Star wrote:
the llama is not my client. I post the images best suited to either the client (i.e. magazine, advertising agency, product company) or to my portfolio should it be a portfolio shoot.

I have never shot images that are outside the bounds of what the llama or subject has expressed, and as such do not have any need to have them approve the final images before print.

If a llama wishes final approval they are welcome to hire me to shoot content for them and pay a separate fee for the requirement of final approval on all images produced.

I think you understand, but I'm not talking about approval of poses for being "flattering" and what not.  Just about exposure or "tone."  If you never shoot nudes, or anything where accidents are possible, then I guess this wouldn't apply to you.

On the other hand, in a trade shoot, or when I'm paid, the llama IS my client, and this is one aspect of treating them as such.

Star wrote:
the model is not my client. I post the images best suited to either the client (i.e. magazine, advertising agency, product company) or to my portfolio should it be a portfolio shoot.

I have never shot images that are outside the bounds of what the model or subject has expressed, and as such do not have any need to have them approve the final images before print.

If a model wishes final approval they are welcome to hire me to shoot content for them and pay a separate fee for the requirement of final approval on all images produced.

Star,

If someone pays, they are a client.  Whether you believe it to be or not. 

You have an obligation to fulfill what you promise, and that is often left to the lawyers and courts when the stakes are high enough.  One day, they will be, and you'll see.  Models DO NOT PAY, CLIENTS pay. 

When YOU PAY, the subject is a _MODEL_, and you have control, since you are, in effect, the client.

But this thread is heading for a train wreck because there is no one way to view this, and no one answer.  There are more shades of grey than in a rich silver print.

Scott

BodyartBabes wrote:
. . .  there is no one way to view this, and no one answer.  There are more shades of grey than in a rich silver print.

Scott

Scott has summed the question up pretty accurately, I think.  I work pretty much the way "Art" does.  It seems to me to be impossible to be completely certain of not getting a shot or two that is outside the model's boundaries, whether due to accident or due to differing interpretations of the agreements in place.  And given that we so often misunderstand each other, simply because we are human, and all the more so given the fact that any agreement we may reach concerning boundaries is to at least some extent governed by the subtleties of taste,  it further seems to me foolish not to allow some reasonable, appropriate measure of post shoot review and control to vest in the model, before the pictures go to the client for final approval.  (Please note the use of the words reasonable and appropriate, in themselves subject to personal interpretation.)

I wouldn't trust an insurance salesman or a used car salesman that simply shoved a piece of paper at me and said, "Sign this, it's industry standard."  But that's precisely what we often insist that models do.  And if I were a model, as I have sometimes been and even now sometimes am, and were presented with a "My way or the highway!" attitude in response to a  reasonable concern reasonably stated,  my choice would be the highway.

For my part, I think we would all be better served, models and photographers alike, if models would take that approach more often.

All IMHO, as always.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
On one hand the kind of limits in shooting that Art writes about are totally foreign to me, on the other hand I can think of numerous instances where I've been more concerned about the connections of content to identity than the model has been.

I've worked with several people during the last couple of years where they were either modelling nude for the first time or needed to keep shots anonymous. I can't imagine any circumstances under which I would violate the sorts of agreements regarding limits I have with the models I work with. Instead I've spent a good bit of time discussing issues like crediting, stage names, facial recognition, etc., with models to be sure that we both were clear on our mutual course of action.

I don't quite understand the bold part.  This has nothing to do with the specific levels; I've had the issues come up with a bra showing, and with how much labia shows in an open leg shot.

It has to do with communication and respect; as you talk about in the rest of your comment.

Art of the nude wrote:
I'm curious; is that really typical?

I think images being used against agreements is not typical.   It certainly comes, up, but I think that is atypical of most shoots. 

When it does come up, it's usually due to a lack of communication by both parties, and that's probably the root cause of over half the rants here.   It amazes me how many people go into shoots with no agreement about exactly what the shoot will entail, when images (for TF) will be delivered, etc. and then seem surprised when these things don't magically work out the way they expected.

Art of the nude wrote:
Short version, for those who won't read more.  Why would anyone benefit from showing images that the model doesn't want public.

Long version, with some context.
I'm trying to understand something I see fairly often in the forums, which can be summed up in the comment I saw recently "don't let the photographer see anything you don't want public."

I'm curious; is that really typical?  It is a LONG ways from how I do things, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from having that sort of an atmosphere.

My process is, more or less;
1. Limits are discussed prior to the shoot, as arrangements are being made.
2. Limits are reviewed and if necessary clarified when the model arrives.  I make it clear that any accidents won't be used, and that if there is a case where there is doubt, the model can check the shot before it goes public.
3. Limits are, as relevant, discussed during the shoot (do you realize xyz is showing, etc.)
4. Model reviews proofs, and lets me know of any "no way" or "I'm not sure about that one" shots.
5. I delete, or occasionally, crop the "no way" shots, and when relevant, do final, but not yet public, versions of images where the model isn't sure.

