Coogan Photo wrote:
I was in the middle of a 6.5 mile run this afternoon and a girl and her little brother walked past me in the opposite direct... she was stunning... so I thought about it, then turned around and ran about 25 yards to catch up to them... I asked her if she would like to shoot some photos for portfolio... I asked how old she was, she said 13 (I thought she was 14-15 years old)

That's something I'd never do ... approach someone I fully believe is a minor.  I'd have nothing but good intentions and wouldn't think of shooting them without their parents present ... but some people act like talking to a minor is the worst thing a person can do, especially if one doesn't know their parents or their parents aren't present .... sometimes even if they are.

  I'm not saying it's bad or wrong.  I am saying I wouldn't do it personally.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Raise your hand if you can show potential models your portfolio when you see them.  I got to admit that I can't -- they have to go to my web site.  (There is a single image on my business cards).

With smart phones and tablets, there is nothing keeping you from having a portfolio available at all times. I have my entire life's work on my HTC Amaze phone with plenty of room to spare.

I would suggest storing the images locally on the device and using an app like QuickPic vs. going to websites or other "cloud" storage since the the connection speed can just about be counted to be slow when and where the need to look at images arises (Thanks, Murphy.)

MC Photo wrote:
You missed the point. It's not about wanting to photograph someone's breasts it's about simply being honest. If you want to photograph someone because of their glass eye, their tattoo, they're the most beautiful person you've ever seen, they have a cool hat, they have a scar. It's all the same thing. People can feel the difference and respond much better when someone is being honest.

It's also about the idea that you perceive the person as unusual in a positive way.

As far as subject vs modeling, since you know nothing about the person, you can't be expecting them to "model" you have no idea if they can or can't.

I can't imagine seeing someone on the street, being drawn to them for who they are and what you see, setting up a shoot and saying "Now be different from what I saw." What would be the point of that?

If you want a clothes hanger, get one with experience. If you want a person, get a person and shoot them as a person. They are not a model they are the subject of your photo.

No I got your point.  But I've known enough women in my life that if you say to a stranger on the street "I think you have beautiful/unusually large/unique breasts" they aren't going to take that the same way as "I think you have some great tattoos".  When you walk up to a stranger and compliment her breasts you are bound to get slapped, or quite likely she will walk away.

There are cases where full honesty is not the best approach.  I think a line like "you are a beautiful woman" or "you have a great look that fits with a project I am working on" is more likely to result in an opportunity to exchange your contact information and perhaps have her follow through.

You can use whatever term you like to when you approach strange women on the street.  I think that asking them to model is something more people will understand than subject.  You don't have to use either word - just tell them you want to take their picture. 

I there is a distinction between being a model and to model. 

noun
"A person employed to pose for an artist, photographer, or sculptor"

verb
"to pose for an artist, photographer, or sculptor"

I don't believe you need to be a trained or experienced model in order to model in all circumstances.  If I want someone to actually sell clothes then I will book an agency model.  But if I want a woman to dress up in cosplay for a shoot in the woods perhaps that interesting young woman at the coffee shop would be able to model for it.

Ultimately the words "model" and "subject" have different meanings and one may be more accurate than the other for any given circumstance, but in the context of speaking to a lay person I don't believe that the use of model is at all inappropriate or misleading.

Just my $0.02

Coogan Photo wrote:
Anyway, her brother had a pen and paper (I don't carry business cards when I'm running, maybe I should), so I wrote my web address and contact info, told her to please look at my site with her parents and contact me if she is interested... so far no response from Sophia.

If I had to make a bet, my money would be on her never calling back.

It's the nature of many to act interested during the first encounter, either because they wish to minimize confrontation or rejecting another outright, or because it genuinely seems like a good idea at the time.

If they were genuinely interested, odds the enthusiasm will be gone long due to their own second thoughs or input from others before a shoot can be arranged. BTW, this also happens a lot with those who have fully declared themselves to be ready and willing to model, thus the prevalence of flakes.

rp_photo wrote:
How about.this as an opener?

"I just saw you and this is crazy.

So here's my number and model maybe."

LOL!!!! Clever ~

Would you sing it too? lol

Farenell Photography wrote:
There's no good way to do this as a guy photographer. Afterall, how does "have you ever thought about modeling" NOT sound like bad pickup line. That being said:

1- Be straightforward.
2- Might help to give them a compliment.
3- Make the offer to work w/ them if they had any desire to do so (helps to be forward that it'd be "on you").
4- Throw out to that they're welcome to bring a friend (if you're comfortable w/ that).
5- Give them your business card.
6- Leave the ball in their court & be off on your merry way. (takes the pressure off them in making up a BS excuse in declining & faking excitement)

The more times you do it, the greater the liklihood you get someone who will respond AND actually shoot.

