Bangerman wrote:
I'm not a pro photographer and Ive never shot anyone other than family members. So can someone enlighten me to why so many models have photos that are copyrighted to a photographer but are of such poor photographic quality that I woudnt put them in a scrapbook let alone put my name of them.

Some of them actually look like they were shot in someones front room. Together with OCFlash, washed out highlights and no dark details.

Why would a model show that kind on unflattering image when there must be many togs who have a decent setup and know what they were doing that would to a TFP/CD for them. Wont such bad picture's actually damage their career chances?

Some models do not have great photos to start with and they put up what they can get to show other photographers that they are at least trying. That way, at some point, maybe, a better photographer will come along who may work with them and get them better images.

This is the TFP portfolio way.....takes a longer time than just paying for a decent few pics, but this is the internet. So, cut them some slack.

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:

Some models do not have great photos to start with and they put up what they can get to show other photographers that they are at least trying. That way, at some point, maybe, a better photographer will come along who may work with them and get them better images.

This is the TFP portfolio way.....takes a longer time than just paying for a decent few pics, but this is the internet. So, cut them some slack.

baaaaaaammm

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
So, cut them some slack.

I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I was just asking because I didnt know.

Bangerman wrote:

I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I was just asking because I didnt know.

I know. But there are numerous similar threads opened. This is a subject that is discussed often. I was just giving you a hard time.

But seriously. Most don't realize the value of actually showing that you are serious, by providing a good starter portfolio. It's like going for a job interview: you look your best, your resume is in order. I would never go into an interview in my pajamas or with my boyfriend next to me.

But I see what you are saying.

Bangerman wrote:
I'm not a pro photographer and Ive never shot anyone other than family members. So can someone enlighten me to why so many models have photos that are copyrighted to a photographer but are of such poor photographic quality that I woudnt put them in a scrapbook let alone put my name of them.

Some of them actually look like they were shot in someones front room. Together with OCFlash, washed out highlights and no dark details.

Why would a model show that kind on unflattering image when there must be many togs who have a decent setup and know what they were doing that would to a TFP/CD for them. Wont such bad picture's actually damage their career chances?

Bangerman, this website is truly a precarious place.  Being new, you will see things that amaze you, many things in fact.  You will see beautiful models, talented photographers and stunning, absolutely stunning photos. 

You will also see, webcam pics, cellphone pics and horribly amateur photos.  Some of these people evolve.  They work on their craft and you will watch them get better over time as they become more practiced and skillful.  i am one of those people.  I get more jobs and do much better work then my first photoshoot.  I get a chuckle out of how timid I look in my first shots!  You will also see "models" that just want their picture here because they want to say "i'm a model", the same for some "photographers".  Those people most likely aren't very interested in pursuing a career in this field.  It's more for the sport of it when they have a spare minute.

Suzi wrote:
They work on their craft and you will watch them get better over time as they become more practiced and skillful.  i am one of those people.  I get more jobs and do much better work then my first photoshoot.

You have a great folio.

Bangerman wrote:

You have a great folio.

thank you.  i went to your website.  the photo of the baby is priceless.

Suzi wrote:
the photo of the baby is priceless.

Thank you, She (Maria) is wonderful.

shelly1982 wrote:
***whistles***

I love your shot "shadows".

Bangerman wrote:
Would a Model and Photographer have a different idea of a good starting portfolio or do you think they view things in the same way?

They should view things the same way. But I think in general, new photographers are more inclined to look at the work of their piers to get an idea of what they need, while many beginning models don't spend the time to look at what others are doing.

Jay Dezelic wrote:

They should view things the same way. But I think in general, new photographers are more inclined to look at the work of their piers to get an idea of what they need, while many beginning models don't spend the time to look at what others are doing.

Piers? As in on the beach piers? Or perhaps....peers, like fellows? I'm confused

(scratches head)

Can't figure out why a model or photographer would look at piers.....as an example of what to achieve.....OH I GET IT. Aaaaaahhhh....you had me there for a minute....


Just kidding, Jay Dezelic. I wanted to have fun this morning. Thank you.

Bangerman wrote:

I love your shot "shadows".

awww cheers hun...

I feel sometimes that my portfolio is crap but i have the odd few piccies that I am rather proud of. I don't have access to stylists etc.. I am a poor career woman with a rather large interest in far too many shoes so my budget for artistic directors stylists and good photographers goes to "faith shoestore" hahaha

Bangerman wrote:
Would a Model and Photographer have a different idea of a good starting portfolio or do you think they view things in the same way?

A photog and a model want different portfolios

There are two exceptions that come to mind:

- Tearsheets
a tearsheet is a tearsheet, there's not one for the photog and one for the model and others for the stylists...

- A photog who wants to specialize in building model portfolios, then that photog's portfolio will look similar to a model's (only with lots of different models

A model's portfolio needs to show the model, the photog's portfolio needs to show great photos...that is the slight difference sometimes that means just tighter cropping for the model's book

As far as a model not paying for a book, just as a photographer needs many different models in their book, a model needs many different looks (and usually photographers bc each is unique ) in their book, so there is not a "one stop shoot Walmart" for a model's book...And the experience that comes with that. A model can not buy a "real" portfolio. Plus the photos are only good for so long (sometimes that's six weeks), it's not like a photog buying a camera or a MUA buying a kit (those last way longer than six weeks).

You can always find someone who will take your money.

