Amelia Rouge wrote:
How about me?

I saw garish processing and your photos match your profile where you don't seem confident. You talk about hesitating because of all the beautiful models here. You're 4foot nine and you really look it on photos in full-length.

It's hard for you to match emotion to scene, to find the expression, and though some of the photos were just horribly processed by trainee butchers, still the common denominator in the mess is you and I thought I was looking at a nice human being who just should do something else.

You really have to learn your angles. You have to practice in front of a mirror. You have to turn up to shoots and give your best angles and expressions.

You could make it as an art nude or just a nude model but you have a lot of work to do. You are competing against some attractive models, gifted by God with major selling points. Respect it but don't be intimidated.

To make a living in photography is hard and if you're realistic, you'll stretch yourself, hit dance classes, (or something else that tones you) be in the best shape, and you'll have to charge for nudes. So, you have a lot of work to do clothed and naked.

$1000 per annum. Stop doing crack and meth. It means that you may have one really good shot in that portfolio, but, baby, you're in trouble.  Your car is about to get repossessed. See, sleeping in your car is not fun when they are towing you away. Put the pipe down!

Yes, if you put the dream pipe down you could make it as a nude model. And God help you if you don't put the pipe down.

LA StarShooter wrote:

Im game ...

tenrocK photo wrote:
Free money? I'll take it!

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/8218642 shows strength and weakness. I think you can frame and that you process like you have a big paint brush in your hand and you lather like its soap and you think you’re Van Gogh because the drugs you take are that good. But really Portrait Professional is for chumps. You’re not a chump and some of your work looks like its processed through Portrait Professional while you’re on LSD.

Lighting, let’s look at that. I saw a lot of harsh highlights which can occur because of processing or because you’re not modifying the light enough or you think you’ll modify it later in Portrait Professional. Please don’t tell me you use photoshop. I’ll start thinking north is south.

I hope you still have  raws of your photos. You have actually bagged some clients and I think if you worked on the processing you would bag more.

Here’s another one that shows what I’m talking about: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/5240675

And the face just looks overprocessed and a bit yucky. That was the impression that I got from your website even more than from MM. Your website horrified me. Zenfolio. I think you should consider another website. You’re at the level now where it is worth having a really good showcase.

A lot of us need to escape Zenfolio.

And we shouldn’t know it is Zenfolio at your level.

$40,000 GOOD:you're good, but we are flooded with good and how can you become great is the burning economic question.

You get that because I think you can compose and you do get work but your processing to me is holding you back.

Megan Camille wrote:
me please

Go to an agency in jeans and t-shirt. God carved you out of rock to be a fashion model but he didn't mean to place you in Hawaii and he apologises. He was inhaling some stardust and meant to drop you in New York or even Amsterdam, but hey, if you got the look. . ..

Your portfolio isn't that well shot.  It doesn't matter. You're just great.

Here: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/30492412

Processing? You'll power through it. The beauty of you cannot be stopped by you, nor can it be stopped by okay photographers, nor the bad, the ugly, the technically crippled, you are a star. An absolute bonafide diamond in. . . Hawaii. You're New York, You're Paris. You're Milan.

Okay. Get serious. You're in your prime right now. Go see an agency. You'll get work or North is South. The moon is the sun.

You-don't-know-who-you-are-but-could-be-legend-award. $75,000 per annum. Your first year may be rough but you can do runway and you just may be flying around the world soon, IF YOU WAKE UP RIGHT NOW.

LizaK wrote:
I got skipped..

Better to be skipped than to be squashed!  You're five seven. Pretty but you don't have posing and the art of expressing yourself down.

I didn't see anything really remarkable. Sometimes a remarkable model will defy unimaginative photographers. Cindy Crawford at 14 was Cindy Crawford at 14 and she's worth looking at, so you can see how some women, the very few have it, the modelling power that stops world and makes it go: "Oh, my, I am going to forget about what's in the oven and burn the pie. Oh, my." 

You need to glow, to burn through the lens and I didn't feel it. I think you need to practice posing, aiming for naturalistic but interesting ways to frame you and to really get down a whole bunch of expression and head angles that you can summon at will.

