Forums > Model Colloquy > Red flags in a photographer's port/profile?

Photographer

Westdahl Studio

Posts: 333

COEUR D ALENE, Idaho, US

[

Jun 20 13 03:56 pm Link

Model

MelissaAnn

Posts: 3971

Seattle, Washington, US

Darren Brade wrote:

Which is fine as long as people don't accuse others of "arrogance" because they have their own reasons for not crediting.

note: I'm not accusing you of that.

Stefano (like most of us) was likely referring to photographers who don't credit *any* of their models.  I don't think anyone is talking about photographers who do credit MM models, but also have some obviously agency-looking models in their ports who aren't credited.  BTW, I see models from Ford, Elite, IMG, etc who are credited all the time on here.  It's not likely that many photographers on MM shoot exclusively with agency models, and can't ever credit a single one of them (if they exist, they're a very minuscule minority).

Jun 20 13 04:00 pm Link

Photographer

nyk fury

Posts: 2976

Port Townsend, Washington, US

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I said this before but you are a true artist.   Your work is going to appeal to models like:   https://www.modelmayhem.com/65089   It wouldn't matter what your profile said.   Your style is going to be more for thoughtful artistic minded models.   Sadly there aren't a lot here.   You'd do better in a different location I also think.   Can you travel some?

ha, floofie is already in my port[s]. at least 2 or 3 of my very best [in my opinion] shots are of her, but you won't see any of my work with her in her ports, or lists, or faves. go figure. anyway, problem is models tend to live in locations that are pretty much useless to my aesthetic, like LA. my location is good for shoots, except for the fact there are almost zero models here, and it's a pain to get to.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
It's not likely that many photographers on MM shoot exclusively with agency models, and can't ever credit a single one of them (if they exist, they're a very minuscule minority).

one of my credits is a deactivated MM acct, because the agency told her to get off MM.

Jun 20 13 04:01 pm Link

Model

MelissaAnn

Posts: 3971

Seattle, Washington, US

nyk fury wrote:
ha, floofie is already in my port[s]. at least 2 or 3 of my very best [in my opinion] shots are of her, but you won't see any of my work with her in her ports, or lists, or faves. go figure. anyway, problem is models tend to live in locations that are pretty much useless to my aesthetic, like LA. my location is good for shoots, except for the fact there are almost zero models here, and it's a pain to get to.


one of my credits is a deactivated MM acct, because the agency told her to get off MM.

A lot of agencies don't want their models having profiles on MM. That's not what I'm talking about.  I'm referring to photographers being able to credit the models like this: "Elena-IMG" or "Helen-Ford" typed into the caption.

Jun 20 13 04:07 pm Link

Photographer

nyk fury

Posts: 2976

Port Townsend, Washington, US

MelissaAnn  wrote:
I'm referring to photographers being able to credit the models like this: "Elena-IMG" or "Helen-Ford" typed into the caption.

i often see that sort of thing myself, and generally it is a single name like 'helen/ford'. isn't that awfully ambiguous? seems to me there is probably more than one helen at ford.

Jun 20 13 04:12 pm Link

Photographer

Tony Lawrence

Posts: 21526

Chicago, Illinois, US

nyk fury wrote:

Tony Lawrence wrote:
I said this before but you are a true artist.   Your work is going to appeal to models like:   https://www.modelmayhem.com/65089   It wouldn't matter what your profile said.   Your style is going to be more for thoughtful artistic minded models.   Sadly there aren't a lot here.   You'd do better in a different location I also think.   Can you travel some?

ha, floofie is already in my port[s]. at least 2 or 3 of my very best [in my opinion] shots are of her, but you won't see any of my work with her in her ports, or lists, or faves. go figure. anyway, problem is models tend to live in locations that are pretty much useless to my aesthetic, like LA. my location is good for shoots, except for the fact there are almost zero models here, and it's a pain to get to.


one of my credits is a deactivated MM acct, because the agency told her to get off MM.

David Mecey is a former Playboy shooter from Chicago:   https://www.modelmayhem.com/1975443   I just imagine some goof here turns down a shoot with him because he has no MM models credited.   Too respond to a comment.   There are a lot of shooters on this site who only shoot agency faces and just have a presence here.    They largely avoid working with MM models.

