Neil Templar wrote:
Which in turn leads me to ask myself: Are we as Photographers only as good as the models we photograph?

Death of Field wrote:
I'm only as good as my clients.

I don't sell "models" as much in my marketing plan.

Yes I use them for some examples, but since I sell direct to my clients, I am not selling a models "look"

I think some might argue that unfortunately (or fortunately) it's the models 'look' that sells.

ontherocks wrote:
i think we're only as good as the performances we get out of them. now a great model can probably give a good performance without any help from the photographer where perhaps a less experienced model would need more direction. but some models just have more range and capability (and are more fearless to act out a part) than other models. great models are a joy to work with?

I think that's a fair point.

Neil Templar wrote:
Which in turn leads me to ask myself: Are we as Photographers only as good as the models we photograph?

I think this is true to some extent but perhaps it is more true in the case of a less experienced photographer.  A highly experienced photographer is going to be able to provide direction for a less experienced model and get better images than a less experienced photographer would get.  Of course this assumes that the model has basic talent that needs to be developed.

However, it's definitely true that it's easier to get great images when working with a great model.

Dark Shadows wrote:
No, I don't believe that. I feel that I can be successful without shooting models at all.

Does that mean you should change to 'buildings mayhem' ?

Neil Templar wrote:
Does that mean you should change to 'buildings mayhem' ?

If necessary. I do shoot real estate, and it does pay fairly well.

However, there are plenty of interesting non-models to photograph. I primarily consider myself a portrait photographer. I don't feel that I necessarily need models.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Sadly in the fashion world photographers are very much judged by the models they shoot.

A portfolio of moderately decent images of top agency models will trump a portfolio of outstanding images of equally pretty but clearly non-agency models any day of the week.

Because agencies don't let their models test with just anyone, people will simply assume that the person shooting the agency models must somehow be the better photographer. It's silly, but true.

Much of my work features nudity but most agencies with girls under exclusive contracts are reluctant to let their models shoot nudes for tests (although they may waive this for a commissioned editorial or Terry Richardson!) so I compromise and shoot clothed and headshots with good agency models to get their faces in my book, and the rest of my work with models from smaller agencies or MM who are free to shoot what they like.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

But isn't the photo really about what's in front of the lens? A top fashion model is "more fashion" than a non-top model. It's about exclusivity more than substance.

Neil Templar wrote:
Firstly, I found that I subconsciously shot more and for longer with each of them than I normally do.

Secondly,  I deleted far fewer shots.

funny thing is that the more experienced the model, I usually shoot for shorter periods of time on assignments, and shoot fewer shots. It is about getting the job right and moving on, not spending time with the models.

but as Stefano said, sadly some look at names vs. quality of imagery. its a double edged sword.

Neil Templar wrote:

Does that mean you should change to 'buildings mayhem' ?

That one made me laugh out loud.

As someone new to shooting models, when a model knows exactly how to pose and is experienced doing so, everything just flows. Though I shoot mainly TF, I find that paying for skilled models are worth it.

Charlie-CNP wrote:
funny thing is that the more experienced the model, I usually shoot for shorter periods of time on assignments, and shoot fewer shots. It is about getting the job right and moving on, not spending time with the models.

Yes, agreed, but when you get to my age... maybe its nicer to look for just a couple of minutes longer! (that's not meant to sound as wrong as it probably does!)

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Sadly in the fashion world photographers are very much judged by the models they shoot.

A portfolio of moderately decent images of top agency models will trump a portfolio of outstanding images of equally pretty but clearly non-agency models any day of the week.

Because agencies don't let their models test with just anyone, people will simply assume that the person shooting the agency models must somehow be the better photographer. It's silly, but true.

Much of my work features nudity but most agencies with girls under exclusive contracts are reluctant to let their models shoot nudes for tests (although they may waive this for a commissioned editorial or Terry Richardson!) so I compromise and shoot clothed and headshots with good agency models to get their faces in my book, and the rest of my work with models from smaller agencies or MM who are free to shoot what they like.