You don't do nudes, which leads me to this:

$1000 per annum.  Stop doing crack and meth. It means that you may have one really good shot in that portfolio, but, baby, you're in trouble.  Your car is about to get repossessed. See, sleeping in your car is not fun when they are towing you away. Put the pipe down!

You're not bad but you're not excelling and if you want to break into print modelling you have ferocious competition. Prepare better and maybe something good will happen.

Christina Sanchez wrote:
I'd really like to know.

You unemployed and I can't offer you a light, really, to show you the way out. Your 28. I didn't like what I saw: a woman trying to model who can't model. You can practice in front of a mirror and you can get better but you can't change physics and you're look is only good for nudes. Sorry.

That's what you'll have to do and you'll have to do it a lot better than what you're doing in clothes.

Which leads me to this tragic conclusion:

Staying in clothes will be your ruin as a model.

$500 Homeless-stop-begging award. It means that your work would have a tough time doing well here and you might become homeless. Come on, you're homeless, admit it.

Modelling is a tough business. You have to do better than this. Much better.

Alicia Hansen Photo wrote:
It appears I was skipped, as well.

You weren't skipped. These take a while. One actually has to look at your work.

Your lighting isn't really there yet. You have yet to really develop a style, not that it is that important,  but it is early. I don't think its really a great advantage to have done some modelling and then go to the other side of the camera. It's a different world. I saw a few shots I liked but technically I don't think you offer much.

I looked at your Polina Such portraits with interest. You shot them in my realm. MALIBU.

I compared what you did to what she has in her mm portfolio. I felt she was stripped of her beauty. The photos are not bad, but they don't zing. Herer eyes are closed and I know why, our light is brutal, yes?  Very brutal. If you can and its hard you turn her the other way around and you get an assistant with a reflector and the light is your friend. Or you use off-camera lights. You can golden her up that way. I like the mood in those photos but don't think you quite deliver for her.

The other trick is to have the model open her eyes for three seconds and then close them. Unfortunately, squinting is almost inevitable.

Your beauty shots don't quite get there.

If you come down to Malibu again, please feel free to contact me. Our light is so different here and it is a beautiful beast that gets really wicked in Malibu. On one beach you're hit with multiple exposure levels and it changes and wow, it is tough for a lot of people. 

I like your confidence but yet to really like your work. You need to think about framing, composition, best angles for the model. Some of your shots are okay/good but a lot didn't work for me.

I was sorry to read of your terrible illness. I hope you feel a lot better.

$5000 per annum.  Part-timer.  It's great-that-you're-keeping your day job-award. You can do this part-time and you may be doing it part-time. You can pick up a wedding shoot once in a while. 

This is the last one tonight. Tomorrow, I'll return.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Lay it on me...

Will do, but it will happen tomorrow evening. My apologies. These take a while to do!

LA StarShooter wrote:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/8218642 shows strength and weakness. I think you can frame and that you process like you have a big paint brush in your hand and you lather like its soap and you think you’re Van Gogh because the drugs you take are that good. But really Portrait Professional is for chumps. You’re not a chump and some of your work looks like its processed through Portrait Professional while you’re on LSD.

Lighting, let’s look at that. I saw a lot of harsh highlights which can occur because of processing or because you’re not modifying the light enough or you think you’ll modify it later in Portrait Professional. Please don’t tell me you use photoshop. I’ll start thinking north is south.

I hope you still have  raws of your photos. You have actually bagged some clients and I think if you worked on the processing you would bag more.

Here’s another one that shows what I’m talking about: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/5240675

And the face just looks overprocessed and a bit yucky. That was the impression that I got from your website even more than from MM. Your website horrified me. Zenfolio. I think you should consider another website. You’re at the level now where it is worth having a really good showcase.

A lot of us need to escape Zenfolio.

And we shouldn’t know it is Zenfolio at your level.

$40,000 GOOD:you're good, but we are flooded with good and how can you become great is the burning economic question.

You get that because I think you can compose and you do get work but your processing to me is holding you back.

Thanks for your review.

You'll definitely need your compass, no PP here
Interesting that you singled out 2 of my rookie pics from '08 shot with a point and shoot camera. Any particular reason?

