Jim McSmith wrote:
Many photographers don't shoot black and white. When searching profiles I look for tanned models but if the avatar is in b/w I then need to view the whole portfolio which wastes time and slows down the search process.

How is that everyone else's problem?

And seriously, how many photographers really NEVER shoot black and white?  Seems to be very popular to me.

R Byron Johnson wrote:

How is that everyone else's problem?

And seriously, how many photographers really NEVER shoot black and white?  Seems to be very popular to me.

I don't know how many but you can be sure it's a lot. A colour avatar covers all bases better than a b/w image.

Kent Art Photography wrote:
I'm not sure a photographer with a picture of a camera as his own avatar shoud be lecturing models on their avatars.

An avatar is a shop window, it has to grab the viewer's attention and encourage the viewer to click through to the portfolio.  An avatar which shows skin colour might not be an attention grabber.

hahahahaha and it's a cheap street 35mm besides.. not even a pro quality machine.

ummm using that camera?... makes me wonder what B&Ws you're producing as a comparrison?

As said.. the front page is the window to attract others to look inside for more. 

2¢ no change!

Jim McSmith wrote:
llamas are tanning less these days than they once did. Those in colder environments are typically very pale unless they make efforts to tan properly.

How does one go about damaging their skin 'properly'?   Do tell...

Revenge Photography wrote:

That's a bit harsh don't you think?

Surely there are a few models on here looking for updated photo's of their camera.

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!

Isis22 wrote:
My avatar is in color...

Bwahahaha

This made my day!

Jim McSmith wrote:

What's the big deal? You can go and get a tan using sunbeds or a spray tan.

The "Big deal" is that many models (and photographers) think that spray tans are typically disgusting and horrible looking, especially if you live in an area where you regularly see naturally tanned bodies most of the year (Florida beaches).

The "Big deal" is also that many models (and photographers) have seen the results of habitual tanning and how it leaves a woman's skin looking weathered and aged usually beyond her years.

The "Big deal" is that many models don't feel as if they have to do anything to please you specifically.  Tan for you?  Why?  Why in the world would a smart woman lay under tanning lamps and ruin her skin and increase her chance for cancer just because you like tanned bodies?

How about you pay for what you want to see.  That means pay for a plane ticket in order to get the type of model you want in front of your camera.  Otherwise, just take what you can get and quit looking the gift horse dead in the mouth.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

The "Big deal" is that many models (and photographers) think that spray tans are typically disgusting and horrible looking, especially if you live in an area where you regularly see naturally tanned bodies most of the year (Florida beaches).

The "Big deal" is also that many models (and photographers) have seen the results of habitual tanning and how it leaves a woman's skin looking weathered and aged usually beyond her years.

The "Big deal" is that many models don't feel as if they have to do anything to please you specifically.  Tan for you?  Why?  Why in the world would a smart woman lay under tanning lamps and ruin her skin and increase her chance for cancer just because you like tanned bodies?

How about you pay for what you want to see.  That means pay for a plane ticket in order to get the type of model you want in front of your camera.  Otherwise, just take what you can get and quit looking the gift horse dead in the mouth.

All sounds a bit harsh. A nice tan looks healthy and if you look healthy you feel healthy. And the results show in the pictures. So get tanning folks!

Jim McSmith wrote:

All sounds a bit harsh. A nice tan looks healthy and if you look healthy you feel healthy. And the results show in the pictures. So get tanning folks!

So you're advocating that someone "look healthy"...which is YOUR idea of what healthy looks like, not what anyone else may or may not want the model to look like (ie: a lot of people like tan, a lot of people DONT like tan) rather than actually BE healthy? Because tans are not actually healthy.

Jim McSmith wrote:

All sounds a bit harsh. A nice tan looks healthy and if you look healthy you feel healthy. And the results show in the pictures. So get tanning folks!

Please don't give incorrect medical advice on MM.

Jim McSmith wrote:
All sounds a bit harsh. A nice tan looks healthy and if you look healthy you feel healthy. And the results show in the pictures. So get tanning folks!