This seems to work for me, and I find that models seem comfortable with the process, and that it allows for a more pleasant shoot to have the model not worry about accidents.  On occasion, this comfort means I get images I wouldn't have otherwise gotten, in various ways.

So, the question is, why would it be better for anyone, and especially for the photographer, to create a climate where the model is worried about having no say in exposure shown in final images.

And, to be clear, this isn't just a "full nudes" issue.  It has applied with anywhere from shadows or "tone" of open leg shots, to nip slips and accidental upskirts in fully clothed shoots.

Having almost no experience with nudes until the last month or two, I'm trying make out a consistent, comfortable approach. This might be helpful, so thanks for that.

So far my own approach has been clarity of intent up front; discussion of what poses I'll look for, how any sensitive bits will be hidden either through pose or post production.

I also use wording in my model release that prohibits usage of images in which said bits are showing. I don't know that it's technically legally binding, but it is in keeping with my intent and it seems to work with the models.

I find it important to communicate all of this to the model when I'm doing implied nudes. In the studio they may actually be full on nude images with everything showing, to be obscured in post. If I fail to communicate the vision effectively, there is some hesitation.

Damianne wrote:
Money. Most of the things llamas don't want to show will get you money from a porn site.

That would be one reason to ignore a llama's limits.

While "what the llama doesn't want to show" can range to as modest as part of a padded bra, I've shot plenty of images of every inch of a llama.  No one seems to want to give me loads of money for them, porn sites or not.

Art of the nude wrote:
Short version, for those who won't read more.  Why would anyone benefit from showing images that the model doesn't want public.

Long version, with some context.
I'm trying to understand something I see fairly often in the forums, which can be summed up in the comment I saw recently "don't let the photographer see anything you don't want public."



I'm curious; is that really typical?  It is a LONG ways from how I do things, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from having that sort of an atmosphere.

My process is, more or less;
1. Limits are discussed prior to the shoot, as arrangements are being made.
2. Limits are reviewed and if necessary clarified when the model arrives.  I make it clear that any accidents won't be used, and that if there is a case where there is doubt, the model can check the shot before it goes public.
3. Limits are, as relevant, discussed during the shoot (do you realize xyz is showing, etc.)
4. Model reviews proofs, and lets me know of any "no way" or "I'm not sure about that one" shots.
5. I delete, or occasionally, crop the "no way" shots, and when relevant, do final, but not yet public, versions of images where the model isn't sure.

This seems to work for me, and I find that models seem comfortable with the process, and that it allows for a more pleasant shoot to have the model not worry about accidents.  On occasion, this comfort means I get images I wouldn't have otherwise gotten, in various ways.

So, the question is, why would it be better for anyone, and especially for the photographer, to create a climate where the model is worried about having no say in exposure shown in final images.

And, to be clear, this isn't just a "full nudes" issue.  It has applied with anywhere from shadows or "tone" of open leg shots, to nip slips and accidental upskirts in fully clothed shoots.

I completely understand where you are coming from and this process is excellent. I am mostly a model but I love working on BOTH sides of the camera. When the model is confident their rights, and vision, are being respected the out come is better for everyone. That includes the client as well. If the client wants certain images that a particular model won't agree to, they don't match for the job. That does not mean you take images (whoops shots or not) and use them if the model did not consent to them or is not comfortable with them. The model is still a person; and legally speaking has rights, especially when the exposure of their body is the argument at hand. Client or not, the photographer, ethically speaking, should not get the right to decide what a model will or will not be comfortable with in the public eye.

Art of the nude wrote:
Short version, for those who won't read more.  Why would anyone benefit from showing images that the model doesn't want public.

Long version, with some context.
I'm trying to understand something I see fairly often in the forums, which can be summed up in the comment I saw recently "don't let the photographer see anything you don't want public."

I'm curious; is that really typical?  It is a LONG ways from how I do things, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from having that sort of an atmosphere.

My process is, more or less;
1. Limits are discussed prior to the shoot, as arrangements are being made.
2. Limits are reviewed and if necessary clarified when the model arrives.  I make it clear that any accidents won't be used, and that if there is a case where there is doubt, the model can check the shot before it goes public.
3. Limits are, as relevant, discussed during the shoot (do you realize xyz is showing, etc.)
4. Model reviews proofs, and lets me know of any "no way" or "I'm not sure about that one" shots.
5. I delete, or occasionally, crop the "no way" shots, and when relevant, do final, but not yet public, versions of images where the model isn't sure.

This seems to work for me, and I find that models seem comfortable with the process, and that it allows for a more pleasant shoot to have the model not worry about accidents.  On occasion, this comfort means I get images I wouldn't have otherwise gotten, in various ways.

So, the question is, why would it be better for anyone, and especially for the photographer, to create a climate where the model is worried about having no say in exposure shown in final images.

And, to be clear, this isn't just a "full nudes" issue.  It has applied with anywhere from shadows or "tone" of open leg shots, to nip slips and accidental upskirts in fully clothed shoots.

The reasons why someone might choose to show an image that is beyond the model's limits are myriad.  The only reason I would ever consider showing an image that was beyond the agreed upon limits were because it was a better picture than the others.  But I would NEVER show such an image without first getting the permission of the model.