Jun 20 13 04:17 pm Link

Photographer

DELETED-ACCOUNT_

Posts: 10303

Los Angeles, California, US

MelissaAnn  wrote:

A lot of agencies don't want their models having profiles on MM. That's not what I'm talking about.  I'm referring to photographers being able to credit the models like this: "Elena-IMG" or "Helen-Ford" typed into the caption.

But what would that solve?  Knowing Elena is with IMG, you as a model couldn't get in touch with her to ask if Joe Blow was creepy or unprofessional.  Even emailing the agency would probably get you ignored, and a phone call more likely than not would be curt and ended quickly.  As a photographer, you can simply msg another photographer and say "Hey, who's that girl?" and I'd bet you'd get an answer.  But...if it's an agency girl, unless you're already working with said agency and have put in the time to get to the point where you can simply request a model and get her....you're wasting your time.

Jun 20 13 04:29 pm Link

Photographer

Darren Brade

Posts: 3351

London, England, United Kingdom

That Italian Guy wrote:

Darren Brade wrote:
I disagree, you're assuming that the agency wants their models associated with Model Mayhem.

No agency I work with has ever said "if you have an MM account please don't credit our models there.

And furthermore, there are plenty of agency models here on MM, including models from top agencies such as Premier.


For me, a couple of missing model credits is not a problem, but a complete lack of model credits suggests a certain hubris that I'm not sure I would appreciate if I were a model thinking of working with that photographer on a trade basis.

We are only as good as our models. It makes us look good, not bad, to acknowledge that.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Yes if your world evolves solely around Model Mayhem.

Jun 20 13 04:30 pm Link

Photographer

Photographe

Posts: 2351

Bristol, England, United Kingdom

Laura Unbound wrote:
lack of crediting the models in their portfolio

This is a point about something else, but this is not a red flag.

Laura Unbound wrote:
been on the site for years and years but still has very few photos, or is currently active but all photos are from years and years ago. (begs the questions what have you been doing, and/or why wont more people work with you?)

This assumes that no recent uploads means no recent work. It also wrongly assumes that no recent uploads means that people do not wish to work with that person.

Laura Unbound wrote:
outright lies like "Ive been published in ELLE, Vogue, GQ, etc" but their work is beyond obviously not publication quality

This wrongly assumes that there is some law somewhere that photographers must show their commercial work rather than their personal work, or some law that they must show their latest and best examples of their work in what is essentially a B2C environment.

Laura Unbound wrote:
and they dont exhibit any of the tears in their portfolio.

This wrongly assumes the person is in posession of the tears, able to present them, that the condition of the tearsheets is presentable and that showing fashion that could be 5 or 10 years old is relevant to a portfolio in 2013. It wrongly assumes that someone is obliged to show their commercial work here.

The two major reason I don't show tears is the poor condition of them and the fact that most of it is more commercial or simply looks older than my portfolio work.

Jun 20 13 04:36 pm Link

Photographer

Darren Brade

Posts: 3351

London, England, United Kingdom

MelissaAnn  wrote:

Stefano (like most of us) was likely referring to photographers who don't credit *any* of their models.  I don't think anyone is talking about photographers who do credit MM models, but also have some obviously agency-looking models in their ports who aren't credited.  BTW, I see models from Ford, Elite, IMG, etc who are credited all the time on here.  It's not likely that many photographers on MM shoot exclusively with agency models, and can't ever credit a single one of them (if they exist, they're a very minuscule minority).

Hi MelissaAnn

I understand that but my point of view is not to assume someone is "arrogant" or "possessive" (some of the terms others have used in this thread) based on whether they credit on this website.

If I don't know I'll just ask, I find communicating with a person a better way of networking.

Changing the conversation slightly:
It sometimes amazes me how predatory photographers can be towards each other rather than just asking questions they'll happily accuse people of all sorts based on very little fact.

(Note: last part was nothing to do with the conversation or aimed at Stefano)

Jun 20 13 04:38 pm Link

Photographer

Darren Brade

Posts: 3351

London, England, United Kingdom

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
Honestly I think this thread is perfect for this well expressed sentiment:

"Don't worry about what people think; they don't do it very often."
Jacqueline Delisle

there is not such thing as a profile or portfolio that is immune to criticism, misunderstanding, skepticism or hostility from some models - or photographers.