What?

Jim McSmith wrote:
Just a quick message to models to say they should use a colour shot on their profile main image because it allows the photographer to see the skin colour without viewing the whole portfolio. Thanks.

WTF?

No....just no.

Jim McSmith wrote:

All sounds a bit harsh. A nice tan looks healthy and if you look healthy you feel healthy. And the results show in the pictures. So get tanning folks!

This is the funniest thing I've read on MM in weeks. I am so glad we revived this thread.

Jim McSmith wrote:

All sounds a bit harsh. A nice tan looks healthy and if you look healthy you feel healthy. And the results show in the pictures. So get tanning folks!

I'm a skincare professional.

You're WRONG.

IMAK Photo wrote:

I'm glad to have finally met the most important person on MM. It's really a shame that there are models out there who are wasting so much of your valuable time. It's so thoughtful of you to try and educate them though.

*snort*

No, really. I'm dying over here. xD

Jim McSmith wrote:
Thanks for reviving this thread. I now see a lot more models using a colour avatar instead of monochrome and this is aiding me no end in my search for tanned models. Thanks to those who made the effort to change.

XDDDDDDDDD

Olga Matviyenkoski wrote:

This is racist against pale people and Eastern Europeans

Racist against those of Celtic origin, like me.

*has an SPF of 3*

Jim McSmith wrote:
Many photographers don't shoot black and white. When searching profiles I look for tanned models but if the avatar is in b/w I then need to view the whole portfolio which wastes time and slows down the search process.

I advise you look further anyway. I am olive in skin tone but I have portfolio pictures that make me look pale. Why because the photographer wanted that look. I don't go to photographers and tell them how to post edit their photos. Also isn't it a waste of the models time when she is then contacted by you to see a camera as an avatar and have to go into your portfolio to see your images.

Sorry this just screams lazy.

ebbfauna wrote:
Oh, I agree, everyone should tan. Especially models.
I mean, it's not like they make their livelihood off their physical appearance, so why worry about melanoma, early aging & wrinkling? You definitely know what you're talking about. Unfortunately for me, I'm pale as sin and allergic to the sun so cannot embellish my soft, healthy, milky skin with damaging rays. DARN!

Apparently tans don't matter as much as the  OP claims; after I said I have an SPF of 3 (and yes, I'm also allergic to the sun, and you can literally see my bones through my skin in some areas), he contacted me via PM, under the impression that I wanted to work with him. xD

Big A-Larger Than Life wrote:
How does one go about damaging their skin 'properly'?   Do tell...

a minimum of 30 minutes a day in front of a vintage sun lamp (the kind they banned because of the obscenely high risk of skin cancer), dripping with tanning oil and chain smoking cigars.

Michael Broughton wrote:

a minimum of 30 minutes a day in front of a vintage sun lamp (the kind they banned because of the obscenely high risk of skin cancer), dripping with tanning oil and chain smoking cigars.

Those things are terrifying--if you think what you see here is bad, try looking into one in real life--it shows areas that will wrinkle and sag and everything!! I take particularly good care of my skin, and always have, but when I looked into one of these when I was in school, I saw what just a few weeks total of wanton sun-worshiping in my youth had done to my future... I cried.

Jim McSmith wrote:
. When searching profiles I look for tanned models

Tanned models in the UK ! if you like fake patchy tans, tanning bed lobsters or the Essex orange spray tan.

Alternatively use a 81EF filter.

Jim McSmith wrote:
Models are tanning less these days than they once did. Those in colder environments are typically very pale unless they make efforts to tan properly. If they had a colour shot on the avatar that would speed up the search a bit. B/W doesn't help if you're a colour shooter seeking a tanned model.

Perhaps all models are not choosing their avatar with you in mind... Perhaps they choose their avatar to reach the most possible people and lure them in...

Perhaps you should use the advanced search engine where you can choose skin color...