THIS WORKS.... Most of the models I shoot with I find at the mall, the club, or even at the grocery store. I hardly ever shoot with models from MM, I find that just walking up and doing JUST the actions above works more times then not. The trick is NOT to seem menacing or creepy. And I find that at least 1 outta 5 schedule to shoot. Its a great way to get new looks, models, and the business name out there for other people whom that person knows that might need shots as well.

MC Photo wrote:

I agree with your third and fourth lines, although I think the third one kind of contradicts the second one.

There's no need to hide the truth unless your motivation is questionable.

I guess I should have quoted some of the messages that I read in the thread. I was responding to part of this message:

Azimuth wrote:
I think the distinction between subject and model is likely lost on most people who are not in the business.  Personally I look at a "subject" as someone who I am photographing in a natural way without "posing" or pretense.  I look at a "model" as someone who is playing a role for the camera.

...

I think if you said to a person on the street that you wanted them to be "the subject of my photos" they might be more creeped out than if you asked them to "be a model for your photos".  But unless the person you are approaching truly has the potential to be a professional "model" either in fashion, commercial or glamour work it is probably disingenuous to suggest they could be a "model".

I posted earlier against the idea that simply asking someone to model was sexual harassment.
...

I guess the confusion stems from the use of the word "model" interchangeably between a noun and verb.

What I meant by my comparison was that what defines the person as the subject is not the model, but the photographer.

I now understand Azimuth's example as a description between someone that is actively involved in the creation of a photo and someone that is unaware or uninvolved, but that is not what defines them as "subjects." It is the photographer's composiion of the image. Sorry.. Art Appreciation from my college days kicked in.

Regarding the harrassment aspect, I stand by my comment that making it obvious to the person being approached that you are objectifying him/her sexually, would definitely cross into the sexual harrassment definition.

That does not mean that you should never approach them in that way, but keep in mind that when Playboy approaches someone, it is not often for a personal profile article without the sexual objectification of the model.

Chuck Purnell wrote:
Often times when I am out and about, I may walk past or see someone in general that strikes me as model material by their look or how they carry themselves. I know every woman doesn't want to be a model or some may be pretty but camera shy since its something they never done or considered doing. So how would you approach a random person about modeling or doing a shoot with you without it sounding like a pick up line or you flirting with them?

So does your desire to ask them if they are interested in modeling spring from a desire to get them into a career in modeling?  Like are you thinking they just never thought about it before?  Or are you looking for models to sit for you?  Or are you flirting with them? 

I've asked random women to sit for me for lighting practice and to flirt with them--never suggested any of them consider the modeling business.

Most have been for sitting for me for practice.  I used to go to a Bruegger's Bagel place a few times a week--so I was a regular.  They would see me with my gear from time to time and at one point I offered any Bruggers employee at that location a free portrait session.  I worked with 4 or 5 employees, one of them a few different times.  I only did the flirt thing once. 

So you need to be honest with yourself.  If you are doing it to flirt, own that, and ask in a flirtatious way.  If you are doing it to help your skills, be honest with that, too.  But I doubt any really attractive woman has never thought about modeling.  So you probably won't be the first one to mention it to them.

Chuck Purnell wrote:
Many of the suggestions mentioned I have already been doing like keeping an album of photos in my Dropbox app on my iPhone ready to be shown at any given time and I always have business cards on me. I am pretty good with talking to strangers but trying to convince someone to pose for me might be slightly challenging but I am not going to let that defeat me. Thanks to all who commented on this thread!

Wait--what?  That sounds a little creepy.  What's your motivation for trying to "convince" a woman to agree to do a shoot with you?  Sounds like it's NOT out of a desire to introduce her to career she might not have though of before. 

You might want to consider why respecting their decision not to shoot with you isn't your first inclination...

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I saw a woman yesterday with unusual shoes.  I told her that I would photograph her just for those shoes.  She said that she modeled and was on Model Mayhem.  We exchanged information so that we could check out each others portfolios.  I will probably photograph her in the future.   

OMG you're a sexual harrasser!

As we learned earlier in this thread, if you're honest with someone about what you want to shoot it's sexual harassment.

You must be a creepy shoe fetish guy, and this is sexual for you!


(I don't need to clarify that this is sarcasm and not a dig at you, right?)

Azimuth Arts wrote:
No I got your point.  But I've known enough women in my life that if you say to a stranger on the street "I think you have beautiful/unusually large/unique breasts" they aren't going to take that the same way as "I think you have some great tattoos".  When you walk up to a stranger and compliment her breasts you are bound to get slapped, or quite likely she will walk away.

There are cases where full honesty is not the best approach.  I think a line like "you are a beautiful woman" or "you have a great look that fits with a project I am working on" is more likely to result in an opportunity to exchange your contact information and perhaps have her follow through.

