone Shepherd wrote:
No no. . .I am not talking about critiquing a model during a shoot, I'm talking about reviewing photos in general.

I am saying that when I am critiquing a photo, most of my thoughts are oriented towards things the photographer did well, or things the photographer could have done better.

I would like to broaden my view to be able to see a photo from a model's point of view, so to speak.

Okay, I see now.  I agree that it often how it is done, the photographer's viewpoint being the main consideration.  I have to give props to Christine 16 for bringing up the model's point of view and nicely stating it as well. 

I look at more than the lighting and set up and composition.  I also look at the model and those accidental double chins, waist creases, awkward elbows or hand or knees.  And yes, at odd or even goofy expression.  This tends to happen more in the flow or fluid type of posing that many photographers and models like to do (as in an Austin Powers "Yeah baby, give it to me", everyone moving in different directions type shooting.  Hey, you can get some great shots out of that but the majority will look strange.)

Also many poses that the model feels look sexy are really odd when captured in the moment (like her head-back-with-chin-up--and-the-lens-staring-deep-into-her-nostrils look!  In a bar or on the street, that "pose" lasting for a flicker of a moment is just fine and is powerful body languange.  But when captured in a still photo, it is a nostril examination every time!)

Ultimately, if the model doesn't look good, since she is the centerpiece of the project, then the rest of glamour photography is self delusion.  What actually constitutes "looking good" is SOOO open to debate.

(High Fashion photography seems to go for something different - often it seems that odd and awkward are the watch words of that day's shoot.  Probably a topic for an entirely different thread.)

I look for the pose showing off my body well (whether it was an unusual pose or not), my facial expression being perfect in it (i.e. my face isn't pointed too far down and there are no "double chins" due to positioning), it showcases my bone structure, and I make sure nothing's showing that shouldn't be

I also look at the model and those accidental double chins, waist creases, awkward elbows or hand or knees. And yes, at odd or even goofy expression.

Yes, when I look at a photo I'm also looking at the model, ie, is the facial expression good, does the pose look natural, if the belly is visible is there any creasing, etc.

I'm just trying to look at the model more objectively and critically in photos, rather than just saying "yeah he/she looks good" or whatever.

I don't care as much about the lighting because that's so easy to fix in Photoshop or Fireworks. The background can also be fixed pretty easily.

I will agree that depending on the background, some of it can be fixed in Photoshop (some things easier than others).  Bad lighting, however, is another story.  Yes, all images can be touched up to a degree, but if the lighting doesn't fit the mood of the shot when you press the button, hours of Photoshop work isn't going to fix it, although you may be able to come up with *something* usable.  As with any photo editing, it's much easier to get the shot as right as possible before you take the photo than after.

Lone Shepherd wrote:
All of these things, for the most part, are critiques on the photography.

So, how does one critique the model from the photos?  Obviously if you've worked with a model you can make some sort of qualitative judgement of the model's skills, ie "I got a lot of keepers from that shoot" or "I didn't have to fine tune her posing at all, she hit exactly what I wanted the first time" or whatever.

But if you're just looking at a photo, what do you look for?  Do you need to look at multiple photos to make a critical judgement, such as "she gives the same expression in all shots", or what?

Thank you for posting this.

Is a model only as good as the photographer?

I don't mean this in a bad way. I'm just always surprised when someone says, you're so much prettier in person than your photos, or I never thought you could pose like this, show this emotion, look edgy rather than girl-next-door, etc.

As far as the same expression in all shots or a pose, again, it's the photographer that pushes the button and decides to capture that expression/pose or not, and often the model doesn't receive all the images, so there may be 400 photos from the shoot, but the 10 pictures she receive are all the same expression/pose. It's a little frustrating at times!

This is another reason I like to meet in person prior to the shoot, meet the real me. I'm more than a 2D frame

Jim Goodwin wrote:
Sara, you hit the nail on the head.  The model will always be judged based on how well the photographer did his job.  I am probably in the minority in that I will take this into consideration when I am looking at a model's pictures.  If I'm looking to hire you, I am just evaluating what you look like, not how good the picture is.  I do look for signs of expressiveness in the face, and even in pretty candid pictures I can get a sense wether or not you have IT.  I know the results I will get working with a model, and the way I work it doesn't matter wether you already have plenty of experience working with great photographers, or you are doing your first shoot.  All I care about is how you look.  I'll hold up my end of the process from a photographic standpoint, but I know ultimately my work will be judged based on how good the model looks.

A good photographer should be able to make anyone look beautiful....or at least interesting.

envisage photography wrote:

A good photographer should be able to make anyone look beautiful....or at least interesting.

Exactly!

Jim Goodwin wrote:

Exactly!

I believe this is true.

A great stylist + make up artist + photographer +  model who knows how to work the lens = a piece of art

A great photo is a collaborative effort.

Lone Shepherd wrote:
As an amateur photographer, I've only recently started working with models.

I know that as a photographer, I may look at an image in a different way than a model might.  For example, when I'm looking at a photo I find myself thinking about a variety of things.

There's the obvious (focus / exposure / framing) as well as the lighting (too hot here, too dark here, etc).  Then there's the composition (model too close to background / depth of field not appropriate to the image / etc).

All of these things, for the most part, are critiques on the photography.

So, how does one critique the model from the photos?  Obviously if you've worked with a model you can make some sort of qualitative judgement of the model's skills, ie "I got a lot of keepers from that shoot" or "I didn't have to fine tune her posing at all, she hit exactly what I wanted the first time" or whatever.

But if you're just looking at a photo, what do you look for?  Do you need to look at multiple photos to make a critical judgement, such as "she gives the same expression in all shots", or what?