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

+1 but despite this I see portfolios of "fashion photographers" who have no idea what a model should look like.

Square Jaw Photography wrote:
I find that paying for skilled models are worth it.

That's so true but isn't it nice when they are TF !?

John Fisher wrote:
"Are we only as good as our models"
Yes.

Thanks John

AJScalzitti wrote:
+1 but despite this I see portfolios of "fashion photographers" who have no idea what a model should look like.

*gigglesnort*

Imageography wrote:
Maybe there is no direct correlation, but I think there is.

Thank you.... I thought so.....

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
For fashion, and probably even more-so for beauty, the answer is most definitely yes.

"Then I saw her face... Du du du du.. Now I'm a believer....
Not a trace, du du du du ...of doubt in my mind"
(thank you)

BTHPhoto wrote:
I wish I was as good as my models.

I wish my models would show up!

Neil Templar wrote:
(snip)...
Which in turn leads me to ask myself: Are we as Photographers only as good as the models we photograph?
...
(snip)

Nope.

Oh, a good model make s difference.  And all things being equal, I'd rather shoot with a good model than a mediocre model.  But the reason why photography is an art and not a craft is that we're not limited by this stuff.  We are not only as good as our cameras (although some photographers allow their cameras to limit their performance).  We are not only as good as our setting (though some photographers allow that to limit their performance).  We are not only as good as our lens.  Or the available light.  Or our tools.

A good house painter is a craftsman.  But he's limited by the qualify of his paint, the quality of his brushes.  A good photographer is not a craftsman but an artist.  And an artist creates, he sees possibilities that others don't see, he manufacturers art that others can't.

As a photographer, what limits you the most is yourself...the photographer.   

Ed

rbphotos wrote:
I have to say Yes. Take two photos one of two different  models doing the same things same lighting same outfits. You will like the photo with the better looking model 95% of the time. Just my. 02 also.

Thank you. I agree.
Ultimately the old adage is always true ... 'Sex sells' (that's not being crude. That's being factual).

RennsportPhotography wrote:
Some photographers are only as good as the models they work with and sometimes it is the model who is only as good as the photographer. I think working with better talent is always more enjoyable.

There’s a lot of truth in that… and in this:

ontherocks wrote:
i think we're only as good as the performances we get out of them.

If I’m shooting an experienced model who has a strong portfolio, I expect to come away with many strong images. That has generally been true – but there’s one shoot I did with a really good model that I’d love to do over.

I don't think it's a coincidence that most of my best photos were with the best models.

If I’m shooting with an inexperienced model with a weak portfolio, I know it’s going to take a lot more work on my part. To some extent luck is sometimes involved – as is a really large CF card.

Several weeks ago I shot with a new model and, out of 800 or so images, I got six that many models would probably like to have in their portfolios. Another photographer who saw the photos booked the same model – and paid her. He got nothing. He has threatened, jokingly (I hope), to sue me for false advertising.

A really good model makes life much easier. And I suspect that many models, including some very good ones, would say the same about photographers.

It takes two to tango.

Death of Field wrote:
I'm only as good as my clients.

I don't sell "models" as much in my marketing plan.

Yes I use them for some examples, but since I sell direct to my clients, I am not selling a models "look"

So ( in looking at your avatar ) Is Fujifilm one of your clients ?

Neil Templar wrote:
Firstly, I found that I subconsciously shot more and for longer with each of them than I normally do.

Secondly,  I deleted far fewer shots.

As I'm the only constant with the models I work with, this led me to the inevitable conclusion that it's difficult to take bad photographs of good models.

I have experienced this too. There are certain models who somehow manage to look amazing in almost every shot -- it is indeed difficult to take a bad photo of them. It is rare though; I would say that fewer than one in ten models I've worked with fall into that category.