You can use whatever term you like to when you approach strange women on the street.  I think that asking them to model is something more people will understand than subject.  You don't have to use either word - just tell them you want to take their picture. 

I there is a distinction between being a model and to model. 

noun
"A person employed to pose for an artist, photographer, or sculptor"

verb
"to pose for an artist, photographer, or sculptor"

I don't believe you need to be a trained or experienced model in order to model in all circumstances.  If I want someone to actually sell clothes then I will book an agency model.  But if I want a woman to dress up in cosplay for a shoot in the woods perhaps that interesting young woman at the coffee shop would be able to model for it.

Ultimately the words "model" and "subject" have different meanings and one may be more accurate than the other for any given circumstance, but in the context of speaking to a lay person I don't believe that the use of model is at all inappropriate or misleading.

Just my $0.02

No you didn't get the point. The purpose of the large breast example was hyperbolic to make a point, not advice on what to go say. I have no interest in photographing anyone for their breast size, do you?

But if you or someone else does, if that's really the truth, tell her that and explain why and be genuine.  People will make the right decision for themselves if you do that.

"You are a beautiful woman" or "I have a project you are a fit for" sound like lines to me. "I am looking for people with webbed fingers, which I see you have" is very different from "I have a project you are a fit for" or even "I'd like to photograph the beauty of your webbed fingers".

Back to the breast example, it wasn't about size, it was about uniqueness. The thing that makes them stand out. Often people hate their uniqueness because they want to fit in, but people will always appreciate their uniqueness being seen as special.

Really what I'm getting at is that you will never notice someone unless they stand out. What makes them stand out will be the thing that makes them unique. It will stand out to you because you consider it special, if you didn't it wouldn't have caught your eye.

In theory this should all be obvious to the person your approaching, but it never is. By explaining what drew you to them, you're explaining yourself, opening up and letting them know you. The pure honesty, and the emotional risk you take in being honest, is what builds your bond with your subject - and subject is the right term in the absence of genre because you don't "model" for portraits.

Let's stick with the breast example since you're fixated on it - my last reply gave you other examples. A woman walking around with an H cup (I chose that because I assume there's no such thing) will experience stares all day long. If you go up to her and look her right in the eye and say "may I look at your breasts?" she's going to be shocked at your politeness since she's used to stares, and probably worse. You don't see this as politeness, my guess is because you see a breast as an object, not part of a person. Part of a person doesn't mean part of their body, but part of who their are, part of their identity. Something that they will have in common with some other women but not all. My guess is that if you asked politely for consent to do what everyone else does with out consent, she'll be very happy to have her feelings considered for once and say "Go ahead, everyone else does any way."

From there you ask her about herself. Are they real? Really? Does it run in the family? It does? Or everyone else is flat chested, what else did you get that no one else got? Or you're adopted? Wow, so they are as much a mystery to you as to everyone else.

None of this will make sense if you don't see people as people, but you see them as objects - how the look on the outside and with they can do for you ("model").

It's your genuine interest in someone that leads to your bond, and when you have that bond, they will let you shoot them however you want. You will not have that bond if the way you want to shoot them is really messed up. Unless of course you bond over something really messed up and they like messed up things and they like the idea of being the subject of your lewd kinky photo.

When you have a genuine bond, not one faked to take advantage of a person, anything that follows will be acceptable because no one will make the bond with you in the first place if they don't feel that way.

This is not about "breasts". The word "breast" is meant to symbolize something that we're likely to feel uncomfortable initiating a discussion about with a stranger because of what they will think of us. The point is that when you are honest and genuine, coming from a place of positive intent, that's what people see in you. So please, stop projecting your issues with breasts on me.



All photos have a subject. It could be a landscape or a person. In a portrait, the person is the subject. In a catalog photo, the clothes are the subject. In a fashion advertising photo the brand is the subject - not the clothes as people like to say.

The idea of seeing someone and wanting to shoot them, regardless of what words you want to choose, will always be about shooting them themselves as the subject. The exception would be if you saw everyone on the street as human clothes hangers and saw one hanger that was hanging the clothes more effectively than the rest. If you want to photograph them for their clothes hanging abilities, then finding someone on the street is a crap shoot since you don't know about their ability to hang clothes other than the ones they're hanging right then. You're better off with someone who has a portfolio so that you can see the pattern.

Many people talk about a model's ability to emote. When you use your body to communicate feelings and stories, that's acting. Feel free to call it modeling, but acting is the correct term. You most likely can't pick someone for their acting abilities on the street, because you have no way to know if what you are seeing is them or an act.