I'll take the 40k though, I love my part-time job

LA StarShooter wrote:

Your portfolio is like Rapunzel letting down her hair. Scissors, I cried. 63 photos. I looked at your new work portfolio and decided that of the 10 photos you could reduce it to the best three and it would better for you, highlighting the better photos. You have a few jewels and you have some coal.  You could reduce your portfolio to the fifteen best and you would rock a lot more.

Let’s look at a few photos. I think you capable of subtle and interesting light and you’re only just stepping into this:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/29934285

is a great moment for you and you’ve given the model something different. This professional model really doesn’t have like this in your portfolio and maybe she should have paid you for this, as I think a lot of photographers would like this shot.

The rim lighting is very good. Her right hand is very veiny and that can be reduced with very careful retouching. https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/29934284

is a photo of the same model and nothing is happening there. It’s lit but it is a dull photo of her.  It doesn’t do  her or you any good and you could drop it because you already have a really good one of her.

You could do this through the photos of your mm presence and drop it to 15. I have a feeling you may be paying professional models. I think you have the basic skills to build portfolios, but you need to really think about it deeply. You fall too easily in love with your own images.

$10,000 per annum.  Maybe you've-got-steam award. Still part-time but starting to occasionally dazzle. But can you afford new tires. The roads are tough on cars here.

You may be professional in landscapes but you're handle tells us that photographing models is for fun!  You're having fun but if you tighten up, focus, really examine your images you could really rock at photographing models at the glamour level, playboy style.

Maruschke wrote:
me please

You don't have a portfolio that sells you as a beauty or as a model. In the couple shots you're body is mostly obscured. Your height precludes steady runway work.

Currently, the portfolio doesn't really sell your face in the headshots, doesn't sell any modelling power, and as a result, I don't think you're serious.

You need to practice expressions, poses, understand your angles and maybe you'll look very different. Maybe you'll attract attention. But you in the Canterbury Plains, right?  Modelling there is like to trying to sell tickets to a theater production in Antarctica of a penguin dance show. There may be some interest but people are going to have a heck of a job getting there.

The current state of your portfolio compels this: $500 per annum, Homeless-stop-begging award. It means that your work would have a tough time doing well here and you might become homeless. Come on, you're homeless, admit it.

Pick a direction: if you decide to do nudes, which is not as simple as it may seem, really practice so that you can build a great book.

Hero Foto wrote:

Im game ...

I like that your website allows people to buy images. On your website this looks good:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/30693244

and the series of headshots and beauty shots looked good. I wasn't otherwise enthralled. Some images were a bit flat, when it came to lighting, and I don't see strong composition. You came close at times, but I was surprised when you said it was a full-time job for you, and just ended up thinking you may have a photography job, but shooting models or fashion models is not the primary way of making an income. I could be wrong.

So, you're not bad but overall you're not edgy, and in Los Angeles you would  have a struggle.

$5000 per annum Part-timer.  It's great-that-you're-keeping your day job-award. You can do this part-time and you may be doing it part-time. You can pick up a wedding shoot once in a while.

As I said, at the start of the 500px I enjoyed myself. You do good beauty and close-on portraits. There you're singing and then you hit flat note after flat note:

http://500px.com/photo/17051065

has a shot and you can see the models veins and the lighting is not very good and the tonality is boring. Sorry.

The first I saw was your strongest and there are good shots throughout but overall, the number of no-so-good weight it down, like an anchor of doom lowered into the sea.

LA StarShooter wrote:
On your website this looks good:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/30693244

and the series of headshots and beauty shots looked good.

$250,000 Baby, you're-a-star-award. Photographer: There are sharks all around you. They want what you have got, that luminous glow, that spark, and they want to steal your gear and have you teach them for free how to use it. Model: Bank, baby, bank. You're talented, extraordinary. And in two years it could be over.

As I said, at the start of the 500px I enjoyed myself. You do good beauty and close-on portraits. There you're singing.

The first I saw was your strongest and there are good shots throughout.

LA StarShooter wrote:

You have some credits but it's been a while, since 2005. You have a home studio. You're passionate about form. I didn't connect with your work, but I do respect your effort and some of your achievements, winning first place in exhibitions, etc. And I think you have skill.

