|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Models: How many of your shots should be 'usable'?
Watching a recent Creative Live programme and they had on a former winner of America's Next Top Model (ANTM) They got onto a discussion about the quality of models, how much they're worth and the gap between the different levels The conclusion was that if you shoot a supermodel, then you'll finish with anything up to 90% of the shots taken in a sequence being 'usable' With the ANTM winner (and other models with that level of experience/ability/natural assets), they said that the 'usable' percentage would drop to between 30% and 40% Do any of the models on here have an opinion about what 'Uasable Shot Ratio' they'd achieve? Usable: You're shooting for an advert/portfolio etc - how many of the 'clicks' can/are/could be converted into 'shots you could retouch and use'... IF you have a decent set up/MUA/Photographer Oct 18 12 11:15 am Link This is a horrible metric to use because it depends as much, if not more, on the photographer as it does on the model. I think they were just making stuff up, trying to come up with a number they can assign that says how good a model you are. Oct 18 12 11:24 am Link Darik Datta wrote: I'm not so sure. It 'resonated' with me, because we organise big shooting events around once a month (MEGASHOOT) and it gives you an opportunity to work with 8 models or more in a single day. Oct 18 12 11:33 am Link PR Zone wrote: Totally makes sense and I do think there's some truth to it. But what I'm saying is, in the digital age, the style of the photographer has a huge impact on this as well. And then there is the photog / model chemistry which I know for me has a big effect on the number of shots I shoot and the ratio of good shots. Oct 18 12 11:36 am Link PR Zone wrote: Aren't you answering your own question? There are too many uncontrollable variables to get an accurate "30-40%" or "90%" range of statistics. Do higher end and more experienced models know how to position themselves better in front of a lens? Of course. But you can't draw a models output ratio neglecting photographer individuality. Oct 18 12 11:38 am Link Chad Sterling wrote: I certainly think the photographer contributes. Even fantastic llamas can be butchered by photographers and happy faces turn sour @ the creep factor. Some can push it back but even the best llamas shoot poorly will be shoot poorly. Oct 18 12 11:42 am Link When I shoot with photographers the ration varies a lot. It varies on the posing style significantly. If we are shooting a specific shot, say me in lingerie looking demure sitting in a chair, a lot of the shots may be usable and it is just a matter of narrowing it down to which is best. If we are shooting something more dynamic such as me flowing art nude poses in slow motion and the photographer capturing various moments, the ration may be less simply because there are transitions. In that case there is good and bad. The bad is that you may get many shots that just look too awkward to use, but the good is that you may catch a shot in that perfect moment that you may not have gotten otherwise. Then there are things in the middle such as static art nude poses where I take a pose and they shoot all around me at different angles. In this case it is most likely that only a couple of the angles may work. And one more scenario: shooting myself. I tend to get way more usable images when I shoot myself because once I get the lighting and such right, I know exactly what I am going for. Often I only have to hit the pose once. Or I work at something with tiny details in which case all the shots might be usable, but usually I like one or two the best. I think, aside from self portraits, it tends to be more about the model and photographer dynamic and both of their styles, plus their goal that determines the ratio of usable photos. Oct 18 12 11:52 am Link Fantastic question, wrong forum. Why do I say that? Most of the models I shoot have no idea what percentage of poses are "on" as they never see the results, but photographers' proofs certainly tell the tale. My experience is very similar to the statistics you relate from the article, the more experienced being worth their lithesome weight in gold for giving me many more good poses to choose from. Oct 18 12 11:59 am Link PR Zone wrote: Yep, and though I don't shoot in those rarefied atmospheres, I've had similar experiences. Oct 18 12 01:39 pm Link depends on the photographer tbh, at least for me. with some i seriously can't find one image i hate. with others i'm grappling to find one image i love lol. Oct 18 12 02:06 pm Link A useless metric. Portrait/model photography is a collaboration, and you cannot control every aspect of the process. Oct 18 12 03:46 pm Link PR Zone wrote: How many models have the patience to sit with