Stereo Visions wrote:
The guy is a jerk, even if she wouldn't work for what he wanted he pursued her so when he saw she wasn't what he wanted he should have acted like everything was fine and went through with the shoot.
As far as C-section scars I have seen many that are very small and would be easy to remove if they don't fit the shoot.

My rule is I edit out anything temporary such as bruises or achene or insect bites but normally leave scars.

I once did a shoot were a woman who got some of her friends together for a theme shoot each was shot individually the shoot went great except for the woman that set up the shoot doesn't pose well I didn't get a single image I liked of her but I edited them and she and her husband love the pic's and to this day they don't know I don't like any of the shots. What did make the shots great to me is that they love them.

They didn't want any edits, she went through with it so she can look back on it later & see how even after having a baby her husband still found her beautiful without clothes on. They both told him they don't ant any edits.

Death of Field wrote:

Not all baby bellys can be retouched out in 10 minutes.

This entire problem can be solved with a casting photo.

There is a huge difference in a few simple stretch marks and a hanging baby pouch...

That would be if she had a baby pouch. She's pretty petite, only gained 15 pound the whole pregnancy & only in her belly. Once she had her baby, she was back to her normal size in 3 days. She didn't like that her stomach was "flabby" as she said, it just wasn't as tone as before, nothing major. It wouldn't have even needed to be edited.

punkuate wrote:
Even without photoshop, its easy to minimize the appearance of such things with lighting. I just never expect models to be "perfect"... very few are.

Utter dickish reaction to the situation tho. Treating her like a human being shouldn't be difficult.

He carried himself very horribly. I don't see how he can expect to get busy acting like that. Any photographer, including amateurs know or should know that lighting and posing could have eliminated the whole problem.

Ken Woodford wrote:
Personally I think the photographer was being a jerk.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot.  Not all photographers can afford all the bells and whistles.  What would you photographers say about a model who walked out because you didn't have all the perfect, right gear he/she wanted?

That's irrelevant to the case, it's not about the quality of the photographer nor the model. It's how he actually treated her on something she had no control over.

A photographer can easy go buy new equipment, a woman can't help if a baby gave her stretch marks or if she had to have a C-section.

Ken Woodford wrote:
Personally I think the photographer was being a jerk.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot.  Not all photographers can afford all the bells and whistles.  What would you photographers say about a model who walked out because you didn't have all the perfect, right gear he/she wanted?

+1

I'm wondering just how old or intelligent this 'photographer' is, if he isn't aware how having a baby impacts the human form. Obviously he had seen her, at least clothed, or he wouldn't have been pushing her to shoot even after she said she wasn't sure her body would be suitable for nudes.  To then wig out after re-assuring her it wouldn't be an issue is just wrong.

RSM-images wrote:
.

It seems to me that the worst scars were *not* on the model you mentioned but, rather, on the brain of the photographer you mentioned.

A little DermaBlend goes a long way....



.

That's exactly how I feel, I mean there are so many little things he could have done to fix the problem. I'm just shocked at how he handled it, I never thought I'd see something like that.

Al Dobson wrote:

+1

I'm wondering just how old or intelligent this 'photographer' is, if he isn't aware how having a baby impacts the human form. Obviously he had seen her, at least clothed, or he wouldn't have been pushing her to shoot even after she said she wasn't sure her body would be suitable for nudes.  To then wig out after re-assuring her it wouldn't be an issue is just wrong.

He was, I don't want to say old, but he was old enough to have kids in high school/college. So I'm sure he knew that having a baby will change your look. This wasn't like an online conversation, this was all in person, so he saw how she looked first hand, so he can't say he was surprised by the outcome.

Mo Pho Monika wrote:
I hope I never run into this problem! No photographer has ever said a word about mine...and yeah clone stamp patch ...all clear...wtf is wrong with his editing skills? I got stretch marks and scars....I can't see them...can you?