So in the end, when you see someone on the street and are drawn to them, you're reacting to something that's inherently unique to them. That's what you want in your photo. Now if you were intending to shoot a photo where clothes were the subject, why would you put someone more interesting than the clothes in the photo? The person on the street is either the subject of your photo, or maybe if you're shooting a fashion ad where the brand is the subject, you're using an aspect of their identity to communicate the brand identity. I don't believe that there is anyone shooting fashion ads who is participating in forum discussions on MM.

So you're either drawn to the person and who they are or you see them as an object. Maybe some blurred version of the two is possible.

Let me put it another way for you. Dean Johnson does not model. She Dean Johnsones (a verb).

Azimuth Arts wrote:
Ultimately the words "model" and "subject" have different meanings and one may be more accurate than the other for any given circumstance, but in the context of speaking to a lay person I don't believe that the use of model is at all inappropriate or misleading.

Just my $0.02

The reason it sounds misleading is because there are many people who say "have you ever thought of modeling" because it gives them power to manipulate the person when you know what motivates them. There are people who make a living preying on people's dreams.

I would never want to associate myself in any way with someone like that.

Optix  wrote:

MC Photo wrote:
I agree with your third and fourth lines, although I think the third one kind of contradicts the second one.

There's no need to hide the truth unless your motivation is questionable.

I guess I should have quoted some of the messages that I read in the thread. I was responding to part of this message:


I guess the confusion stems from the use of the word "model" interchangeably between a noun and verb.

What I meant by my comparison was that what defines the person as the subject is not the model, but the photographer.

I now understand Azimuth's example as a description between someone that is actively involved in the creation of a photo and someone that is unaware or uninvolved, but that is not what defines them as "subjects." It is the photographer's composiion of the image. Sorry.. Art Appreciation from my college days kicked in.

Regarding the harrassment aspect, I stand by my comment that making it obvious to the person being approached that you are objectifying him/her sexually, would definitely cross into the sexual harrassment definition.

That does not mean that you should never approach them in that way, but keep in mind that when Playboy approaches someone, it is not often for a personal profile article without the sexual objectification of the model.

That makes sense. Well said.

rp_photo wrote:
We need to avoid describing this task as easy or impossible, as the peception and outcome very much depends on a person's ability, much of which is unrelated to photography skills.

For some it comes naturally, and for others it is terrifying.

I think your comment about "unrelated to photography skills" is very important.

A lot of people say photography (of people) is about light, but it's not. It's about what's in front of the camera. Boring, is boring, meaningless is meaningless regardless of how it's lit. It's these skills being discussed that determines what's in front of the camera. Subjects reflect their bond with the photographer - that's what Avedon is talking about when he says that all photos are self-portraits. The photo shows the photographer reflected in the parts of the subject that are revealed.

Look at someone who's been photographed a lot and look at their portraits with different photographers (ignore red carpet shots). They're not the same in every photo. Some is determined by a stylist. Their mood that day will have an effect, but the bond with the photographer is the thing that will have the biggest effect on the subjects mood (on a normal day).

Chuck Purnell wrote:
Often times when I am out and about, I may walk past or see someone in general that strikes me as model material by their look or how they carry themselves. I know every woman doesn't want to be a model or some may be pretty but camera shy since its something they never done or considered doing. So how would you approach a random person about modeling or doing a shoot with you without it sounding like a pick up line or you flirting with them?

give them a business card with a link to your work and your contact info!

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
If you have trouble speaking to potential attractive female subjects because you feel like a creep, here's a practice exercise:

Go the nearest mall with your camera. Approach a mother and ask if you can photograph her baby/small child.

After that EVERYONE else seems pleasant and sane and you've totally mastered the art of rejection. It also serves to improve your communication skills with law enforcement when mall security inevitably approaches to question your motivation.

ha ha ha ha AWESOME

LOL

Michael!

MC Photo wrote:
No you didn't get the point. The purpose of the large breast example was hyperbolic to make a point, not advice on what to go say. I have no interest in photographing anyone for their breast size, do you?

But if you or someone else does, if that's really the truth, tell her that and explain why and be genuine.  People will make the right decision for themselves if you do that.

"You are a beautiful woman" or "I have a project you are a fit for" sound like lines to me. "I am looking for people with webbed fingers, which I see you have" is very different from "I have a project you are a fit for" or even "I'd like to photograph the beauty of your webbed fingers".

Back to the breast example, it wasn't about size, it was about uniqueness. The thing that makes them stand out. Often people hate their uniqueness because they want to fit in, but people will always appreciate their uniqueness being seen as special.

Really what I'm getting at is that you will never notice someone unless they stand out. What makes them stand out will be the thing that makes them unique. It will stand out to you because you consider it special, if you didn't it wouldn't have caught your eye.

In theory this should all be obvious to the person your approaching, but it never is. By explaining what drew you to them, you're explaining yourself, opening up and letting them know you. The pure honesty, and the emotional risk you take in being honest, is what builds your bond with your subject - and subject is the right term in the absence of genre because you don't "model" for portraits.

