Grayscale Photo wrote:
No.  You're as good as you are, no better and no worse, independent of the model you shoot.  A good model, especially if she's attractive, will cover up a lot of mediocre photography... at least for the casual observer.

That may indeed be the case, objectively speaking, if you could ever judge images of people without taking account of the attractiveness/marketability of the models at all.

However, most people who "assess" photographers are really no more than your 'casual observers' so the sight of Dean Johnson or Gisele Bundchen in a photographer's portfolio will immediately indicate to them that he must be worth considering, even if they don't personally see much to like in his work.

Conversely, a "fashion" photographer who shoots only 200lb middle-aged non-Caucasian women will NOT be shooting for Vogue or CK anytime soon regardless of the quality of the pictures.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Grayscale Photo wrote:
If you go over to the Critique forum and give feedback to photographers by purposely ignoring the attractiveness of the model when making your judgements, you'll be in a tiny minority.  It just means most people aren't judging the photography that closely, not that it's all good.

I think my point was the fact that we ultimately all aim to achieve an attractive image. Unfortunately an attractive model poorly shot will always triumph over a technically brilliant shot of a mediocre model. (Just look at the comments) (sad but true?) lets not fool ourselves... An attractive model sells.

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"

Garry k wrote:
So ( in looking at your avatar ) Is Fujifilm one of your clients ?

My avatar is my main product, not my client...
It is me, being just as weird as I am.

I said I sell direct, so I have to sell myself as much as I sell my "images"
My clients are just as concerned with WHO is taking the images as the images themselves.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Conversely, a "fashion" photographer who shoots only 200lb middle-aged non-Caucasian women will NOT be shooting for Vogue or CK anytime soon regardless of the quality of the pictures.

If a Vogue editor is really on his or her game, he (or she) would see the underlying talent and skill of an awesome photographer shooting 200lb middle-aged non-Caucasion women and realize the magic than can happen by hooking up the photographer with a Dean Johnson.  Of course that's an extreme hypothetical case.

But consider an average MM photographer and a top-flight published professional fashion photographer each shooting Dean Johnson.  Joe MM Photographer is going to come out with some great looking photographs but they won't hold a candle to photos from Mr. Top-Flight.

Neil Templar wrote:
I think my point was the fact that we ultimately all aim to achieve an attractive image. Unfortunately an attractive model poorly shot will always triumph over a technically brilliant shot of a mediocre model. (Just look at the comments) (sad but true?) lets not fool ourselves... An attractive model sells.

What you say is true, but the question was whether an attractive model makes you a better photographer.  Certainly you'll get more positive comments and feedback, but that's a judgement about the image, not the photographer's skills.  There could be a high correlation between the positive feedback for the image and the photographer's skills or it could just be a hot model.

Grayscale Photo wrote:
If a Vogue editor is really on his or her game, he (or she) would see the underlying talent and skill of an awesome photographer shooting 200lb middle-aged non-Caucasion women and realize the magic than can happen by hooking up the photographer with a Dean Johnson.

That will never, ever, ever happen, unless you are already famous for shooting something other than fashion. 

"Never, ever?"

Never. Ever.

You won't even get the Booker's permission to shoot the new girls...

Once again there is a disconnect between the various factions that make up MM.  So the only answer that really is applicable, since we don't know what the OP is trying to accomplish with his imagery is:

It depends.

Grayscale Photo wrote:
What you say is true, but the question was whether an attractive model makes you a better photographer.  Certainly you'll get more positive comments and feedback, but that's a judgement about the image, not the photographer's skills.  There could be a high correlation between the positive feedback for the image and the photographer's skills or it could just be a hot model.

I think it was partly a sad realisation that ultimately our skills sometimes tend to take a bit of a 'back seat' as we all (male and female) prefer to look at an attractive model (even if we have to squint a bit to see them).

Grayscale Photo wrote:
If a Vogue editor is really on his or her game, he (or she) would see the underlying talent and skill of an awesome photographer shooting 200lb middle-aged non-Caucasion women and realize the magic than can happen by hooking up the photographer with a Dean Johnson.  Of course that's an extreme hypothetical case.

But consider an average MM photographer and a top-flight published professional fashion photographer each shooting Dean Johnson.  Joe MM Photographer is going to come out with some great looking photographs but they won't hold a candle to photos from Mr. Top-Flight.

LOL they don't have time to waste on photographers who don't know what a agency model should look like.  Honestly you would be lucky to get approve to test for a decent agency without a book full of good models.

