Herman Surkis wrote:
Can we get one of these, equally as well summarized for photographers? In other words telling models why someone may not trade with them.

Should not be too difficult since most of the points cut both ways.

What would be really interesting is to see who would be the most outraged.

I've already said it once: Please do.

The key is that it has to be as professional, non-inflammatory and well-stated as this OP.

Girls complain about why they can't get a good book TF. I tell them that if they want a good book fast, they should find someone good and pay for it and open their doors to better opportunities. It definitely goes both ways, but I hear many more photographers complaining about models not doing TF than the other way around.

Art of the nude wrote:

So, you're completely happy with available models?  No complaints or concerns?
Awesome! 

More generally, I just talk to the models, and shoot no more than they are comfortable with, but that seems to be too complicated for some people.

Sure I am very happy with the models I shoot. With few exceptions I shoot many of the models I work with multiple times.  There are a couple of models who only shoot nudes with me. I am shooting a brand new model on Friday, and a favorite model of mine on Sunday.

I am not being critical in this thread. I agree with the OPs pov.

I think some photographers feel they are the only ones that suffer from no shows or models who never respond, on fact weakly do from time to time. I just block them and move on.

Art of the nude wrote:
So, you're completely happy with available models?  No complaints or concerns?
Awesome! 

More generally, I just talk to the models, and shoot no more than they are comfortable with, but that seems to be too complicated for some people.

Sure I am very happy with the models I shoot. With few exceptions I shoot many of the models I work with multiple times.  There are a couple of models who only shoot nudes with me. I am shooting a brand new model on Friday, and a favorite model of mine on Sunday.

I am not being critical in this thread. I agree with the OPs pov.

I think some photographers feel they are the only ones that suffer from no shows or models who never respond, on fact we all do from time to time. I just block them and move on.

Herman Surkis wrote:
Can we get one of these, equally as well summarized for photographers? In other words telling models why someone may not trade with them.

Should not be too difficult since most of the points cut both ways.

What would be really interesting is to see who would be the most outraged.

By and large, it's nearly identical, isn't it?  Maybe drop #8 and swap out "model" for "look" or "photographer" where appropriate throughout and that would just about take care of it.

IDiivil wrote:
I don't believe I am a fashion model.

Yeah...I see you more as a force of nature than a fashion model! Still loving LA?

K I C K H A M wrote:

I've already said it once: Please do.

The key is that it has to be as professional, non-inflammatory and well-stated as this OP.

Girls complain about why they can't get a good book TF. I tell them that if they want a good book fast, they should find someone good and pay for it and open their doors to better opportunities. It definitely goes both ways, but I hear many more photographers complaining about models not doing TF than the other way around.

I've spent enough time on both sides of the camera to be able to see both parts of the equation, I'll think on it some.

M59 Photography wrote:

Yeah...I see you more as a force of nature than a fashion model! Still loving LA?

Very much loving LA

Herman Surkis wrote:
Can we get one of these, equally as well summarized for photographers? In other words telling models why someone may not trade with them.

Should not be too difficult since most of the points cut both ways.

What would be really interesting is to see who would be the most outraged.

Sorry, I did not originally make a "Why Photographers May Not Trade W/ You" post because I felt that, as just a model, it would upset photographers even more than only covering the model perspective if I talked from your POV.

Garry k wrote:
and

Some Models understand that some photographers work is crap and could actually hurt their image and portfolio

+1

MissLaurelle wrote:
a thing I,d add is sometimes a portfolio is not consistent and we are scared to trade in case we get the shitty end and not the pretty one we were hoping for (maybe need to phrase that better)

I'm having a hard time imagining bad pictures of you.

But I think that's one area that's different; I suspect photographers tend to think that if a model has any good pictures, they can get good pictures of her.

Art of the nude wrote:
I'm having a hard time imagining bad pictures of you.

But I think that's one area that's different; I suspect photographers tend to think that if a model has any good pictures, they can get good pictures of her.

And that is a huge mistake photographers make, including myself (far too often). I always tell the models, let's see how you photograph for me. I know that a portfolio of gorgeous images is an indicator, but not a guarantee. And each photographer sees differently, unless all they are doing is imitating someone elses shot, with the same or similar model.

Art of the nude wrote:
I'm having a hard time imagining bad pictures of you.

But I think that's one area that's different; I suspect photographers tend to think that if a model has any good pictures, they can get good pictures of her.

Laurelle made a good point. Occasionally, a photographer has images ranging from superb technical understanding to images that suggests they aren't even sure what an F-stop is... it's a bizarre phenomenon, but it exists.

There's a couple reasons/theories I have that would explain how such a thing happens (not much thought put into portfolio building, shooting low quality on average but shooting enough that high quality images can be made, retoucher assistance vs no retoucher, etc)... but trying to guess portfolio inconsistencies may be for another thread.

indefinite anomaly wrote:

hardly. I mean more along the lines of "Bitch, I'm in Italian Vogue! Fuck your couch!"

Cracked up, wasn't expecting it

NYMPH wrote:
Wonderful list! Thank you!

I also want to add - just because your work isn't something the model wants for her book does not mean your work is subpar. There's a slim chance that Kat Love would want to trade with you for glamour lingerie shots, even if you were the head photographer for playboy. She's just not that kind of model. I know I've gone through phases where I am specifically trying to add or exemplify a certain style in my book. It has nothing to do with quality, just the type of work. So please don't assume it's a diva fit or even a judgement on your portfolio, sometimes it's just a preference.  -An addition that factors into many of your points.

