|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Are we only as good as our models?
Yes, I get better photos with better models. Mar 26 13 02:52 am Link Jerry Nemeth wrote: I've read the thread with interest. Thank you to everyone that's contributed. Mar 26 13 04:32 am Link Neil Templar wrote: This is exactly why I don't post self-portraits! Mar 26 13 04:47 am Link Neil Templar wrote: I will say again, what are your goals, what are you shooting? It depends. Mar 26 13 04:58 am Link In my work (painting) the model is the CATALYST for a good work of art. I don't think that "we" are only as good as our models. However, a good, professional model can get the creative juices flowing easier and better most of the time! Mar 26 13 05:06 am Link There's no point spending lots of money on a shoot if you have a bad model. That's why I hardly shoot models because I can never find models worth the effort. Mar 26 13 05:40 am Link The one and only time I paid for a model, the shots from the shoot got about 3 times as many 'likes' on Facebook as most of my work (for want of a better measure). No one knew I paid for that model and not my others, but I found that model worth paying and it paid off. Could have been luck, but I think the reality is a model with the 'look' and who knows how to pose is simply going to get you better photos than from an average model regardless of your photographic ability. The better the model, the less need for actual photographic skill. Skill is never irrelevant but quality of model is a lot more important than many of us would like to admit! Mar 26 13 06:05 am Link I think it comes more with how we relate to our subjects and....ALL the elements of the image are important. Get a great model, a great clothing stylist with great outfits, add an incredible makeup person and you'll likely find you will feel quite inspired to give it your all too. It's amazing what can happen, when working with a great team. Everyone adds an element that may not be your particular expertise... In the end, it's the photographer that takes the photo hopefully knows what to edit (select) when culling through the images. In the past just working with a great art director who has total trust in me, has driven me to do some work that I was quite proud of and found it held up to scrutiny even years later.. I think it's all about energy levels. JOSH..don't discount your abilities and the need to have very good skills even with a very good subject. Mar 26 13 06:09 am Link A good model + good MUA + Good stylist + Good photographer = nice images. Of course you can get nice images with just a good model and your GOOD skills. You probably shot more because the model was giving you dynamic poses, good emotional content etc. It's easy to shoot 100's of images before you realize it. Anyone can get some old slapper on MM to pose nude or just stand in front of the lights so the photographer can try out equipment and say he's a pro. How many images of the three poses that are popular on here do you really need? Finding good models is much, much harder, but it's well worth it. Mar 26 13 07:19 am Link Neil Templar wrote: Actually, it is not all that hard to take bad photographs of good models. Mar 26 13 08:58 am Link Jean Renard Photography wrote: Awwww thanks... but 'photobomb from bikini chick'?... Mar 26 13 09:00 am Link As far as photographing models? Maybe. I feel it's very possible to shoot outstanding images with beginner or average models, it's just that experienced models usually make the job easier. And I seem to do pretty well with non model subjects .... Mar 26 13 02:31 pm Link they're not going to say, "brilliant pose, wardrobe and lighting" they're going to say, "that girl is NOT a (fashion/glamour/whatever) model. does the photographer really think this is a portfolio-grade shot? he must be insane. no way we're hiring him." Mar 26 13 02:43 pm Link I believe it's still possible to get with either model ...only good models give you more room, bigger buffer to work on...good models are the lazy way  ...and now that i think of it, define "model"...so it's not about model but about photo-appeal...and about the proper casting... Mar 26 13 02:48 pm Link Josh Yu Photography wrote: This! Mar 26 13 04:41 pm Link dave phoenix wrote: Exactly. Mar 26 13 04:59 pm Link I worked with a girl who had no prior experience. I helped her look better. Then I worked with a good model. She helped me look better. Mar 26 13 05:24 pm Link When I work with experienced models there is a better flow of communication, energy and positive vibes. I give 110% when I work with all models but I enjoy working with more experienced models. Mar 26 13 06:37 pm Link Experience is certainly a factor, however, I've had first time models hit the ball out of the park...meaning they couldn't take a bad photograph...while on the other hand I've had some experienced models leave a lot to be desired. My current avatar is of "Feroce"...a first-time model from Craigslist who modeled astoundingly well. I find the most important characteristic of a model is the ability to give different facial expressions (some experienced models can't), especially if it is complemented by the pose and surrounding props/location. It is then up to me to do the rest with lighting, angles, exposure...and Photoshop  .Mar 27 13 03:02 am Link Are we only as good as our models? No I dont think that my skills as a photographer raise and fall, depending on the model I am working with. I get better by trying new things out, looking at work other photographers,... Are we only as good as our models? Yes If you just look at the outcome of one shooting. Of course you get (more) better images if the model fits the job than opposite. Another thing is the difference between an eperienced model and a good model. You can work with an very experienced model an the result is average, because she only has four or six poses and expressions she allways does, and that works for most of her shootings. Mar 27 13 05:39 am Link Not easy making a silk purse out of a sow's ear......... unless your a PS wizard. Mar 27 13 06:17 am Link Neil Templar wrote: I think llamas are like any other tools, like cameras, lenses, loghtings, etc. Mar 27 13 07:01 am Link What I find interesting is people taking a different view on good models. Some are talking about skills and experience and others (like myself) are talking more about the look of the model. Mar 27 13 07:07 am Link I have had both models who seem to always get the most amazing pose possible, and do it consistently, one right after the other, and have also had models who wait for direction. I tend to prefer the latter, because I consider myself to be "the artist", but, the rare model who is always doing something that I didn't expect, and does it amazingly, every time, is a treat to work with, and gives me images that I wouldn't have gotten if left to my own sense of form and composition. I can think of two, (and especially one), model in the whole time I have been shooting, (over 20 years), that needed NO direction at all, and I got many more usable images from her, percentage wise, than I have ever gotten by doing all the directing on my own. One of the biggest reasons I usually prefer the "passive" model is the rarity of the one who can do it skillfully, with no direction at all, consistently. Of course, there is the much more common model, who is good, gets great poses, but often needs for me to say, "hey hold that one", or "go back a step, and we'll try that one again". -Don EDIT: As AJScalzitti said above, it is the look of the model, but I take that for granted, and choose accordingly BEFORE booking a shoot. Mar 27 13 07:29 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: Yes, I should have been more clear at the outset. My original thread was aimed more at the look of the model as opposed to their experience and the benefits/advantages that a good look brings to the image. Mar 27 13 07:41 am Link Neil Templar wrote: Agreed you can have a great technique but perception of the image both yourself and public will depend on the subject. Better looking models will make an overall better looking photograph. Mar 27 13 10:15 am Link Your right Brandon. Sometimes we forget but a lot of what we do in creating images is subliminal, like rules of compisition. When we do a good job most of the time people "feel" it's a better image and don't know why. But obviously the subject isn't usually so. Quite literary we see things differently Mar 27 13 10:24 am Link This thread has probably run its course now and if so.. Thanks to every one who has contributed. There are some interesting perspectives. Mar 27 13 11:56 am Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: +1 Mar 27 13 12:22 pm Link |
... that memo musta missed my cubical... 