the photographer and analyse a whole shoot (and even then our judgements may not co-incide)? In my experience, the answer is somewhere between very few and none, so this part of the question is basically unanswerable. Oct 18 12 05:56 pm Link Percentage of useable photos = (model's skill + photographers skill) x (difficulty of shoot + other shoot factors) x (photographer's taste) x (model's taste). Conclusion - too many subjective factors to allow reliable conclusion That being said, I work regularly with one model where about 30% of the images are worth shortlisting and that is the high tide mark for me (we also have a sufficiently good working relationship that I let her have the raw images so that she can make her own interpretations and she tells me that she pretty much concurs with my views as to what is worth shortlisting). Oct 18 12 06:02 pm Link Caustic Disco wrote: Yesss Oct 18 12 06:07 pm Link Depends on the photog. I try to guarantee at least 20% usable in a TFP shoot. I usually come out with 50% depending on what the shoot is for. Oct 19 12 02:29 am Link natural beauties of qld wrote: I would love to sit down next to the photographer and see every picture Oct 19 12 09:54 am Link Agreed.. it depends on the photographer and the model. I've shot with photographers who could make a 50year old look like she was 17. Then I've shot with photographers who use harsh lights that cast unpleasant shadows and who get bad angels. Its not always the models fault, but if we're talking primarily about if her posing is 90% usable then it can be. I've seen new models who do the three basic poses, smile, no smile, and hands on hips. However, sometimes it takes the photographer to help the model become inspired for the emotion that is required for the shoot. Its not like the model has a mirror, so we need a little direction.  Oct 19 12 11:26 am Link Zandrea wrote: I concur. This was what I tried to say earlier regarding experience being so useful for more useable poses per shoot. Glad to hear a model chime in! Oct 19 12 01:37 pm Link PR Zone wrote: I've done shoots where 90% could be used, and others where 10% could. Depends on a lot of things, and often, the predicable things that mean nearly every shot is usable mean that none are fantastic. Many, many, of my best shots where from sessions where 2/3 or more of the shots were totally worthless, because I was trying to do something difficult with light or focus, or because the model was doing something difficult with pose or expression. Oct 19 12 01:44 pm Link I am not that good yet to get a 90% usable range. I know you asked models but can't help it. I am confident that I get a much higher return from most models than someone else. Yet I shoot like a maniac and a lot are waste. Frankly I could care less with digital, so I let it go. I watched the Creative thing with Matthew, but missed this part. It is true a good model hits it often. And it's not what the model looks like but how they know what looks good. Where as I shot a beginner the other day ( in my port still I think) and it was a hard go to get anything fluid there. Oct 19 12 01:54 pm Link Dekilah wrote: Yes, it all depends on what you are shooting. When i shoot an experienced model, I get a lot more keepers and it becomes hard to pick out the best ones. Oct 19 12 02:28 pm Link A big part of how good a model is (for me) is how many usable frames there are. Yes you only need a few but it becomes much higher risk (and time consuming) using someone if this is the case. Part of this is look. A better model looks good from more angles and expressions. I have noticed for some their look only 'works' in a very narrow range and this is harder to work with and means less usable frames. Part of this is awareness. This means really listening and internalising all elements of the concept and embodying it, not just turning out model poses 101 indiscriminately (frustratingly common). Oct 19 12 03:25 pm Link Percentages will differ between commercial work, which works on getting 'the shot' in a couple seconds in hundreds of outfits/scenes, versus tf that might shoot an outfit to death. Oct 19 12 04:01 pm Link I am very convinced when a photographer is very skilled at their craft it's actually difficult to choose down to a few:) Oct 19 12 04:09 pm Link Keep in mind it has less to do with the number of usable shots and more about the time it takes to get "the shot" for the client. The take away from the course you referenced should have been that a photo shoot is a collaboration between a photographer and the model. The more experienced the model and the photographer are and the more they have worked together the less time it takes to get "the shot". A model that knows a range of poses and knows her angles is going to help the photographer get the final image a lot faster than a model