WIP wrote:
Who do you think supplies the shoes on an Vogue editorial ?
Who do you think does the styling for a PB center spread ?

lol...frankly, it's a non-discussion... it's the final image that would have the gallery-quality....or other meta-qualities

(btw if the shoe doesn't fit in the final combination, then it's taken out...simple)


Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

John Fisher wrote:
(By the way, if you get to shoot incredibly beautiful models, people think you are a good photographer. That's my plan, and I'm sticking to it!)

I would argue this is actually true.

BillyVegas wrote:

I would argue this is actually true.

a) he would get into trouble if he would have to work with more moderate models...so would his "clients"
b) model takes all credit, he could have been a traffic-light camera :p

Herman
www.hermanvangestel.com

BillyVegas wrote:
I would argue this is actually true.

Terence Donovan said something along the same lines;

' bad photographer look average and a good photographer look.... etc' in regards to beautiful models.

Julian  W I L D E wrote:
The fact is, I'm called a Fashion Photographer and .....

lol   wut?

John Fisher wrote:
(By the way, if you get to shoot incredibly beautiful models, people think you are a good photographer. That's my plan, and I'm sticking to it!)

Works for me!

And I've shot noods and some glam.  Not sure I'm going to post it here any time soon.

Joseph Peffer wrote:
My first shoot was with playboy model, so I know from experience. Most fashion guys today started in the same seat I did, and many did before them. Its nothing to bash, each style is different, all you have to do is shoot it really good, and people will see through the genre and focus on the image itself. The saturation of mediocrity however is what has really killed "glamour".

You are making some sweeping generalizations that are really questionable in my opinion. IF you are claiming that 'most fashion guys' today started in glamour, I would ask what are you basing this on? I would suggest that it is patently wrong. I don't know if you are confusing Model Mayhem with the actual industry or what, but I don't see a clear line of succession from glamour to fashion.

Personally, my path was the opposite. I was shooting fashion for years before incorporating glamour into the scope of what I do. Taking a broader view, however, you will find that there are fewer opportunities for paid work in glamour than fashion. That is certainly part of the reason that fashion agencies are less enthusiastic to work with strictly glamour photographers. It is just simply less useful for them than professional level fashion photos. Even if you include swim and lingerie into glamour (as opposed to fashion), the amount of fashion work still dwarfs the amount of paid glamour work.

I suggest learning more about all of the aspects of professional photography and modeling before making such specific proclamations about how the industry works.

Joseph Peffer wrote:
You can shoot both but yes, separate the two. I shoot all styles, but I won't show my work with playboy models or glam models on a site for fashion and editorial agency work. Fact: Most playmates now and almost all playboy catalogs now use agency models. Elite and Wilhelmina have a lot on their roster who have done playboy. So that eliminates the whole "agency girls don't do glamour" rumor.

What?  Not sure how you came to this conclusion.  PB still prefers undiscovered models and not signed working agency models.

In fact the current PMOTM is here on MM, #3110204 as a freelance model.