Since you're an art nude photographer and, incidentally, an ad is running about a Fine Art Nudes Photographer for a grand prize of $2000, I think its the Fros Award, its hard to make money in this field, and you must largely be doing it for love.

You love art. There are few shots in your portfolio that would benefit most photographers from looking at them. I am thinking of the one that has a lovely figure and her head is obscured by rock. I sure you get a lot of compliments on that work and it actually won a prize.

My instinct is not to rate you at all. You're different, heading off in your own path, your own vision. You know what you want to do. You don't need criticism. You need a prize.

Thanks, interesting perspective.  Thanks again.

MickCetera wrote:
Am I going to need a bigger wallet? Or... Can I even afford a wallet? You tell me.

some edgy stuff on facebook.  One print credit. If it is an actual magazine credit display that on your profile. I didn’t feel I was looking at model who has figured it out but on the way there you appear to have a credit.  You seem good in couple shots, boy and girl and a birthday cake.

Again your facebook has some cool images.

You have promise. Male Models don't make as much as female models, generally-speaking:

$12,000 per annum. If you keep your eyes on the prize, you just might break through.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Lay it on me...

With great cunning I looked at your retouching page and it appears you used your own photos as samples of your retouching abilities. I was impressed with the switching of a better head angle on a model. Very nice, monsieur.

I thought about tonality as I looked at the second shot in your MM portfolio
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 852#561677
  The face doesn’t pop and neither does the dress and since that dress is rather interesting, it is something to consider.

Hair styling on that model. I think she needed some work there.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 2#13404934
Texture on nose—you’re a retoucher—did you like that texture?. I looked at other photos of the dancer and she doesn’t possess that pattern on her nose, which looks a little bit ugly to me.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 2#23243064

Highlights blown on face, particularly the forehead-either processing or your light wasn’t modified enough.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 2#16573813

If the model didn’t pay you for that one, she should have. Although you run a little hot on the camera left side of the face you pulled it off. Very nice work, young man.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 2#13376006

the strong nose shadow.  Consistently in the work is some hotspots and also the kind of shadows that don’t really enhance. Maybe it’s because you use one light. How about 3?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 2#17298533

look at the camera left foot.  It needed some retouching on the top of the foot.  They looked like she wore very tight shoes. I like a lot about this shot, except that I thought the face could use some more contrast, just a bit, and same with the clothes. On right leg did you consider taking out the part on the leg where she’s just a bit veiny? A moonlight photo can look like her skin is being ex-rayed.

Conclusion: you’re capable but not exciting.  You do have some retouching skill.   

I think you more capable than what I have seen. I looked at the woman-in-the-box-series. One or two standout but I feel you could work on your lighting.

$35,000-first year retoucher for a magazine-award.

Jeff Cohn wrote:
sign me up

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/27158778 18+ is superior and just shows what you can do when you’re sparking. I looked at the model's pages and noted that she did not feature that wonder in her portfolio. That is more likely to get her booked than anything else she has in her portfolio.

I was going to give you a dragging-the-shutter award as you have too many of them in your MM portfolio and a whole book on your website. Once you cross that troll-crawling bridge of your portfolio you start to sing opera here and there. There’s talent there.   

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/22921203

is an example of the good Samaritan that you are for modeling agencies.

You’re good at connecting with models and people ,which leads me to this conclusion, you did something for Turkish Elle, and you have a lot of good credits, so $60,000 per annum: You're-almost-a-monster-now-Award.

I think you need to do just a bit more work on processing to really break out.

Rae Johnston wrote:
Count me in!

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/18557174 features fake lens flare and I hate it but. ..  you’re look so great in this model-defying-fake-lens-flair-to-soar-with-the-angels and your hair is beautifully launched via fan. Wow, kid.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/24261745
in this shot your facial skin does not look good on your left side. You curve nicely so I understand why you put it up.

The mag cover for CORE was good. I think there are too many so-so pics in the ports. Your website is a link to your interest in video games.

You deserve your own award: You give-good-face-award. $25,000 per annum.
You need to tighten up your modeling ship if you want to float towards more mag covers.

Work on angles. Master full-length.

Ben Hinman wrote:
Sure, i'll play.

I'm not doing anymore until next year. My apologies.