GoldRoseMedia wrote:
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.

Thank you...my thoughts exactly.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
That may indeed be the case, objectively speaking, if you could ever judge images of people without taking account of the attractiveness/marketability of the models at all.

However, most people who "assess" photographers are really no more than your 'casual observers' so the sight of Dean Johnson or Gisele Bundchen in a photographer's portfolio will immediately indicate to them that he must be worth considering, even if they don't personally see much to like in his work.

Conversely, a "fashion" photographer who shoots only 200lb middle-aged non-Caucasian women will NOT be shooting for Vogue or CK anytime soon regardless of the quality of the pictures.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

NO ONE gets more out of a model than you do. Sure your models are all beautiful...but the emotion you get is unreal.
I make every new model I shoot with look at your work and what you do with the models.

BTW..thanks for making me feel like I suck every day :p

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Conversely, a "fashion" photographer who shoots only 200lb middle-aged non-Caucasian women will NOT be shooting for Vogue or CK anytime soon regardless of the quality of the pictures.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Do you think Vogue would be more accepting of a photographer who shoots only 200 lb middle aged caucasion women

?

Grayscale Photo wrote:
The 200lb middle-aged non-Caucasion model wasn't my hypothetical.  I merely extended the hypothetical to point out good photography skills can be demonstrated independent of the quality of the model.  Of course, Vogue isn't going to beat the bushes for such photographers when scads of good photographers with portfolios of great looking models are available to them.

Exactly, but why photographers interested in pursuing that line of work need to learn to cast correctly for their portfolio building.

Rick OBanion Photo wrote:
Well..of every amazing picture of a beautiful girll..how often, if ever, do you hear someone say...Wow, she's gorgeous, who took the picture?

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you

That's (unfortunately) what I'm talking about!

Neil Templar wrote:

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you

That's ( unfortunately) what I'm talking about!

The same is true for all pics...landscape, wildlife..
Sure I recognize Kens work and Stefanos work and maybe Natalias edits when I see them, but only because I get exposed to this end.

terrysphotocountry wrote:
We are only as good as we can make people look.

This is close to what I was thinking.  If the model doesn't compliment your work, it's up to you to bring her around to where she will.

-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.

I read the entire thread but had to come back to this post because he hits on a very important point.

How good you are and how good you are perceived are two totally different things.  Brunesci is totally correct.  An agency is going to judge you by the talent you have worked with, at least in part.  If you are shooting known, respected and recognized models, that will draw more attention than if you shot a gorgeous model off the net.

On the other hand, I have to be good no matter who I shoot.  Many a time I have gone to the set, only to discover that the model the client picked really wasn't as good as they thought.  Sometimes they are pretty, but not photogenic.  Other times they are photogenic, but can't pose.  Some times they are just divas and can't be worked with at all, but I have to.

I don't get a pass because they model wasn't good.  I am expected to get the shot, no matter what the model is.  So, in my opinion, we are as good (or bad) as we are, no matter what models we work with.  On the other hand, no matter how good we are, the client may never notice because they won't know what it took to get them the shot they were entitled to.

Garry k wrote:
Do you think Vogue would be more accepting of a photographer who shoots only 200 lb middle aged caucasian women

Maybe. Any one of those attributes - weight, age, race - will mitigate against the work being acceptable to the mainstream, so if you remove one (any one) then it may help to make the work more marketable.

I find it disappointing that you singled out race as if somehow to imply that I personally may have an issue with it. They are all factors in an image's marketability. The fact that any of them is such is down to the need for fashion photography to serve advertising which in turn appeals to the population at large.

That population's choices may not always be my choices or your choices, but as fashion photographers we're somewhat lumbered with them if we wish to get ahead in the business. And to an extent that's what this entire thread is about. The OP is asking if the subject of the images will affect people's perception of a photographer's skill/worth, and the answer is of course "yes".

To take an even more extreme example - and let's leave race out of it as that seems to be a pet peeve of yours - try taking a portfolio of the most beautiful images of flowers imaginable into an agency booker and asking to test with some new faces. The sound of your ass hitting the sidewalk would only be slightly masked by the screams of derision from within.

Silly example? Of course, but I suspect you get the point: we are judged not only by how we shoot, but also by who we shoot. There's really no escaping it.


Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
Maybe. Any one of those attributes - weight, age, race - will mitigate against the work being acceptable to the mainstream, so if you remove one (any one) then it may help to make the work more marketable.