Just tell the truth, keep the personal stuff to your self, give enough information for someone to make a decision and be done with it.

Waste of time to try to manage things you can't control -  for example - other people's perceptions or reactions...

+1

Jun 20 13 04:40 pm Link

Photographer

DELETED-ACCOUNT_

Posts: 10303

Los Angeles, California, US

That Italian Guy wrote:
No agency I work with has ever said "if you have an MM account please don't credit our models there.

And furthermore, there are plenty of agency models here on MM, including models from top agencies such as Premier.


For me, a couple of missing model credits is not a problem, but a complete lack of model credits suggests a certain hubris that I'm not sure I would appreciate if I were a model thinking of working with that photographer on a trade basis.

We are only as good as our models. It makes us look good, not bad, to acknowledge that.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

With all due respect, what might be true for some may not be the same for others.  I have been specifically told by 2 of the larger agencies in LA "Do NOT list our models on Modelmayhem", and "Don't advertise our models on the site for your workshops", as well as "That site's a joke, we don't want our girls to have anything to do with it..which is why as a condition of our signing you you need to immediately delete your account."  In fact, with the exception of 2 of the smaller boutiques, every agency I've come across (about a dozen) in LA makes models delete their acct here and discontinue any association with ModelMayhem.  I've been told as much by about 3 or 4 more in the last couple years.

So, there may be "plenty" of "agency" models on here....there are far more in my experience that aren't for whatever reason.  The site has a shit reputation in the commercial/fashion world, let's be honest.  Do you really want some potential weirdo emailing Premier or Storm and saying "Hey, we saw a bunch of photos of that girl on Stefano Brunesci's ModelMayhem site....I want to shoot some hawt noodz of her too!  Can I book her?", I know I wouldn't want that...but then again, that's just me.

And also, re: your comment:

That Italian Guy wrote:
Personally I find it a little arrogant when a photographer doesn't credit his models. It gives the impression he doesn't feel that the model had anything to do with the final image and it was all the photographer's work, which is never true.

Even if the model isn't on MM, a simple "Jane @ XZY" acknowledges the model's contribution to the image and gives people a starting point if they want to 'research' and possibly book her, either for a test or maybe for a paid job.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I seriously doubt the models give a shit if they're credited on MM.  Credits are overrated.  Credit in Numero or W magazine?  Sure.  Credit on the internet in some random website?  Not at all.  IF credits were soooooo important, then why don't the agencies credit the entire team in the model's books?  Oh wait, I know...because your portfolio is meant to market YOU, not the team, not anyone else.  If someone asks "Hey, who did that?" you say "Oh, yeah John/Jane Doe", but you don't need to go out of your way to advertise anyone else in your book.  I'm sure if I go to Premier's site right now and check their boards you won't find nary a credit listing team members...

Jun 20 13 04:46 pm Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

Darren Brade wrote:
Yes if your world evolves solely around Model Mayhem.

I arrange most of my non-agency tests via Facebook these days.

MM forums can be fun though big_smile

T-D-L wrote:
I have been specifically told by 2 of the larger agencies in LA "Do NOT list our models on Modelmayhem"

If an agency asks me not to then of course I will respect their wishes. But I've worked with many London agencies and it hasn't happened yet.

T-D-L wrote:
Do you really want some potential weirdo emailing Premier or Storm and saying "Hey, we saw a bunch of photos of that girl on Stefano Brunesci's ModelMayhem site...

They're much more likely to see them on Facebook or Tumblr.

My profile here is not visible unless you're a member either.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Jun 20 13 04:58 pm Link

Photographer

Oscar Partida

Posts: 732

Palm Springs, California, US

nyk fury wrote:
it appears that the bottom line is that shooters need to get pretty well established with the MM community of models - as opposed to other sources - to gain any traction here. .

i Don't think people should pay much attention to this....the best Models i have shot are from outside MM ,and  they don't even know about this site,and the good ones who are Here are usually scouted and removed from here ASAP

Jun 20 13 05:07 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 12067

Grand Rapids, Michigan, US

nyk fury wrote:
it appears that the bottom line is that shooters need to get pretty well established with the MM community of models - as opposed to other sources - to gain any traction here. .