Let's stick with the breast example since you're fixated on it - my last reply gave you other examples. A woman walking around with an H cup (I chose that because I assume there's no such thing) will experience stares all day long. If you go up to her and look her right in the eye and say "may I look at your breasts?" she's going to be shocked at your politeness since she's used to stares, and probably worse. You don't see this as politeness, my guess is because you see a breast as an object, not part of a person. Part of a person doesn't mean part of their body, but part of who their are, part of their identity. Something that they will have in common with some other women but not all. My guess is that if you asked politely for consent to do what everyone else does with out consent, she'll be very happy to have her feelings considered for once and say "Go ahead, everyone else does any way."

From there you ask her about herself. Are they real? Really? Does it run in the family? It does? Or everyone else is flat chested, what else did you get that no one else got? Or you're adopted? Wow, so they are as much a mystery to you as to everyone else.

None of this will make sense if you don't see people as people, but you see them as objects - how the look on the outside and with they can do for you ("model").

It's your genuine interest in someone that leads to your bond, and when you have that bond, they will let you shoot them however you want. You will not have that bond if the way you want to shoot them is really messed up. Unless of course you bond over something really messed up and they like messed up things and they like the idea of being the subject of your lewd kinky photo.

When you have a genuine bond, not one faked to take advantage of a person, anything that follows will be acceptable because no one will make the bond with you in the first place if they don't feel that way.

This is not about "breasts". The word "breast" is meant to symbolize something that we're likely to feel uncomfortable initiating a discussion about with a stranger because of what they will think of us. The point is that when you are honest and genuine, coming from a place of positive intent, that's what people see in you. So please, stop projecting your issues with breasts on me.



All photos have a subject. It could be a landscape or a person. In a portrait, the person is the subject. In a catalog photo, the clothes are the subject. In a fashion advertising photo the brand is the subject - not the clothes as people like to say.

The idea of seeing someone and wanting to shoot them, regardless of what words you want to choose, will always be about shooting them themselves as the subject. The exception would be if you saw everyone on the street as human clothes hangers and saw one hanger that was hanging the clothes more effectively than the rest. If you want to photograph them for their clothes hanging abilities, then finding someone on the street is a crap shoot since you don't know about their ability to hang clothes other than the ones they're hanging right then. You're better off with someone who has a portfolio so that you can see the pattern.

Many people talk about a model's ability to emote. When you use your body to communicate feelings and stories, that's acting. Feel free to call it modeling, but acting is the correct term. You most likely can't pick someone for their acting abilities on the street, because you have no way to know if what you are seeing is them or an act.

So in the end, when you see someone on the street and are drawn to them, you're reacting to something that's inherently unique to them. That's what you want in your photo. Now if you were intending to shoot a photo where clothes were the subject, why would you put someone more interesting than the clothes in the photo? The person on the street is either the subject of your photo, or maybe if you're shooting a fashion ad where the brand is the subject, you're using an aspect of their identity to communicate the brand identity. I don't believe that there is anyone shooting fashion ads who is participating in forum discussions on MM.

So you're either drawn to the person and who they are or you see them as an object. Maybe some blurred version of the two is possible.

Let me put it another way for you. Dean Johnson does not model. She Dean Johnsones (a verb).

I was following this with interest and agree with much of it.

However I am not following the last bit: not sure what your point is.

I can see you are saying that Dean Johnson is a 'brand' - and that companies who use here are associating with that.  But she has come to that stage because she is an exceptional model. The 'real' Dean Johnson may be an A-list celeb you'd want at an event. She can also look pretty plain and even drained in real life. She is also associated with drugs etc which has lost her modelling contracts. And gained her some. That is all part of who she is. But she most certainly models and that is why she is where she is and who she is. Yes an aspect of her identity is what is being conveyed for association between the brands.

That is the premier league: footballers at that level too become a 'brand' but they are that because they can play football. As in football the vast majority of professionals work in far lower leagues but they are still being paid to play football. That is the case on MM. Plenty of photographers and models here being paid to shoot fashion sometimes. Even at a low level sometimes 'brand' comes into it. There are many models here shooting the odd fashion ads because of their 'brand' too. Take for example a lingerie company using an MM model who is also known for her burlesque: they want that 'brand' association because she is known to the company's target audience. So I think many models nuture their own 'brand' and get work because of it. But they still have the ability to model. I did two fashion ads last week. One where the photographer chose me because of my ability to model but also I think he thought my image (brand) would suit the brand and their target audience;  the other because the designer wanted me definitely because of my 'brand' (I am known to ladies who go horse racing and get a lot of media attention).