I find it disappointing that you singled out race as if somehow to imply that I personally may have an issue with it. They are all factors in an image's marketability. The fact that any of them is such is down to the need for fashion photography to serve advertising which in turn appeals to the population at large.

That population's choices may not always be my choices or your choices, but as fashion photographers we're somewhat lumbered with them if we wish to get ahead in the business. And to an extent that's what this entire thread is about. The OP is asking if the subject of the images will affect people's perception of a photographer's skill/worth, and the answer is of course "yes".

To take an even more extreme example - and let's leave race out of it as that seems to be a pet peeve of yours - try taking a portfolio of the most beautiful images of flowers imaginable into an agency booker and asking to test with some new faces. The sound of your ass hitting the sidewalk would only be slightly masked by the screams of derision from within.

Silly example? Of course, but I suspect you get the point: we are judged not only by how we shoot, but also by who we shoot. There's really no escaping it.


Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

As you know ( cus we have had this discussion a few times before Stefano) my only "peeve" concerns those folks in the industry ( including photographers ) who believe or try and perpetuate the belief that caucasion fashion models are better or more marketable than non caucasion models

I totally do not understand your "analogy " regarding flowers ( are you equating plants with people ? )

but I will say that I wish that I were a good enough fashion photographer to have a book filled with photos of Naomi Campbell , Jordan Dunn , Chanel Iman
Liu Wen, Du Juan and Sun Feifei and if i did - I am sure   no credible agency would turn down my request to shoot their new faces ( of any ethnicity )

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
However, most people who "assess" photographers are really no more than your 'casual observers' so the sight of Dean Johnson or Gisele Bundchen in a photographer's portfolio will immediately indicate to them that he must be worth considering, even if they don't personally see much to like in his work.

Sadly agree.

About the initial questions:

Are we only as good as our models?

Put aside the eventual presence of a specific market for a certain genres of images, experience model give you more probability to don't waste time since already known how pose and already comfortable at stay in front a camera, etc, so you can be sure at 100 % to obtain some nice shoot at the end of the day.
Inexperience model are initially more difficult, need more direction, etc. but when is present enthusiasm and will you could obtain the same some nice shoot.
My goal is to reduce the total number of shoot in favor of a higher percentage of good shots.

Garry k wrote:
My only "peeve" concerns those folks in the industry ( including photographers ) who believe or try and perpetuate the belief that caucasian fashion models are better or more marketable than non caucasian models

Better, no. More marketable, at the moment yes.

Marketability has nothing to do with good or bad, only with what people will pay for.

Garry k wrote:
I totally do not understand your "analogy " regarding flowers

Not an analogy - an extreme example. Beautiful photos of flowers could prove that you know how to use a camera, but they won't convince an agency booker to let you shoot their models. People are impressed by what they understand and by what they like. If they don't understand it, chances are they probably won't like it either and it certainly won't impress them. Show a booker a few rather crappy photos of Dean Johnson on the other hand and he/she will likely be only too happy to be impressed.

Garry k wrote:
I wish that I were a good enough fashion photographer to have a book filled with photos of Naomi Campbell, Jordan Dunn, Chanel Iman, Liu Wen, Du Juan and Sun Feifei and if i did - I am sure no credible agency would turn down my request to shoot their new faces ( of any ethnicity )

Probably true - but in such a scenario the names would be doing the persuading.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Imageography wrote:
I can only comment based on experience.

Before Mosh

- Moderate comments, little communication, a few tags here and there

After Mosh

- Lots of comments, emails asking about what it was like to shoot Mosh, a few more very decent commercial opportunities.

Maybe there is no direct correlation, but I think there is.

Man, thats the most depressing thing I read all week

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

No. That isn't a statement which works. A good photographer photographing a bad llama is still a good photographer. And vis-versa.

But it is true that the better person can make something extra of the shoot.

In general all the best fashion photos are created by a team of great people. Photographer, llama, MUAs, hair, stylist, perhaps a prop man and others.

Anyone of those people can be the downfall of a shoot.

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

Yes.

John
--
John Fisher
900 West Avenue, Suite 633
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

Cool... so if that's the case... how freakin AMAZING am I?!?!?!?... ...

Select Models wrote:

Cool... so if that's the case... how freakin AMAZING am I?!?!?!?... ...

you shot big boy...you win...(despite the photobomb from bikini chick)