You have an amazing figure, with or without stretch marks/scars. As long as the subject knows how to pose, & the photographer knows what s/he is doing, I don't see how such a little thing could/would matter. I see nothing on you, that could be from editing or posing. But nonetheless, I see nothing.

C. Scott Photography wrote:
2.  Babies are groase and surgeries to get them out of your stomach are even groaser.  Sorry, but not everyone on Earth loves the miracle of birth.  Just my opinion.

I hope you're just trolling...

Alexandra Bisson wrote:
I hope you're just trolling...

+1

I would hope so too.

Life Captured Photo wrote:
The photographer was a jerk.  Period.

I agree with that, but ... I probably wouldn't have booked her.  I don't do TF, I pay models, and stretch marks or c-section scars are generally not something that I want to deal with.  I would have appreciated the fact that she told me, declined politely and then booked her for fashion where it wouldn't have made a difference.

Secretly Cherish wrote:
EDIT: His remark that she didn't tell him before hand, was a lie on HIS part. She told his BEFORE the shoot that she doesn't think her body is suitable for a nude shoot, BECAUSE she had just had a baby. He told her it was no big deal, until she actually took off her clothes.

Sounds like the photographer doesn't know anything about photoshop and even less about what it means when a woman has a baby.

Oh, well.  Another goofball photog.  What can you do?

Add it to my list of evidence of how our overly photoshopped world is warping ideas of what a body is.

ei Total Productions wrote:

I agree with that, but ... I probably wouldn't have booked her.  I don't do TF, I pay models, and stretch marks or c-section scars are generally not something that I want to deal with.  I would have appreciated the fact that she told me, declined politely and then booked her for fashion where it wouldn't have made a difference.

It's not TF, nor is she a model, there was no booking.

Mosttry wrote:
Add it to my list of evidence of how our overly photoshopped world is warping ideas of what a body is.

That's precisely why I only use retouchers to edit lighting & contrast.

Hollywood3DPhotos wrote:
My experience is a little different.  She brought her own MUA who concentrated only on her face.  At 6-15' away I didn't even notice the stretch marks until I looked at the high contrast lighting swimsuit shots.  I guess I was too busy adjusting the lights and her hair.  I thought that the MUA could of minimized them (e.g. take the gloss off) to make it easier on me in Photoshop.

I would be frustrated if that happened, but I know better than to do as this photographer did & make the model or whoever feel bad about themselves behind it.

Tabatha Camille  wrote:
I believe in being honest and upfront with a photographer or anyone wanting to hire me. The model should have disclosed she had stretch marks to the photographer prior to scheduling the shoot to avoid this type of misunderstanding. Like many of the posters, I believe they are beautiful and bring out the natural beauty of a woman, but it may not have been the right look for the shoot.

-Tabatha Camille -

There was no misunderstanding though, I told him BEFORE he asked her that she's self conscious about the stretch marks & the scar. He decided it was big deal & asked her to pose for him anyways. Before she could tell him exactly what she meant by she doesn't think her body suitable for nudes, he told her it was no big deal he can edit it out.

She told him, she doesn't want edits, if she does nudes it will be for her & her husband. Something to look back on later, to remind her that after having a baby, she's still beautiful in his eyes.

Everything was well disgusted before the shoot even happened. This was all in person so had already seen her, so it wasn't like her saying she's a size 4 then showing up & being a size 9. He knew hours before the shoot even happened.

Secretly Cherish wrote:

There was no misunderstanding though, I told him BEFORE he asked her that she's self conscious about the stretch marks & the scar. He decided it was big deal & asked her to pose for him anyways. Before she could tell him exactly what she meant by she doesn't think her body suitable for nudes, he told her it was no big deal he can edit it out.

She told him, she doesn't want edits, if she does nudes it will be for her & her husband. Something to look back on later, to remind her that after having a baby, she's still beautiful in his eyes.