So not sure how that 'brand' thing fits into the thrust of your argument most of which I agree with. Because we all nuture our 'brand' via our various niches in the lower divisions. Maybe that even supports your argument on a deeper level I am not sure.

But yes it is also my assertion that someone off the street is being chosen because of something of interest or their beauty and on both scores - ability to model/act and 'brand' they are unknown quantities. I am therefore suspicious of anyone who would approach them asking them if they had considered modelling. Unless it's a chat up line. And generally it is - it usually comes from guys who are not even gwcs let alone photographers. Most photographers know better. Not that they never see someone that would make a good model: but it has more to do with the way the woman moves, carries and projects herself, uses gesture etc. than her looks.

Beauty does not a model make. Of course you get the argument that yes but it's a help and then you can train anybody to model. Maybe but that takes a lot of work. I dare say you could train a monkey to be a waitress but why would you want to? So you can pay peanuts? In the end the time spent training the monkey has a cost value so why not just employ a good waitress with experience? Unless of course it's the novelty value. I think some photographers may like the idea of them 'discovering' the girl on the street and hoping they will get the credit for training the monkey.

For the most part I think it fairly innocent having said all that. Photographers are likely to be attracted to beautiful things because they have a sensitivity to them as creatives. But see them as subjects not models. Like a beautiful landscape or butterfly. If their beauty is what has made you notice them it is fine to want to shoot them but why try to change them into something else? You don't train the landscape or the butterfly to be somethintg else you capture it as a subject in its own right. So if you see a girl in the street you are drawn to shoot remember that and approach it that way.
'I'd love to shoot you' will go down better from her point of view and yours than 'have you ever thought about modelling'. Unless the girl is not all there she will know that modelling actually involves work and a learned craft.

MC Photo wrote:
No you didn't get the point. The purpose of the large breast example was hyperbolic to make a point, not advice on what to go say. I have no interest in photographing anyone for their breast size, do you?

I did get your point.  My reading comprehension is quite good.  (perhaps my writing is not?)  But I do disagree with some of your points.  And no, I would not specifically photograph a woman (or man) based solely on their breast size.

Most notably I still don't believe that approaching a woman and talking about her breasts during the first minute of the conversation is going to result in her willing to be photographed.  Perhaps it will work for you, I highly doubt it would work for me, and I would not suggest it to others.

I have no issue in being honest about most things when you approach a stranger about being photographed.  The previous example of wanting to photograph an interesting pair of shoes seems perfectly fine to me.  I have often seen a woman on the street wearing a great outfit that I would like to have photographed and would have told them so had I approached them.

I don't have a problem telling a woman she has a beautiful smile, or great eyes.  I personally draw the line at commenting on those body parts that most people see as sexual - at least during the first contact.  I believe they would walk away before I had a chance to let them know enough about me to consider the idea of being photographed. 

It's my opinion as someone who is NOT a woman that most women would be offended by that.  Even if it was done in a polite and frank way.  Certainly I have read a number of posts by models on this site that complain about how photographers "compliment" them on their body parts.  If women who are, or want to be, models complain about a photographer saying you have nice breasts, how is the average woman on the street going to react?

Ultimately when I see a stranger that I think would be a great subject (yes I used that word here, I still probably wouldn't when I talk to a stranger) it's almost never about a single feature.  It is about the entire package, from what they are wearing to their overall demeanor, and of course their physical attributes.  For me the most honest thing to say is that I like their look, perhaps phrased a bit differently.

Had your original post talked about telling a woman she has fabulous red hair then I probably would not have said anything.  I think the H-cup breast example was a poor one, and I doubt you would actually use that approach. 

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Matt Knowles wrote:

If I only relied on MM models, I'd have to remove 22 of the 30 photos in my portfolio (including all of my most popular images). I have generally found random women to be a far more reliable source of models than MM. What MM is over-saturated with is women who show up, post 4 crappy photos, list paid jobs only, and then disappear when the world doesn't beat a path to their door.

+1

Eliza C wrote:
I was following this with interest and agree with much of it.

However I am not following the last bit: not sure what your point is.

I can see you are saying that Dean Johnson is a 'brand' - and that companies who use here are associating with that.  But she has come to that stage because she is an exceptional llama. The 'real' Dean Johnson may be an A-list celeb you'd want at an event. She can also look pretty plain and even drained in real life. She is also associated with drugs etc which has lost her llamaling contracts. And gained her some. That is all part of who she is. But she most certainly llamas and that is why she is where she is and who she is. Yes an aspect of her identity is what is being conveyed for association between the brands.