Oscar Partida wrote:
i Don't think people should pay much attention to this....the best Models i have shot are from outside MM ,and  they don't even know about this site,and the good ones who are Here are usually scouted and removed from here ASAP

"Best ones" is very much a matter of your goals and styles.  One of my favorite models ever is FOUR foot eleven, and unlikely to be "scouted."  The model who gave me early guidance and is basically the inspiration for all of my art nude work was 27 years old when we met, and I'm quite sure she's never been with a mainstream agency.

Jun 20 13 05:18 pm Link

Photographer

Ash Photographic

Posts: 378

Cirencester, England, United Kingdom

Self portraits (male photographers).

Seriously, nobody cares (or indeed should care) what we look like.









Ash.

Jun 20 13 05:20 pm Link

Photographer

Darren Brade

Posts: 3351

London, England, United Kingdom

That Italian Guy wrote:
I arrange most of my non-agency tests via Facebook these days.

Same here.

That Italian Guy wrote:
MM forums can be fun though big_smile

It does save us having to run around the village with our pick-forks like the old days ;-)

Jun 20 13 05:23 pm Link

Photographer

Westdahl Studio

Posts: 333

COEUR D ALENE, Idaho, US

Ash Photographic wrote:
Self portraits (male photographers).

Seriously, nobody cares (or indeed should care) what we look like.









Ash.

At least I hope not.

Jun 20 13 05:24 pm Link

Model

Dani-Mae

Posts: 72

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, US

Leland Ray wrote:
I put the comment about llama herders on my page to address a particular trend I was seeing, that of models who'd email me saying that "my boyfriend is coming to insure my safety."  They didn't even ask if it was okay to bring someone along, just assumed there was some "danger" to working with me (or anyone else) and made the decision to have a bodyguard on hand.

Since I work with a lot of inexperienced models, it was necessary for me to state in very strong terms that I am NOT okay with making assumptions.  Professional models, those that do this as a primary or secondary source of income, don't even ask, they simply check my bona fides in their own way and come to work.  A recent model didn't have transportation, so her boyfriend drove her, but he literally had the power of invisibility whenever we were shooting.  I found myself looking around to see where he was, which I appreciated more than he could know.  Considering his attitude, I doubt I would have minded him being right there anyway, though he chose to let his girlfriend do her job and stay completely out of the way.

I often allow llama herders, but it's on a case by case basis.  I've decided finally that if a model says her llama herder is her "bodyguard," I'm not interested in her at all.

My husband was with me for a shoot that I did yesterday evening and the photog and I had to wonder where he was sometimes.  Plus it was nice to have extra hands to haul lights, battery pack, etc. through the swamp.  I think it all depends on the llama herder.  I hate that insecure boyfriends have basically ruined it for men that want to be involved in their partners passion and support them.

Jun 20 13 05:24 pm Link

Photographer

Ash Photographic

Posts: 378

Cirencester, England, United Kingdom

Dani-Mae wrote:
My husband was with me for a shoot that I did yesterday evening and the photog and I had to wonder where he was sometimes.

Are you suggesting this is a good thing?

Many photographers would be concerned that a stranger was wandering unsupervised around their home or studio.




Ash.

Jun 20 13 05:26 pm Link

Photographer

Darren Brade

Posts: 3351

London, England, United Kingdom

Ash Photographic wrote:
Self portraits (male photographers).

Seriously, nobody cares (or indeed should care) what we look like.

Ash.

Actually you'd be surprised. Most the models I've met prefer to at least know who they are looking for when they meet them.

One of the common request I had on Facebook was there were not enough pictures of me on there. Really? Anyway I put an album up so I can just point them to it. My Facebook page has never been about me, just what I do.

However, I agree with you if the photographer has a pout :-P

Jun 20 13 05:28 pm Link

Model

Dani-Mae

Posts: 72

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, US

Ash Photographic wrote:

Are you suggesting this is a good thing?

Many photographers would be concerned that a stranger was wandering unsupervised around their home or studio.




Ash.

We were on a location shoot at a river/swamp walk.