Everything was well disgusted before the shoot even happened. This was all in person so had already seen her, so it wasn't like her saying she's a size 4 then showing up & being a size 9. He knew hours before the shoot even happened.

Beautiful Freudian slip of the keyboard.... 

Beautiful Sundays wrote:

Beautiful Freudian slip of the keyboard.... 

lol, I'm using my phone. I guess the T-9 felt disgusted was the better word

Nelia wrote:
Very short answer... no I would not consider the model unsuitable as a nude model.  Most models I have worked with have had some sort of scar, stretch marks, moles and / or birthmarks that Photographer may need to retouch.  My opinion is that the "Photographer" was being very unprofessional and a complete Jerk!

+1K {nuff said, and said well.....}

Stereo Visions wrote:
The guy is a jerk, even if she wouldn't work for what he wanted he pursued her so when he saw she wasn't what he wanted he should have acted like everything was fine and went through with the shoot.
As far as C-section scars I have seen many that are very small and would be easy to remove if they don't fit the shoot.

My rule is I edit out anything temporary such as bruises or achene or insect bites but normally leave scars.

I once did a shoot were a woman who got some of her friends together for a theme shoot each was shot individually the shoot went great except for the woman that set up the shoot doesn't pose well I didn't get a single image I liked of her but I edited them and she and her husband love the pic's and to this day they don't know I don't like any of the shots. What did make the shots great to me is that they love them.

BRAVO>>>>!!!!!!!

Secretly Cherish wrote:

That's irrelevant to the case, it's not about the quality of the photographer nor the model. It's how he actually treated her on something she had no control over.

A photographer can easy go buy new equipment, a woman can't help if a baby gave her stretch marks or if she had to have a C-section.

It was an analogy not meant to be an exact relevance to the issue and I was in agreement with you. My analogy is one must learn to work with what you have.

To reply to your argument that a photographer can go buy new equipment...so can any person with any type of scar go have cosmetic surgery done and have the scar covered or removed. I mean no offense and I'm not saying anybody should or as in this case in particular the model should have...on the contrary..it is as you say she had a baby and couldn't help these scars. Personally I would have tried to work around it. 

My Wife has stretch marks and I shoot her all the time.

Se7en Fourteen wrote:
I agree and think the guy is a tool. Especially if i persued a girl to model for me nude or not. I would be grateful she is modeling for me. I would simply either edit them out, or modify my shoot to glorify being a recent mother. There are so many ways to handle the situation, in a manner than doesn't hurt her self confidence, and still give her the shoot. I mean we are both using our time. If she isn't already a model it probably would have been a TF anyway. So whats the big deal. I mean I would have scheduled my time to be with that model during the discussed time frame, might as well make use of it.

I guess it may be because i'm fairly new, or maybe I just honestly love photography, and art. Make the best of what is available. I can promise I would have come away from the session with shots I was proud of, and ones she would be proud of.

Never would i ever treat someone like that unless they had it coming due to previous poor treatment of myself, or me witnessing their poor treatment of someone else.

We are all beautiful in some way or another. I feel my job is simply to make that inner beauty reflect on your outter beauty!

+1

George Ruge wrote:
Kind of had the same situation last week, a girl wanted me to shoot a set for SG, she came and tested, TRAIN WRECK!! I don't have time to fix 100 shots for no $$$ For F'n SG. For a couple of shots, yeah, no problem, blemish tool, bing-bada-bing, everything's fixed, but for 100 shots! No thanks.

I can understand that. If I had a model come to me & ask or expect me to edit 100 shots, I'd turn it down POLITELY. But this was just for her & her husband, & they wanted NO edits. I don't see why there was even a problem you know?

Nelia wrote:
Very short answer... no I would not consider the model unsuitable as a nude model.  Most models I have worked with have had some sort of scar, stretch marks, moles and / or birthmarks that Photographer may need to retouch.  My opinion is that the "Photographer" was being very unprofessional and a complete Jerk!

+1