That is the premier league: footballers at that level too become a 'brand' but they are that because they can play football. As in football the vast majority of professionals work in far lower leagues but they are still being paid to play football. That is the case on MM. Plenty of photographers and llamas here being paid to shoot fashion sometimes. Even at a low level sometimes 'brand' comes into it. There are many llamas here shooting the odd fashion ads because of their 'brand' too. Take for example a lingerie company using an MM llama who is also known for her burlesque: they want that 'brand' association because she is known to the company's target audience. So I think many llamas nuture their own 'brand' and get work because of it. But they still have the ability to llama. I did two fashion ads last week. One where the photographer chose me because of my ability to llama but also I think he thought my image (brand) would suit the brand and their target audience;  the other because the designer wanted me definitely because of my 'brand' (I am known to ladies who go horse racing and get a lot of media attention).

So not sure how that 'brand' thing fits into the thrust of your argument most of which I agree with. Because we all nuture our 'brand' via our various niches in the lower divisions. Maybe that even supports your argument on a deeper level I am not sure.

But yes it is also my assertion that someone off the street is being chosen because of something of interest or their beauty and on both scores - ability to llama/act and 'brand' they are unknown quantities. I am therefore suspicious of anyone who would approach them asking them if they had considered llamaling. Unless it's a chat up line. And generally it is - it usually comes from guys who are not even gwcs let alone photographers. Most photographers know better. Not that they never see someone that would make a good llama: but it has more to do with the way the woman moves, carries and projects herself, uses gesture etc. than her looks.

Beauty does not a llama make. Of course you get the argument that yes but it's a help and then you can train anybody to llama. Maybe but that takes a lot of work. I dare say you could train a monkey to be a waitress but why would you want to? So you can pay peanuts? In the end the time spent training the monkey has a cost value so why not just employ a good waitress with experience? Unless of course it's the novelty value. I think some photographers may like the idea of them 'discovering' the girl on the street and hoping they will get the credit for training the monkey.

For the most part I think it fairly innocent having said all that. Photographers are likely to be attracted to beautiful things because they have a sensitivity to them as creatives. But see them as subjects not llamas. Like a beautiful landscape or butterfly. If their beauty is what has made you notice them it is fine to want to shoot them but why try to change them into something else? You don't train the landscape or the butterfly to be somethintg else you capture it as a subject in its own right. So if you see a girl in the street you are drawn to shoot remember that and approach it that way.
'I'd love to shoot you' will go down better from her point of view and yours than 'have you ever thought about llamaling'. Unless the girl is not all there she will know that llamaling actually involves work and a learned craft.

I think everything you've said about her being a brand is true, but I was talking about what she literally does. She is herself. That's not to say that she's the same every time, she's more than one thing, but you're getting her the person in front of the camera.

Regarding Kate, I think I'm looking at a narrower picture of llamaing process and you're looking at the bigger picture of her llamaing career. Since there's really no definition of Dean Johnson as a verb, either one could be considered correct.

I think were very much on the same page as far as what you've written in your last big paragraph.

Azimuth Arts wrote:

I did get your point.  My reading comprehension is quite good.  (perhaps my writing is not?)  But I do disagree with some of your points.  And no, I would not specifically photograph a woman (or man) based solely on their breast size.

Most notably I still don't believe that approaching a woman and talking about her breasts during the first minute of the conversation is going to result in her willing to be photographed.  Perhaps it will work for you, I highly doubt it would work for me, and I would not suggest it to others.

I have no issue in being honest about most things when you approach a stranger about being photographed.  The previous example of wanting to photograph an interesting pair of shoes seems perfectly fine to me.  I have often seen a woman on the street wearing a great outfit that I would like to have photographed and would have told them so had I approached them.

I don't have a problem telling a woman she has a beautiful smile, or great eyes.  I personally draw the line at commenting on those body parts that most people see as sexual - at least during the first contact.  I believe they would walk away before I had a chance to let them know enough about me to consider the idea of being photographed. 

It's my opinion as someone who is NOT a woman that most women would be offended by that.  Even if it was done in a polite and frank way.  Certainly I have read a number of posts by models on this site that complain about how photographers "compliment" them on their body parts.  If women who are, or want to be, models complain about a photographer saying you have nice breasts, how is the average woman on the street going to react?

Ultimately when I see a stranger that I think would be a great subject (yes I used that word here, I still probably wouldn't when I talk to a stranger) it's almost never about a single feature.  It is about the entire package, from what they are wearing to their overall demeanor, and of course their physical attributes.  For me the most honest thing to say is that I like their look, perhaps phrased a bit differently.

Had your original post talked about telling a woman she has fabulous red hair then I probably would not have said anything.  I think the H-cup breast example was a poor one, and I doubt you would actually use that approach. 

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Good lord, you don't get it. There's no such thing has H cup breasts, so it's not a real example, and should be obvious that it's a metaphor for the thing that sticks out to whoever is doing the asking. That and the fact that I clarified it for you.

