FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Surely this has been asked before but why is it the Model gets total adoration for an image and the Photography is generally ignored?

because there are more horndogs trying to smooze up to models than models trying to impress photographers?

in case you didn't notice, the quality, the artistic merit of the photos or the "beauty" (in most cases) of the models has little to do with the amount of "adoration". just like the retouchers who "love" your profile pictures and leave tags. if you think they really like your images and that's the only reason they tag you.... surprise!

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Surely this has been asked before but why is it the Model gets total adoration for an image and the Photography is generally ignored?

Because beauty is what you see, not what you craft. When you look at a beautiful sunset you don't intellectualize about nuclear fusion of hydrogen or about the atmospheric refraction and blending.

hbutz New York wrote:
With glamour photography the photographer is incidental.  With fine-art photography the model is incidental.

99% true. And an awesome line. I may have to steal that one day.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Surely this has been asked before but why is it the Model gets total adoration for an image and the Photography is generally ignored?

"Total" isn't true.  You might find at least one new comment in your port for which it's not true.    Additionally, when I comment on photos, often it includes both the photography and the model.  Ideally the viewer should never be aware of the photography, just the finished art work.  Photo comments are typically not critiques anyway.  It's in the critique forums where the photography is more likely to be discussed.

It's like audiophiles versus music enthusiasts.  The audiophile will listen to the equipment.  The music enthusiast will listen to the music.

Graham Glover wrote:
It's like audiophiles versus music enthusiasts.  The audiophile will listen to the equipment.  The music enthusiast will listen to the music.

that won't work. the audiophile listens to the music, but is more aware of the details. they still are listening to and enjoying the music just as much as the music enthusiast. the music enthusiast will listen to the bass and blow out their ear drums, not caring about the how clean or how distorted the bass or highs may be. have great friends who are music enthusiasts. i tell them when they have blown out the left speaker tweeter and wear ear plugs at their homes. you hear the music on good gear, you hear the equipment with bad gear.

both care about the music. the equipmentphile is a totally different animal. they need the oxygen free copper 10 gauge power cord assembled by virgins in a clean room at $150 each for great sound.

the people ohh and ahh at the models, in most cases, don't care if the photo nor the model are photogenic or pretty. they just like the t&a

hbutz New York wrote:
With glamour photography the photographer is incidental.  With fine-art photography the model is incidental.

Thanks but I may have to disagree, imo it would depend on the viewer.  Horndogs look at fine art also.

The question wasn't / isn't MM specific. On social media in general the Model gets the swoons and adoration from both sexes, the Photographer, MUA and whoever else may be involved get hardly, if any recognition.

Personally, I look at everything and pick apart the bullshit from the truly good shots but that's probably because I am actively involved in the process and 'the devil is in the details' is a famous quote I recall and attempt to adhere to in My own work, (thanks Thomas!)  Yes, there are some very beautiful Women in some really God awful pictures but when a Model posts a Selfie and it receives more attention from the public than a carefully crafted image there's something off. Not only that, but the Model can post the same shot as the Photographer and yet get 10x +  as much recognition for it.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Personally, I look at everything and pick apart the bullshit from the truly good shots but that's probably because I am actively involved in the process and 'the devil is in the details' is a famous quote I recall and attempt to adhere to in My own work, (thanks Thomas!)  Yes, there are some very beautiful Women in some really God awful pictures but when a Model posts a Selfie and it receives more attention from the public than a carefully crafted image there's something off. Not only that, but the Model can post the same shot as the Photographer and yet get 10x +  as much recognition for it.

As to your final question there is a dramatic difference in the amount of traffic on models' pages vs. photographers' pages.

As far as your earlier question, you don't have to look farther than your own work for the answer. Not meant as a critique, but your page is filled with images of models on a simple background, centered in the frame, without much nuance to the lighting. The impact of the model far outweighs the impact of the photography on virtually all of the images on your page. Maybe that is what you intended. Again, not criticizing, but that is what the net effect on the audience is. Why is it a surprise to you that the model gets more attention?

Dan Howell wrote:

Thanks for the input Dan.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

Yes, that's the intention of the work, to feature the Model.

I guess I'm looking for an occasional 'nice shot Man', which never seems to come. As mentioned an image on a Models social media page can reach 200 likes, the very same image on mine is lucky to receive 5 but as You have pointed out the work is about the Model.

You can't expect it, because it's expected.

What I mean is, I taught college studio photography for many years. Obviously as the semester progresses, more is expected of the students. After about midterm (right after our first glamour assignment) , I always told them from then on out, nobody that photographed a conventionally attractive person with simple lighting would get an A, unless they did something above and beyond. What that means varies from student to student of course, but the fact is that if your subject is attractive, and your lighting is simple, then making them look good basically just requires that you not fuck up. I don't give out As for just not fucking up, and most people won't give out compliments for it either.

Most of what you see in Vogue, etc. is photographers doing a really great job of not fucking up. The ones with names we know ... They do a little more. The other 80% of the pages or so are people that did what was expected of them.

That's not a criticism of your work,which I haven't even looked at yet - I don't want to accidentally influence my response. But that's why, once you've been around the block a few times, glamour work doesn't really stand out.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Surely this has been asked before but why is it the Model gets total adoration for an image and the Photography is generally ignored?

i have no idea what you're talking about!😉

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
The question wasn't / isn't MM specific. On social media in general the Model gets the swoons and adoration from both sexes, the Photographer, MUA and whoever else may be involved get hardly, if any recognition.