Jun 20 13 05:30 pm Link

Photographer

nyk fury

Posts: 2976

Port Townsend, Washington, US

Ash Photographic wrote:
Self portraits (male photographers).
Seriously, nobody cares (or indeed should care) what we look like.

why should only models have to be pretty?

Jun 20 13 05:31 pm Link

Photographer

gorgeous3mikecasa

Posts: 77

Chicago, Illinois, US

i dont cred models usually,

Jun 20 13 05:38 pm Link

Photographer

Photographe

Posts: 2351

Bristol, England, United Kingdom

T-D-L wrote:
I have been specifically told by 2 of the larger agencies in LA "Do NOT list our models on Modelmayhem"

Personally I don't think London agents are going to start bossing young girls around in this way, they under scrutiny already as to how they care and develop young women's careers and encouraging them to network and organize shoots is part of that.

Some models are part-time, out of London, or around 16 years old and you often see this type of less busy agency model on MM, it's obviously useful networking.

Since Diesel and Vogue aren't scouting here, it's inconsequential from that point of view and there is no reason to stamp out the agency brand name in the public arena. It could be viewed as controlling, to discourage communication between models from other agencies and it's just not the ethos of people like Storm in my experience.

T-D-L wrote:
Do you really want some potential weirdo emailing Premier or Storm and saying "Hey, we saw a bunch of photos of that girl on Stefano Brunesci's ModelMayhem site...

As I don't live in London, I couldn't care less about this and the chances of it happening are remote. What is far more likely is some nuthead from this site phoning agencies and asking if they know a photographer from this site. This is in no way a good verification system either, with up to 4 new face bookers or assistants in some agencies and a staff turnover that is very high. In my case, the only people likely to remember to me are the owners and some senior bookers.

It's the same case if someone phoned magazines. But if a model asked me to name the people specifically I worked for/dealt with at iD, The Independent or another magazine, I would happily give their name and wait for that person to ask a specific employer/publisher for a reference.

Modelling and representing/developing models are two entirely different things and this is where verification is falling down sometimes I think.

People "out" people based on metadata or an opinion of a photograph. In actual fact in the real world, people speak to a referee or read a reference. That is all it takes, to speak to someone that has met and worked with the person.

Jun 20 13 05:39 pm Link

Photographer

Viator Defessus Photos

Posts: 1259

Houston, Texas, US

Ash Photographic wrote:
Self portraits (male photographers).

Seriously, nobody cares (or indeed should care) what we look like.

Ash.

I have and continue to shoot frequently with a model that asks for a photo of the photographer before she agrees to shoot. She's a lovely, friendly human being. She just likes to know who she's going to be meeting. When we were discussing shooting together the first time I just linked her to my facebook page.

Jun 20 13 05:43 pm Link

Photographer

DwLPhoto

Posts: 808

Palo Alto, California, US

At least most models don't have a flash webpage that starts blaring music and a   sound off button that would be hard for even the most competent  Where's Waldo aficionado to find.

Everyone has those now, whether it's people who are really good, or "_______photography" with those watermarks that fill 15-30% of the photo in curly font and every photo is a couples shot of their friends or pictures of their friend's baby sleeping in a basket.   I know there isn't much you can do if for every  solid photographer there are 1,000 kit lens warriors have a web page that is 99% the same layout, but  IMO people should lose all the flash and scrolling. (aside from trying to keep people from "stealing" your photos I guess.)   

But that's outside MM anyway, even if it's linked to a MM profile.

Jun 20 13 05:44 pm Link

Photographer

Model Mentor Studio

Posts: 1359

Saint Catharines-Niagara, Ontario, Canada

You should see the stuff thats NOT on Stefano's MM page. big_smile

Jun 20 13 05:53 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 12067

Grand Rapids, Michigan, US

Viator-Defessus Photos wrote:
I have and continue to shoot frequently with a model that asks for a photo of the photographer before she agrees to shoot. She's a lovely, friendly human being. She just likes to know who she's going to be meeting. When we were discussing shooting together the first time I just linked her to my facebook page.

I have no problem linking a model to my picture, although very few ask.  But I'm not going to feature it.

Jun 20 13 06:28 pm Link

Model

Laura UnBound

Posts: 28745

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Rollo David Snook wrote:
This is a point about something else, but this is not a red flag.

For you, sure.

