nyk fury wrote:
my camera does. i have as little as possible to do with it. in a few years cameras won't need operators anyway.

She admits she's new and is asking a legitimate question. Give her a break.

To the OP: It's a team effort. My thoughts are that both people need to be committed to making a strong image; but I also believe that serendipity has a hand in it as well.

"Sometimes the magic happens; sometimes it doesn't..."

DTNphotography wrote:
It takes both.

+1

salvatori. wrote:
She admits she's new and is asking a legitimate question. Give her a break.

To the OP: It's a team effort. My thoughts are that both people need to be committed to making a strong image; but I also believe that serendipity has a hand in it as well.

"Sometimes the magic happens; sometimes it doesn't..."

that's like asking which end of the cat is the cat.

it's:
model
location
device
shooter
weather
lighting
luck

luck is sort of a wild card.

terrysphotocountry wrote:
legally it's the photographer.

*scratches head* Huh?

ResaVictoria wrote:
I was just curious, since I am a beginner.
I'm not too pleased with how my latest photos came out
I'll be honest and say that I didn't do my best, but I feel like I was disconnected with the photographer or something, and wasn't a big help but I'm not going to point fingers..


so in your opinion who or what makes the photo?


*my apologies for the misspelling in the title*

As it has been said, it takes both. The photographer can have the perfect lighting and settings, etc. buut if the model does not give the right pose look, etc. what the photographer is looking for, it will not be a good strong picture. On the other hand, the model can be right on the money with pose look, etc, but if the lighting, mood, editing is not right, again, the picture will not be ver strong.
To quote one on the people above me. It takes 2 to tango. And if you ever tried and dance the tango by your self, just does not look right...

DTNphotography wrote:
It takes both.

+1

Some believe that a really good photographer should be able to capture at least one good shot of any person - but it does require the person to cooperate in most cases.  Photo journalists and street photographers often shoot when the subject doesn't even know their photo is being taken, so clearly it can be done without the model.

But if you are shooting a story (be it fashion, glamour etc.) it does require the two people to work together.  I've taken great shots of average models, and crap shots of excellent models when we haven't been on the same wavelength.  And some of my favourite shots are of great models when we were working well together (not that I am a great photographer - I'd like to think I am good with plenty of room to grow).

A bad photographer probably won't get a great photo with a really good model - unless they get lucky (I've taken some of those when starting out).  And no matter how good the photographer sometimes you just can't get a bad model to give you the pose/expression/emotion that you want (though even then sometimes you get lucky).

Try shooting with a few different photographers.  As you work with more and more you will probably find it easier to work with those you might not otherwise be hanging out with.

Azimuth Arts wrote:
Photo journalists and street photographers often shoot when the subject doesn't even know their photo is being taken, so clearly it can be done without the model.

that's a good one. i tend to think it can only be done without a model if the model isn't in the image.

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:
On the other hand, even the best photographer can't take a picture of a turd and transform it into a model. It's still only an excellent shot of a turd.

then you also need a good MUA.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
it takes two to tango.

+1000

RW Steele wrote:
*scratches head* Huh?

Ownership of copyright is what they are talking about.

RW Steele wrote:

*scratches head* Huh?

The OPs question can be taken two ways. "What makes a photo better" or "Who physically makes a photo"

Legally its the photographer that makes (produces) the photo as in the painter paints a picture.

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
What the fashion editor of L'Officiel told me once over dinner:

Model and hair = 80% of the photo.

Everything else = 20%

I think the point here is that IF you have a top-notch, really photogenic model...then the photographer is not a HUGE factor in getting a great end-product.  I can understand this because I've photographed models who simply look great no matter what I do.

On the other hand, if a model is NOT good at what she does...if she is NOT naturally very photogenic - then the photographer becomes a MUCH larger factor in getting a great end-product.

* this is the correct answer...end of thread

ResaVictoria wrote:
I was just curious, since I am a beginner.
I'm not too pleased with how my latest photos came out
I'll be honest and say that I didn't do my best, but...

There are no 'buts'.  If you admittedly confessed to not doing the best you could... while quite possibly even being at your worst... then why are you blaming someone else for the shortcomings of the shoot?...

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
What the fashion editor of L'Officiel told me once over dinner:

Model and hair = 80% of the photo.

Everything else = 20%

Gary Melton wrote:
I think the point here is that IF you have a top-notch, really photogenic model...then the photographer is not a HUGE factor in getting a great end-product.  I can understand this because I've photographed models who simply look great no matter what I do.

On the other hand, if a model is NOT good at what she does...if she is NOT naturally very photogenic - then the photographer becomes a MUCH larger factor in getting a great end-product.

* this is the correct answer...end of thread

I think the other point of that statement from the editor is that it assumes that the photographer is more than adequately skilled at their craft.   If that part of the equation is stipulated as successful/adequate then the other variables take on a greater significance.

A really good model can sometimes overcome a photographer not being so great, just as a great photographer can sometimes overcome a model who is not so great.

Ultimately, there are a lot of things that go into creating really good work, and the proportions or ratios vary from situation to situation and person to person.

David J Martin wrote:
Ownership of copyright is what they are talking about.

what who is talking about? i don't think the OP was talking about the legal system.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Ultimately, there are a lot of things that go into creating really good work, and the proportions or ratios vary from situation to situation and person to person.

right, and many of the responses here are so simplistic as to boggle the mind.

Philipe wrote:
The model.
If they don't look good I don't look good.

I just capture the moment.

So they have never been great images of people who don't look good?

I am sure you could create one given the chance

Select Models wrote:

There are no 'buts'.  If you admittedly confessed to not doing the best you could... while quite possibly even being at your worst... then why are you blaming someone else for the shortcomings of the shoot?...

*sighs* I already pointed out that I wasn't pointing fingers
Yea I admit to me not at my best but I have pictures where I'm not even ready or I just look plain akward
That's kinda the reason I asked this

Gary Melton wrote:

I think the point here is that IF you have a top-notch, really photogenic model...then the photographer is not a HUGE factor in getting a great end-product.  I can understand this because I've photographed models who simply look great no matter what I do.

On the other hand, if a model is NOT good at what she does...if she is NOT naturally very photogenic - then the photographer becomes a MUCH larger factor in getting a great end-product.

* this is the correct answer...end of thread

Thanks

Shot By Adam wrote:
An excellent photographer can bring out the best in their models, regardless of their talent or skill.

A model with a unique look can be taught how to pose and it happens every day, but how many models do you know who instruct photographers how to use their fancy gear?

Shot By Adam wrote:
An excellent model can make a weak photographer look like a seasoned pro.

Not always. An excellent (experienced) model can easily be made to look mediocre when working with a weak photographer, especially those that have no idea how to compose or use light. I see examples of this every single day.