I think it's a waste. This is "Model Mayhem" not "Landscape Cataclysm".
This.
Photographers are here to be judged on their model photographing skills, not their landscapes stuffs skills. I remember one of my models showing me pictures taken by a guy who usually does landscape photography, and complaining about how crap they were...
Photographers are here to be judged on their model photographing skills, not their landscapes stuffs skills. I remember one of my models showing me pictures taken by a guy who usually does landscape photography, and complaining about how crap they were...
I laugh whenever I see remarks like these. I include some landscapes in this port, because I like them, and they remind me daily of the awesomeness of nature. Whether anyone else likes them or not isn't important to me, and I'm comfortable enough at this stage of my career that I don't care what most MM'ers think of my photography, either. I've been there and done that, and long since moved beyond it.
Personally, I think a few landscapes in (in my case) a second port shows a diversity of skills, they are examples of the control of natural light, and, in some cases, they are how I scout locations for my model shoots. For those who understand the significance, they relate very closely to the model work I show on MM.
I laugh whenever I see remarks like these. I include some landscapes in this port, because I like them, and they remind me daily of the awesomeness of nature. Whether anyone else likes them or not isn't important to me, and I'm comfortable enough at this stage of my career that I don't care what most MM'ers think of my photography, either. I've been there and done that, and long since moved beyond it.
Personally, I think a few landscapes in (in my case) a second port shows a diversity of skills, they are examples of the control of natural light, and, in some cases, they are how I scout locations for my model shoots. For those who understand the significance, they relate very closely to the model work I show on MM.
Those who don't like them, simply need not look.
This.......I also have some in my portfolio not model related, but it does show diversity in my works.
I laugh whenever I see remarks like these. I include some landscapes in this port, because I like them, and they remind me daily of the awesomeness of nature. Whether anyone else likes them or not isn't important to me, and I'm comfortable enough at this stage of my career that I don't care what most MM'ers think of my photography, either. I've been there and done that, and long since moved beyond it.
Personally, I think a few landscapes in (in my case) a second port shows a diversity of skills, they are examples of the control of natural light, and, in some cases, they are how I scout locations for my model shoots. For those who understand the significance, they relate very closely to the model work I show on MM.
Photographers are here to be judged on their model photographing skills, not their landscapes stuffs skills. I remember one of my models showing me pictures taken by a guy who usually does landscape photography, and complaining about how crap they were...
Yes, my sole purpose in life and my motivation for photography is to make others such as yourself happy and do my best at choosing the images that you find acceptable.
Photographers are here for many reasons...not just the reasons you think they should be.
If you don't like landscape, or pet, or children, or male nudes, or autos, or product photography, or any other content than models, wonderful. Don't look. But don't tell others what they should be here for.
It must be difficult putting up with all these people who don't think like you.
Valenten Photography wrote: I remember one of my models showing me pictures taken by a guy who usually does landscape photography, and complaining about how crap they were...
I remember one of MY models (a mountain) telling me about all the uninspiring photographers who would perform Suicide Girls shoots in front of her. She commented how they should expand their horizons.
Probably not so useful in mass as it would seem to avoid the point. But hey, you never know when a model is going to get tired of greenscreen and go looking for someone who can competently shoot her/him in nature.
I have 2 landscape paintings in my port, and they serve a valuable purpose.
I love to "comment for comment", and having a couple of landscape paintings in a port full of nude figure paintings lets those models that do not like to comment on nudes an alternative to comment on.
Photographers are here to be judged on their model photographing skills, not their landscapes stuffs skills. I remember one of my models showing me pictures taken by a guy who usually does landscape photography, and complaining about how crap they were...
Many of the truly outstanding fashion photos featured in the magazines that deal with that miniscule segment of the photo industry actually pose their models (and their garments) in front of outstanding scenery. Maybe those magazine editors forgot to ask your "model" what she thought about that. I'm sure they will not forget to do that in the future, right?