This assumes that no recent uploads means no recent work. It also wrongly assumes that no recent uploads means that people do not wish to work with that person.

If you're doing work, why aren't you showing it? (Oh because I'm waiting for publication! Again, average joe on MM is not getting published.) if you haven't done any recent work because you couldn't get anyone to work with you...that's not wrongly assuming that nobody wants to work with you, it's pretty obvious.

This wrongly assumes that there is some law somewhere that photographers must show their commercial work rather than their personal work, or some law that they must show their latest and best examples of their work in what is essentially a B2C environment.

Notice I said "their work is obviously not publication quality". You don't HAVE to show your published work just because you've said you've been published, but if you couldn't shoot a damn sears graduation portrait don't tell me you had a fashion spread in a top magazine, you're OBVIOUSLY lying.

I also find it disingenuous to cite publications on a modeling website when in reality it wasnt your model-photography that got you published. There are a lot of people who can do landscapes really well but botch model shoots beyond belief. If you have a landscape shot picked up by a magazine it's completely irrelevant to shooting models. If you say on a modeling website to a model that you got published in sports illustrated, almost all of us are going to hear that as "pictures I took of A MODEL got published in sports illustrated".

This wrongly assumes the person is in posession of the tears, able to present them, that the condition of the tearsheets is presentable and that showing fashion that could be 5 or 10 years old is relevant to a portfolio in 2013. It wrongly assumes that someone is obliged to show their commercial work here.

reaching.

The two major reason I don't show tears is the poor condition of them and the fact that most of it is more commercial or simply looks older than my portfolio work.

Great, then your portfolio work is up to date then? You're not one of the people I reference in my first example of "you've been here forever but your work is super old/almost non-existent." So your old/unable to show tear sheets are irrelevant

Jun 20 13 06:59 pm Link

Photographer

CaseyGlamour

Posts: 27

Sacramento, California, US

On the most part, tl;dr.

There's way too much over thinking here. At the risk of being blunt, you can practically look at anyone's profile and tell whether they're going to be professional or not. It's not rocket science.

Jun 20 13 07:11 pm Link

Photographer

Christopher Daemon

Posts: 345

West Hazleton, Pennsylvania, US

DwLPhoto wrote:
At least most models don't have a flash webpage that starts blaring music and a   sound off button that would be hard for even the most competent  Where's Waldo aficionado to find.

Everyone has those now, whether it's people who are really good, or "_______photography" with those watermarks that fill 15-30% of the photo in curly font and every photo is a couples shot of their friends or pictures of their friend's baby sleeping in a basket.   I know there isn't much you can do if for every  solid photographer there are 1,000 kit lens warriors have a web page that is 99% the same layout, but  IMO people should lose all the flash and scrolling. (aside from trying to keep people from "stealing" your photos I guess.)   

But that's outside MM anyway, even if it's linked to a MM profile.

So I am not sure what you are saying here, you dislike flash, curly fonts, kit lenses, babies in baskets, and these are red flags for what? Was this directed at someone specific or your general critique on web designs that aren't yours?  And what is wrong with "______photography" ? Have you really come across so many loud, flash based websites that you can have that visceral a reaction? And wouldn't those sites be designed to be attractive to models and/or clients, not other photographers?

Jun 20 13 07:29 pm Link

Photographer

Natural Means

Posts: 936

Yamba, New South Wales, Australia

I'd be really interested in hearing experiences from models who've

Shot with a photographer and wished they hadn't then seen a red flag in the photographers portfolio in retrospect.

And the opposite case, made a concious decision to over look a red or yellow flag and bern pleasently surprised?

(less interested in the agency vs mm model credit issue tbh)

Jun 20 13 08:03 pm Link

Photographer

FEN RIR Photo

Posts: 725

Westminster, Colorado, US

Tony Lawrence wrote:

David Mecey is a former Playboy shooter from Chicago:   https://www.modelmayhem.com/1975443   I just imagine some goof here turns down a shoot with him because he has no MM models credited.   Too respond to a comment.   There are a lot of shooters on this site who only shoot agency faces and just have a presence here.    They largely avoid working with MM models.

I'm sure people like David Mecey are the exception, I'm sure this thread is aimed at the crappy photogs like myself.