that needs a lot of direction from the photographer. Most of the models on that course struggled to project emotion in front of the lens. The challenge for the photographer was to get that some way. There is a famous shot by Avedon of the Duke and Duchess of York (former King of England and his wife). He had to get the expression he wanted by telling them about a pup that got run over by a car. It was just a made up story but he got the reaction he wanted. A model needs to project the desired emotion and pose on cue without all the tricks on part of the photographer. One other point which Mathew Jordon Smith, the photographer for the course, referred to was that even if you get the shot in the first frame your client is going to want you to keep shooting, so whether you get the shot in the first frame or in the 100th frame is going to be irrelevant on a commercial shoot where the objective is only to get that one shot for the advertising campaign. Where the number of images it takes to get the shot is more important is for a look book or an editorial where you have to get a set number of images in a day. In that situation time is money and again it less about the number of usable shots but a process where you are going to get the shot for each look in a reasonable amount of time. I still remember watching Gregory Heisler work in one of his videos. He pre-visualizes his shot and then works till he gets the composition he wants then he clicks the shutter. Typically he gets what he wants in a few frames and sometimes one frame. Obviously every photographer has a different process. For Gregory Heisler's processthe model has to ask themself whether they are good enough as a model to get what the photographer wants in one shot and strive to be that good while the photographer is looking for the model with the "look" and with that level of skill. Oct 19 12 05:15 pm Link Rays Fine Art wrote: I think you may be consfused with that, being happy to get one or two per look that are portfolio worth is not the same as getting usable images that the clients likes. In the case of this creative live the photographer was Matthew Jordan Smith and I would suspect being good enough for his book is a far higher bar then being good enough to publish. Oct 19 12 05:17 pm Link Models: How many of your shots should be 'usable'? How bout 100% of them bein usable... those that aren't... delete'm...  Oct 19 12 05:50 pm Link One. Or if shooting a 6 page story: 6 Family portraits where they expect 4-8: 4-8 Boudoir with a 14 page book: 14 Oct 19 12 07:17 pm Link Neil Snape wrote: Traditional 'good looks' are definitely irrelevant to achieving a killer shot natural beauties of qld wrote: Me too. That's EXACTLY my experience. There are some models where you 'click' and everything just works. They understand the creative you're looking to put together - and nail the poses/expressions Rays Fine Art wrote: Not hijacked at all... This is EXACTLY what I'm focused on with this thread Oct 20 12 03:08 am Link the better the model, the higher the percentage of usable shots and, more importantly, the higher the percentage of amazing shots (which is all that i care about). also - the better the model, the more she is capable of tuning out the distracting variables . . . cold weather, staring bystanders, etc. Oct 22 12 08:36 am Link It definitely depends on the photographer and what they are looking for. If you are asking for a model's perspective, I'm pretty picky. If I get 12 edited shots from a photographer, there will be maybe 3 that I will really adore. Oct 23 12 01:11 am Link Chad Sterling wrote: how do you know that's how the model always performs? Oct 23 12 06:37 am Link dunno one very good photographer sent me about 64 useable images re touched /edited whatever .. some people only sent me 4 or so just stuff that works for them not especially usefull for me . but just depends & i couldn't care about image numbers If i only got one good shot it would be worth it & a good shot is a good shot i guess .. i think some people you just really click with . Oct 23 12 06:51 am Link Zandrea wrote: oh yea that too ^ Oct 23 12 07:15 am Link LEA 2 wrote: Agreed. I'm wondering if the weaker models 'click' according to nature/chance and the best models 'click' at will howard r wrote: I think you have the position exactly Mr Howard :-) Oct 24 12 03:01 pm Link PR Zone wrote: I don't think that it's the llama you should be asking! Oct 24 12 03:29 pm Link I've been told by photographers they get a lot of good images with me. Now what magic number that is, I don't know. Oct 24 12 03:38 pm Link I like the formulas above....... just like SETI's Drake Formula The answer can be anywhere from billions to only one (Earth) If I get 5 great shots that the model absolutely loves, then it was a fantastic shoot. Oct 24 12 08:44 pm Link |