Although you don’t say exactly which awards you’ve won, your profile does say that you’re “award winning”. 

Surely that qualifies as recognition? 

As a photographer, I would say that was plenty. 

Unless ‘likes' from random strangers on social media is what motivates you more than your awards?

Zack Zoll wrote:
What I mean is, I taught college studio photography for many years. Obviously as the semester progresses, more is expected of the students. After about midterm (right after our first glamour assignment) , I always told them from then on out, nobody that photographed a conventionally attractive person with simple lighting would get an A, unless they did something above and beyond.

I was horrified when I read this.  Why does studio lighting have to be complicated?  Are you trying to teach photography or is it more about academic achievement?

Photography is not like maths or physics.  I’ve been shooting in photo studios now for forty years and my observation is that the doing the simple stuff well is much harder than the complicated stuff.

The reason I say this is that the standards are more exacting.  For instance, if you shoot one person against a white background and make any of a range of simple mistakes, it will be very obvious to everyone.  With a complicated lighting set up, make a few mistakes and who is to know if you didn’t intend things to look that way?

You only have to look at the great photographers who did the simple stuff well (Avedon, Penn, Skrebnesky, Bailey) and then see how many mistakes are made by almost everyone who tries to ape that style.

A few manage it.  Not so many.

Derek Ridgers wrote:
Although you don’t say exactly which awards you’ve won, your profile does say that you’re “award winning”. 

Surely that qualifies as recognition? 

As a photographer, I would say that was plenty. 

Unless ‘likes' from random strangers on social media is what motivates you more than your awards?

Yes, falling for that trap.

Thank You for snapping Me back to reality.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Surely this has been asked before but why is it the Model gets total adoration for an image and the Photography is generally ignored?

People always notice the tip of the ice berg (the visible part) and not the giant mass under the surface holding it up.  That's just human nature.

Keith Moody wrote:

People always notice the tip of the ice berg (the visible part) and not the giant mass under the surface holding it up.  That's just human nature.

Wonderful analogy Keith, spot on.

Thank You.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
Surely this has been asked before but why is it the Model gets total adoration for an image and the Photography is generally ignored?

Because most people don't actually look at the photo but only at the person/object photographed.

A photo with a good looking model attract eyes to the model beauty and people "like the photo" because she is in it and not because of the work in the photo. (more or less happens with high rated brands on crap products).

But those who know the distinction of the object look and the photo itself, will realize that there are a lot of gorgeous models being admired through crap photos. Seriously, I stopped following many photography communities related to model and portraits because I barely could see any good photo at all, although most photos had attractive good looking models.

anchev wrote:
Because beauty is what you see, not what you craft. When you look at a beautiful sunset you don't intellectualize about nuclear fusion of hydrogen or about the atmospheric refraction and blending.

Beauty is not what you see but a subjective perspective that we craft according to our evolving experiences and expectations, be it a women face or a sun set. Otherwise we would never need designs, work on composition, dancers and modelling but only snap shots of this supposedly "beauty" that we only see and is not crafted.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

Thanks but I may have to disagree, imo it would depend on the viewer.  Horndogs look at fine art also.

The question wasn't / isn't MM specific. On social media in general the Model gets the swoons and adoration from both sexes, the Photographer, MUA and whoever else may be involved get hardly, if any recognition.

Personally, I look at everything and pick apart the bullshit from the truly good shots but that's probably because I am actively involved in the process and 'the devil is in the details' is a famous quote I recall and attempt to adhere to in My own work, (thanks Thomas!)  Yes, there are some very beautiful Women in some really God awful pictures but when a Model posts a Selfie and it receives more attention from the public than a carefully crafted image there's something off. Not only that, but the Model can post the same shot as the Photographer and yet get 10x +  as much recognition for it.

The visual language of today, which colour photography helped to reinforce, is about the material tangibility anxiety. Meaning provoke viewer to want or feel they have the potential of have the materialistic and tangibility access of what is in the photography, so they go after this tangible object that is in the photograph. The photography itself as a work most people, including photographers, don't care. Reason why most photographers follow such language.

hbutz New York wrote:
With glamour photography the photographer is incidental.  With fine-art photography the model is incidental.

Plus 1

Marcio Faustino wrote:
Beauty is not what you see but a subjective perspective that we craft according to our evolving experiences and expectations, be it a women face or a sun set. Otherwise we would never need designs, work on composition, dancers and modelling but only snap shots of this supposedly "beauty" that we only see and is not crafted.

That's on a superficial or verbal level where one translates beauty into pleasure, into some explanation, rating, criticism or comparison. Then it is not beauty but the thought about beauty, an analysis. The description of beauty is not beauty. What I am saying is that beauty is when you look, see and your self disappears. It absorbs you totally for a moment and then you don't think, don't craft, don't compare, don't do anything. Only when you are not beauty is. So it cannot be subjective because there is no subject at that moment.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
just like the retouchers who "love" your profile pictures and leave tags. if you think they really like your images and that's the only reason they tag you.... surprise!

I always think that if my images are as wonderful as the retouchers tell then the one person I don't need to employ is a retoucher.