It can illustrate photographic competence for the model, especially if the photographer has an expertise in something beyond people related photography.
Now whether that competence can be incorporated or be useful for that specific model, Lord only knows.
Photographers are here to be judged on their model photographing skills, not their landscapes stuffs skills. I remember one of my models showing me pictures taken by a guy who usually does landscape photography, and complaining about how crap they were...
"Working photographers earn a living by making (and keeping) their clients happy. They don't seek approval of other photographers because, quite frankly, that doesn't pay the bills." - P.L.
I laugh whenever I see remarks like these. I include some landscapes in this port, because I like them, and they remind me daily of the awesomeness of nature. Whether anyone else likes them or not isn't important to me, and I'm comfortable enough at this stage of my career that I don't care what most MM'ers think of my photography, either. I've been there and done that, and long since moved beyond it.
Personally, I think a few landscapes in (in my case) a second port shows a diversity of skills, they are examples of the control of natural light, and, in some cases, they are how I scout locations for my model shoots. For those who understand the significance, they relate very closely to the model work I show on MM.
Those who don't like them, simply need not look.
Well it depends on whether you're using MM for networking and finding new models or not. You're here to show you're good at portraits. Putting other pictures is the aim of a website.
Many of the truly outstanding fashion photos featured in the magazines that deal with that miniscule segment of the photo industry actually pose their models (and their garments) in front of outstanding scenery. Maybe those magazine editors forgot to ask your "model" what she thought about that. I'm sure they will not forget to do that in the future, right?
You misunderstood me (i think). The guy was taking good pictures of landscapes, and he wanted to shoot with her. But eventually the picts turned out crap. My point is that the skills to take great landscapes are not the same than for models. Not sure to follow you...
Hero Foto wrote: "Working photographers earn a living by making (and keeping) their clients happy. They don't seek approval of other photographers because, quite frankly, that doesn't pay the bills." - P.L.
Bah, I'm just answering the question of this topic. I believe it's more interesting to show portraits pictures than model pictures on a model website. However, maybe some people have some "marketing strategies" that include posting landscape pictures. I don't really care, I just think it does not correspond to the modelling niche...
Edit : so yeah, in other words and as I won't be taken for the guy who's sure his thoughts are the only true ones : I don't have a BIG problem with this, but I believe it's irrelevant to this website. It's obviously up to the photographer to take the decision, I am just saying that I have a negative point of view regarding this topic's question
I really don't see the point of landscapes in your port. If your model images don't prove you can shoot then tossing in a landscape isn't going to help. I treat it the same way you would a printed portfolio. Models, landscapes, comercial, whatever as separate books. Also, if you only have a basic account why waste a slot with a landscape?
Natural Means
Posts: 287
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Yum Yum Photo wrote: I think photographer like to argue......
No we don't! :-)
Thanks for thoughts - the question was really aimed at those that have decided to include landscapes, and there was some useful perspective - many thanks.
Natural Means wrote: Do you find much interest in the photis from MM and do you think it helps with networking?
Cheers
:-)
Most shots in my portfolio have landscapes in them, but they're artistic nudes shot with rocks or a waterfall or shadow-and-light patterns. And yes, I get a lot of interest. Occassionally it's "wow, I'd like to shoot at that spot, where is it?" (from photographers or models) to "gee, I love this work, let's shoot" or "cool backdrop".
But b/c this is MODEL mayhem, I don't put my abstract work in here, or old photojournalism work, or sports, or children's portraits, or anything that doesn't involve models.
Photographers are here to be judged on their model photographing skills, not their landscapes stuffs skills. I remember one of my models showing me pictures taken by a guy who usually does landscape photography, and complaining about how crap they were...
I swear...I don't look at the photos.. I'm just here to read the articles
As hard as it is to find a reliable model here on MM, I have, of late, been contemplating a foray into the world to seek out landscapes and the odd butterfly to photograph.:-)))
| 
| 
| edu