If no one will shoot you for "free" (TFP) with your clothes on, that says something about the model potential

Models should invest their money on their craft - which often means bumping up the work out routine, salon visits, stop playing soccer and gardening so you have pretty nails and no bruises, etc This is a business, you have to make an investment, but many don't realize the continuous investment models make (and no I don't mean buying a portfolio).

Sara Green wrote:
A photog and a model want different portfolios

There are two exceptions that come to mind:

- Tearsheets
a tearsheet is a tearsheet, there's not one for the photog and one for the model and others for the stylists...

- A photog who wants to specialize in building model portfolios, then that photog's portfolio will look similar to a model's (only with lots of different models

A model's portfolio needs to show the model, the photog's portfolio needs to show great photos...that is the slight difference sometimes that means just tighter cropping for the model's book

Thanks for the direct and helpful response.

I love the two BW shots you have, especially the second, thats somthing else...

Bangerman wrote:
I'm not a pro photographer and Ive never shot anyone other than family members. So can someone enlighten me to why so many models have photos that are copyrighted to a photographer but are of such poor photographic quality that I woudnt put them in a scrapbook let alone put my name of them.

Some of them actually look like they were shot in someones front room. Together with OCFlash, washed out highlights and no dark details.

Why would a model show that kind on unflattering image when there must be many togs who have a decent setup and know what they were doing that would to a TFP/CD for them. Wont such bad picture's actually damage their career chances?

Just remember every thing is relative.  I’m sure a number of models look at my port and can’t stop laughing.  Most models at this point don’t have a career and are just trying to get their first shoot.

Ivan123 wrote:
Any good photographer should be more interested in the raw material than in what some OTHER photographer and makeup artist and photoshop manipulation have done.  It is a sad state if I can't recognize a model's potential until someone else photographs her.

This is so right, it needed repeating.

Ivan123 wrote:
So a snapshot of a model in a bathing suit standing next to her boyfriend at the beach squinting into the sun might be an awful photo but provide enough information for me to decide whether I want to photograph her myself.  A breathtaking, compositionally flawless photo of her in an evening gown does not.

I agree. The purposes of a model's portfolio and a photographer's portfolio are different.

For a photographer, a couple of bad photos in their portfolio will ruin their credibility, and paint them as a rank amateur. Really good quality photos are critical to a photographer's portfolio, because it is the quality of their photography that they are promoting.

On the other hand, a model is promoting their appearance. Sure, good quality photos would be ideal. But it is less critical. A mediocre photo that clearly shows their face or body or whatever is better than nothing. And in fact may be better than a really fantastic art piece that is so dark you can't see what the model looks like (a photo like that may be great in a photographer's portfolio, but doesn't really help a model).

I also get the feeling that a lot of models don't always know a good photo from a mediocre one. They are primarily concerned with how the photo makes them look. If there is distracting elements in the background, and the composition isn't very good, and the lighting is drab, but the model has a killer smile, then to the model that is a good photo. There have been many occasions when I say the word "composition" to a model, and they look at me like I'm speaking a foreign language. Unless they have some education in photography, they may not know how to recognize the more subtle elements of a good photo.

On the other hand, when I see really abysmal webcam shots, or cheap digicam self-portraits shot with a flash in the bathroom mirror, then that just smacks of complete laziness or total lack of vision. I am very forgiving of models with mediocre photos, but I avoid models who can't do better than webcam shots.

Bangerman wrote:
I'm not a pro photographer and Ive never shot anyone other than family members. So can someone enlighten me to why so many models have photos that are copyrighted to a photographer but are of such poor photographic quality that I woudnt put them in a scrapbook let alone put my name of them.

Some of them actually look like they were shot in someones front room. Together with OCFlash, washed out highlights and no dark details.

Why would a model show that kind on unflattering image when there must be many togs who have a decent setup and know what they were doing that would to a TFP/CD for them. Wont such bad picture's actually damage their career chances?

Are you referring to yourself? I'm hearing a lot of huffing and puffing from a guy whose images fall right into this category.

EMG STUDIOS wrote:
Are you referring to yourself? I'm hearing a lot of huffing and puffing from a guy whose images fall right into this category.

Your a nice guy arn't you.

I have never phtographed a model, offered to show them on my website or build them a portfolio. I shoot for fun and have asked a question. At what point did you think getting personal and insulting would help.

I dont think that I've said that my images are hot, just that some imagas are very bad. They may not be up to your godlike standard but at least I'm not fooling anyone into thinking I'm gods gift to photography.

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
Can't figure out why a model or photographer would look at piers.....as an example of what to achieve.....OH I GET IT. Aaaaaahhhh....you had me there for a minute....

I constantly find myself looking at piers...especially after a hurricane comes through...

- Denoy

Bangerman wrote:
I dont think that I've said that my images are hot, just that some imagas are very bad. They may not be up to your godlike standard but at least I'm not fooling anyone into thinking I'm gods gift to photography.

The "models" in question...most of them don't think their pictures are "hot."  Naw...they think THEY are "HOT."  At least, "HOT" enough to start charging to be photographed even when they don't have any "professional" pictures.

And believe it or not...some of them actually, DO get paid requests...

Regards,

Denoy

P.S.

A photographer, on the other hand, who has "not so hot" images in their portfolio will seldom (if ever?) get paid to photograph someone.  They may even find it hard to get models to work with them for free.  They may even end up hiring those "HOT" models with crappy pics.