Jun 20 13 08:14 pm Link

Photographer

Tony Lawrence

Posts: 21526

Chicago, Illinois, US

Erik Ballew wrote:

I'm sure people like David Mecey are the exception, I'm sure this thread is aimed at the crappy photogs like myself.

Not seeing any crappy work from you.   There are a lot of shooters here who have profiles filled with agency models who they don't credit.   David isn't the only Playboy shooter here.   We have some Vogue, Elle, W, Harpers and Town and Country published folks as well as many who have shot national campaigns and stars.   So what if they don't credit those models.   Who gives a crap that they haven't credited a MM model.   What does their work look like?   If there are doubts about their legitimacy, ask them.   

People make this stuff so difficult.   Its just not.    I like a recent models attitude.   Hey, Tony.   Do you want to shoot tomorrow?    Sure.... and we shot.   No long drawn out drama.   I shoot as a hobby and lets face it 90% of the models on this site will never be signed.   They are pretty women who are largely being paid by amateurs to pose nude.   Its sad and silly that so many put so many barriers up to shooting when they could make money, network and have fun.

Jun 20 13 08:43 pm Link

Photographer

Quay Lude

Posts: 6386

Madison, Wisconsin, US

That Italian Guy wrote:
But I've worked with many London agencies...

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Can you name them? I'd love to see the work that you have produced in collaboration with agencies in London.

Jun 20 13 09:13 pm Link

Model

MelissaAnn

Posts: 3971

Seattle, Washington, US

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:
Can you name them? I'd love to see the work that you have produced in collaboration with agencies in London.

Try looking in his port, the names of the agencies/models are clearly listed in the caption.  You can also look on his website or tumblr (both linked on his MM profile) and see more of his work with agency models there.

Jun 20 13 09:38 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 12067

Grand Rapids, Michigan, US

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:
Can you name them? I'd love to see the work that you have produced in collaboration with agencies in London.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
Try looking in his port, the names of the agencies/models are clearly listed in the caption.  You can also look on his website or tumblr (both linked on his MM profile) and you can see more of his work with agency models there.

Wait; you mean that he CREDITED HIS MODELS, and that doing so helps support his claims and credibility?

What a concept.

Jun 20 13 09:41 pm Link

Model

MelissaAnn

Posts: 3971

Seattle, Washington, US

That Italian Guy wrote:
But I've worked with many London agencies...

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:
Can you name them? I'd love to see the work that you have produced in collaboration with agencies in London.

MelissaAnn  wrote:
Try looking in his port, the names of the agencies/models are clearly listed in the caption.  You can also look on his website or tumblr (both linked on his MM profile) and see more of his work with agency models there.

Art of the nude wrote:
Wait; you mean that he CREDITED HIS MODELS, and that doing so helps support his claims and credibility?

What a concept.

I know, really.

The list of agencies can also be found on Stefano's MM profile:
"I've tested models for Models1, FM, M+P, Oxygen, Nevs, Bookings, Profile, MOT, Gingersnap and others and my photos can be seen on their websites."

Jun 20 13 09:41 pm Link

Photographer

FEN RIR Photo

Posts: 725

Westminster, Colorado, US

Tony Lawrence wrote:

Not seeing any crappy work from you.   There are a lot of shooters here who have profiles filled with agency models who they don't credit.   David isn't the only Playboy shooter here.   We have some Vogue, Elle, W, Harpers and Town and Country published folks as well as many who have shot national campaigns and stars.   So what if they don't credit those models.   Who gives a crap that they haven't credited a MM model.   What does their work look like?   If there are doubts about their legitimacy, ask them.   

People make this stuff so difficult.   Its just not.    I like a recent models attitude.   Hey, Tony.   Do you want to shoot tomorrow?    Sure.... and we shot.   No long drawn out drama.   I shoot as a hobby and lets face it 90% of the models on this site will never be signed.   They are pretty women who are largely being paid by amateurs to pose nude.   Its sad and silly that so many put so many barriers up to shooting when they could make money, network and have fun.

True enough!  I'm only here as an expressive outlet, as shooting families and business partners gets boring. 

I get enough stiff subjects in real life, I too would just love to shoot with people that are laid back and go with the flow.

Jun 21 13 07:43 am Link