Perhaps you shouldn't talk about how others choose their avatar to make it more concomitant for you, when your avatar is a snapshot of your camera. Now I have to begrudgingly click on your profile to see what your photography skills look like.

But this has already been said so my guess is that your not even reading the replys...

Michael Broughton wrote:

a minimum of 30 minutes a day in front of a vintage sun lamp (the kind they banned because of the obscenely high risk of skin cancer), dripping with tanning oil and chain smoking cigars.

One word. Photoshop!

Jim McSmith wrote:
One word. Photoshop!

Uhm. No.

Try actually reading the caption, ultraviolet light shows freckles and other skin damage that is not ordinarily as visible in normal lighting. That's not photoshop, that's a woman with skin damage under UV lighting.

This is me in normal lighting:

This is me under a UV light:

Theres a huge difference in the amount of freckles that show in everyday lighting.

Laura UnBound wrote:

Uhm. No.

Try actually reading the caption, ultraviolet light shows freckles and other skin damage that is not ordinarily as visible in normal lighting. That's not photoshop, that's a woman with skin damage under UV lighting.



Theres a huge difference in the amount of freckles that show in everyday lighting.

No, I meant you could take it out with Photoshop. Using the clone tool.

Jim McSmith wrote:

No, I meant you could take it out with Photoshop. Using the clone tool.

Sure.


Or you could not cause yourself skin damage that needs to be photoshopped in the first place, and more importantly,... avoid skin damage.

druidess  wrote:

LET THE MAN HAVE A CAMERA IN HIS AVI THEN...if he thinks thats the best move then so be it.

however, I personally would never choose to view more photos of someone with a weird avi like that.

Look, the reason I have a camera as an avatar is simples. It's so that girls can see at first glance I have professional equipment and will therefore be able to render quality results in-line with their expectations of a serious amateur photographer.

Jim McSmith wrote:
Look, the reason I have a camera as an avatar is simples. It's so that girls can see at first glance I have professional equipment and will therefore be able to render quality results in-line with their expectations of a serious amateur photographer.

This reply is as illogical as the original post is stupid.

Your 'philosophy' and rationale are completely ludicrous. Please, just stop. posting. Please.

Jim McSmith wrote:

Look, the reason I have a camera as an avatar is simples. It's so that girls can see at first glance I have professional equipment and will therefore be able to render quality results in-line with their expectations of a serious amateur photographer.

I am sorry to feed this thread but...

What model is going to see a camera that looks three times as old as they are and think "oh this is a professional" even if it was a hasselblad that went to the moon? 

I do think you are trolling, but some how I keep reading this thread... Must be something wrong with me.

Jim McSmith wrote:
Look, the reason I have a camera as an avatar is simples. It's so that girls can see at first glance I have professional equipment and will therefore be able to render quality results in-line with their expectations of a serious amateur photographer.

Having professional equipment has little to do with being able to render quality results. Talent, on the other hand, does.

Kelleth wrote:
Having professional equipment has little to do with being able to render quality results. Talent, on the other hand, does.

So what you're saying, in your esteemed opinion, is that most photographers on MM are GWCs? Because talent doesn't grow on trees and the quality of equipment wont impact on results?

Jim McSmith wrote:

So what you're saying, in your esteemed opinion, is that most photographers on MM are GWCs? Because talent doesn't grow on trees and the quality of equipment wont impact on results?

Of course the quality of equipment impacts on your work.

But i can't tell you how many photographers I know who have invested tens of thousands of dollars in equipment and take absolutely awful photographs because they don't know how to use it and just don't have an eye for it. They think their equipment will do all the work for them. On the flipside, I also know several professionals who work with a minimal amount of equipment that is not necessarily top of the line (i'm talking still professional but they make do with one camera, one lens both of which are not particularly expensive) and create amazing work. Ditto photographers who shoot mostly film on old point and shoot cameras and yet do incredible work. i see it all the time. Money invested in equipment doesn't have a direct correlation with quality of images necessarily.