I can tell you for a certainty that interacting with someone who has a physical quality that's distinctly different from everyone else and acting like the difference is not a bad thing provokes a profoundly different reaction. They will be more comfortable with you and they're often intrigued. It's like the opposite of saying to a 6'2" woman "Wow, you're tall."

I can't tell you how many times I've experienced this. I wish I could remember more specific examples. The second to last time I was in LA, I ended up in a conversation with two guys on the street. I think they were both in the country illegally. One had clearly been hit in the head with a meat cleaver and had skull damage and a nasty scar, and pretty much had no choice but to keep his head shaved. He was so unused to people not making a big deal of it that he actually asked me why I wasn't making a big deal of it.

People are worried about others' reactions to things they are self-conscious about, which are often their differences. By definition it's people's differences that draw us to specific people. We can be drawn by similarities to ourselves or other people we like, but it's the differences from the crowd that make us notice them.

Directness and genuine interest demonstrate that lack of reaction. Maybe what I'm calling reaction is actually judgement.

Let's modify the terms I used and use either "H cup breasts that are obviously a made up fake example" or "differences that make someone stand out".

We're talking in the abstract, so there's no point in specifying something. Red hair or H cup breast have no difference in meaning in a hypothetical discussion. It's like the term "widgets" in economics.

Feel free to keep arguing with a fake example, but you're focusing on the wrong part of the post.

Azimuth Arts wrote:
Certainly I have read a number of posts by models on this site that complain about how photographers "compliment" them on their body parts.  If women who are, or want to be, models complain about a photographer saying you have nice breasts, how is the average woman on the street going to react?

This is a key point - I'm 99% sure that I didn't say compliment, I said explain why you want to shoot them. Even keeping this stupid breast example going, there should have been nothing that suggested I was saying go up to someone and say "Nice tits can I photograph them." I was saying tell them that you want to photograph them (the person) and explain why, whatever it is.

At the same time, I do think that anyone who'd say something like that, should as it will show the person what type of person you are.

Now my first thought is that only a "creep" would say that and it would reveal them as a creep and the answer would be no.

But really it probably truly does reveal who you are and someone who's genuinely not a creep wouldn't sound like a creep.

I guarantee you if Antonin Kratochvil walk up to a woman and said "Nice tits can I photograph them?" there are a lot who'd say yes. There are others he'd say "Hey man, your breasts are so beautiful, I would like to take this camera, which is ugly and not as beautiful as your breasts, and photograph them and make a beautiful print the size of my living room wall so that I can stare at them all day long." and they'd go for it, because his personality comes through and as crude an inappropriate as he is, he's still charming and people understand him - not always fully, but enough to make an informed decision.

When you hesitate, or withhold even a small bit of the truth, that suggests that you feel there's something wrong with what you're asking and that will get you a "no" because you're telling them that if they knew the real truth of why you're asking they'd say no.

If you go up to the mythical H cup woman and say "You, as a whole, interest me. I'd like to make your portrait." she's not going to believe that you want to photograph her for a reason other than her breasts, and that means you've given her a reason to doubt everything you say.

Going up to the mythical H cup woman and discussing her breasts is in no way similar to doing the same with other 99.999999999....% of the women in the world.


The ultimate point is if you go up to someone and are yourself and unhesitatingly honest, what should happen, will - and some cases should be a no.

MC Photo wrote:
Good lord, you don't get it. There's no such thing has H cup breasts...

I wasn't gonna get involved in this thread.

Not that it's all that relevant, but yes, ther are H cups - and not just in Europe and Japan sizes.

You can guy bras with US standard L cups in these 12 styles at... wait for it... JCPenney.

http://www.jcpenney.com/dotcom/women/ca … 4294965934

And according to this site, you can buy bras with US standard cup sizes up to Size O. (That's oh, not zero.)

http://www.herroom.com/full-figure-bra- … 05,30.html

Not taking sides here. I'm just sayin'...

Eliza C wrote:
Most women get asked this question a lot whether they are models or not and whether they are beautiful or not. Most of those asking it are not photographers. It's a hit on. And that is the way it will be perceived.

Most men cannot begin to understand the praise and attention women receive.

rp_photo wrote:
Most men cannot begin to understand the praise and attention women receive.

I think I can begin to understand the attention women get.  About 15 years ago, I set up a female account on a website.  I was 28 at the time, but the female account was "14".  I didn't seek anyone out ... just created a profile.  Within 5 minutes, offers started coming in for people wanting to have sex with "me", send me money for nude pictures, etc etc.  The funny/sad/sick part was that not all the people sending these requests were men (or at least they didn't claim to be men) and they were willing to send me thousands of dollars to "go see them".

  Soon after, I deleted that account.  I still don't get why women get angry sometimes if someone says "hello", but I do understand how inappropriate and persistent people are or can be.