Excellent point

IDiivil wrote:
Laurelle made a good point. Occasionally, a photographer has images ranging from superb technical understanding to images that suggests they aren't even sure what an F-stop is... it's a bizarre phenomenon, but it exists.

There's a couple reasons/theories I have that would explain how such a thing happens (not much thought put into portfolio building, shooting low quality on average but shooting enough that high quality images can be made, retoucher assistance vs no retoucher, etc)... but trying to guess portfolio inconsistencies may be for another thread.

I think that one of the biggest things that would scare me away, were I a model, is if all of the photographers images, or all of the good ones, were from workshops.  It's not unusual for someone other than the actual photographer to arrange the set, secure the model, set up lighting, and arrange the MUA / stylists.  Not surprisingly, an image from such a situation doesn't accurately represent the photographer's skills.

The first image below is from my very first model shoot.  I did the framing, and pushed the button.  Not much else, including the post work.  When I got it from the guy who DID do the post work, I chose not to put in in my brand new MM portfolio, because I knew I couldn't recreate anything like it.  The second image, from the same shoot, is my own post work (which meant, at the time, I cropped it).  THAT went in my portfolio.

That Italian Guy wrote:
I offer cookies... does that help?








Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

yes :0 i will model for cookies

Eye of the World wrote:
If you were a model, how would you identify images that were from a workshop?

Oddly enough, it's not uncommon for the caption / location of an image to SAY that it's from a workshop.

Or, if all the images are top professional models who often do workshops.

Eye of the World wrote:
If you were a model, how would you identify images that were from a workshop?

That's actually fairly simple.
Look at the images as a whole? Does one stand out as far and beyond the rest? Does it look technically stronger than the rest? If so... might be a workshop image.

Art of the nude wrote:

I'm having a hard time imagining bad pictures of you.

But I think that's one area that's different; I suspect photographers tend to think that if a model has any good pictures, they can get good pictures of her.

Sometimes, if you have a very good portfolio, shot by people with a strong skill set, then you shoot with someone who is a beginner or otherwise has a more limited skill set, they will blame the model, or accuse you of having lots of PhotoShop, when it's really just that they are still learning to shoot and can't photograph ANYONE very well yet.

Eye of the World wrote:
If you were a model, how would you identify images that were from a workshop?

Nicolette wrote:
That's actually fairly simple.
Look at the images as a whole? Does one stand out as far and beyond the rest? Does it look technically stronger than the rest? If so... might be a workshop image.

But the comment was a response to my remark about a photographer having ALL their images be from such workshops.  Makes it trickier, but I've spotted it a few times, and I'm not really looking for it.

Art of the nude wrote:
I'm having a hard time imagining bad pictures of you.

But I think that's one area that's different; I suspect photographers tend to think that if a model has any good pictures, they can get good pictures of her.

Koryn Locke wrote:
Sometimes, if you have a very good portfolio, shot by people with a strong skill set, then you shoot with someone who is a beginner or otherwise has a more limited skill set, they will blame the model, or accuse you of having lots of PhotoShop, when it's really just that they are still learning to shoot and can't photograph ANYONE very well yet.

Maybe the fact that I got images I STILL love when I didn't know much more than where to, more or less, aim the camera, made me immune to thinking that way.  I can only think of one time where a model had a great port and I felt she was the problem, and it had to do with her attitude.

IDiivil wrote:
11. Even something as simple as not crediting a single model in one's portfolio can be of note to the model.

thanks for this point, I've never been aware this could be a concern to other models, I will mention this in my "about me"

Art of the nude wrote:

I think that one of the biggest things that would scare me away, were I a model, is if all of the photographers images, or all of the good ones, were from workshops.  It's not unusual for someone other than the actual photographer to arrange the set, secure the model, set up lighting, and arrange the MUA / stylists.  Not surprisingly, an image from such a situation doesn't accurately represent the photographer's skills.

The first image below is from my very first model shoot.  I did the framing, and pushed the button.  Not much else, including the post work.  When I got it from the guy who DID do the post work, I chose not to put in in my brand new MM portfolio, because I knew I couldn't recreate anything like it.  The second image, from the same shoot, is my own post work (which meant, at the time, I cropped it).  THAT went in my portfolio.

and ....?

Creative Lion Images wrote:
I especially like the models that will agree to shoot trade with me but won't shoot trade for nudes...that shit kills me...so you like my work enough to shoot with me for free but if I wanna shoot nudes I have to pay you?...lmfao...isn't that kinda like prostituting yourself?...I really don't think that my nude shots differ that greatly from my clothed shots and I typically shoot both in the same shoot...if you look at my port my nudes are not explicit...I don't shoot vag spreads or insertion or anything porn related which I would think any model with a half a brain would be want to be paid for...understandingly so...I'm not selling my images to amateur or professional porn sites...I treat all my images the same clothed or not my purpose for shooting is to try to create an original unique work of art...and I get laid plenty and have seen plenty of women naked in my time here on this earth...without the camera and without having to pay...so what's the difference?...inexperience is my guess...or they just don't care about the artistic value of a unique image ... Nude or not nude ... Kudos to all of you who do get it and care enough to understand that sometimes it's not all about the money!

No.  It is nothing like prostituting yourself to turn down a trade for something you feel will not enhance your portfolio.  Nothing at all.

VikyL wrote:

No.  It is nothing like prostituting yourself to turn down a trade for something you feel will not enhance your portfolio.  Nothing at all.

+1

VikyL wrote:

No.  It is nothing like prostituting yourself to turn down a trade for something you feel will not enhance your portfolio.  Nothing at all.

+2