Anyone who intentionally ignores a model's limit is not acting professionally.

When I shoot beauty shots I will often have the model shoot implied, and my policy is much like yours.  Should anything not within the limits show, the model has the chance to review the image in question and decide what she is comfortable with.  This would apply whether it was trade or she was paid.

When shooting I try to only capture images which are within limits, but it sometimes happens that what appears in shadows on set is not so in the final image.  Also, for beauty shots I am often so focused on the model's face that I might not realize for a couple of frames that her arms have moved.

However, should I capture an image which shows too much I may consider it for use as is and get permission, or I may be able to crop it. 

But I would absolutely never use something a model did not approve of.  There have probably been four cases of images that I thought crossed the model's limits so I asked if she was okay with them.  Two models were okay with the images I had selected.  The other two asked that I not use them as is, in one case I cropped tighter, and in another I selected an alternate shot that was acceptable as cropping was not a viable option.

Just my $0.02

Delta LeeAnne Reed  wrote:
Client or not, the photographer, ethically speaking, should not get the right to decide what a model will or will not be comfortable with in the public eye.

as written that is just ridiculous. So if the model thinks she looks fat or old or she doesn't like that side of her face then Vogue should have to hold off on an editorial?

In the real world that attitude could never hold, and I work in the real world.

Art of the nude wrote:
While "what the model doesn't want to show" can range to as modest as part of a padded bra, I've shot plenty of images of every inch of a model.  No one seems to want to give me loads of money for them, porn sites or not.

This tends to lean towards the snuck in upskirt or while changing shots. People pay for voyeur pics and things that look actually accidental. a simply nip-slip probably doesn't qualify, and purposefully posed photos definitely dont.

Art of the nude wrote:

I don't quite understand the bold part.  This has nothing to do with the specific levels; I've had the issues come up with a bra showing, and with how much labia shows in an open leg shot.

It has to do with communication and respect; as you talk about in the rest of your comment.

I can see where that's not entirely clear.

We're in agreement about respect and limits. I'm an improvised shooter and have never had the need to discuss the sorts of limits that you write about with the models I works with. I suspect that trying to avoid angles or shots would not work for me mentally so I spend some time and effort in pre-shoot communication with the models showing them my work so they can address issues or opt out if that seems right.

As I mentioned, while the kinds of limits you write about are foreign to me I get the concept of respect and cooperation and like yourself understand it as a fundamental part of the working relationship.

Art of the nude wrote:
I don't quite understand the bold part.  This has nothing to do with the specific levels; I've had the issues come up with a bra showing, and with how much labia shows in an open leg shot.

It has to do with communication and respect; as you talk about in the rest of your comment.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
I can see where that's not entirely clear.

We're in agreement about respect and limits. I'm an improvised shooter and have never had the need to discuss the sorts of limits that you write about with the models I works with. I suspect that trying to avoid angles or shots would not work for me mentally so I spend some time and effort in pre-shoot communication with the models showing them my work so they can address issues or opt out if that seems right.

As I mentioned, while the kinds of limits you write about are foreign to me I get the concept of respect and cooperation and like yourself understand it as a fundamental part of the working relationship.

I'm pretty sure we're on the same page as a philosophy, but I still don't get the bold part.  You don't have the need to discuss limits, and you spend time and effort on pre shoot communication about those issues . . . .

Simple example.  Here's an "implied" shot
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6126/5999 … e7d4_o.jpg

Here's another shot from the set, which many models, including many "nude models" wouldn't be comfortable with.  As it happens, she selected both of them. (18+)
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6139/5999 … 231b_o.jpg

Art of the nude wrote:

Art of the nude wrote:
I don't quite understand the bold part.  This has nothing to do with the specific levels; I've had the issues come up with a bra showing, and with how much labia shows in an open leg shot.

It has to do with communication and respect; as you talk about in the rest of your comment.

I'm pretty sure we're on the same page as a philosophy, but I still don't get the bold part.  You don't have the need to discuss limits, and you spend time and effort on pre shoot communication about those issues . . . .

Simple example.  Here's an "implied" shot
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6126/5999 … e7d4_o.jpg

Here's another shot from the set, which many models, including many "nude models" wouldn't be comfortable with.  As it happens, she selected both of them. (18+)
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6139/5999 … 231b_o.jpg

My compliments on the images and we are on the same page as to respect.  I understand the point you're making as regards what's showing in the images. With my process I'd pass on the shoots if it became clear that limits on what was showing were important or required.

I'll use your earlier examples to illustrate.

1. Bra strap showing - I never shoot any clothes. The closest I get to shooting coverings is draped fabric, ropes, blindfolds, fur, and it's usually arranged in ways that reveal intimate areas. As I mentioned I've worked with people who wished to remain anonymous and this was the only issue I've ever dealt with regarding clothing reveals.

2. Labia or genital area showing - when I'm in session with a model the rules are that I'm shooting anything at all that I see that interests me for the duration of the session.

The only limit on vision/ shutter that I've ever accepted is anonymity. Other than that the challenge that I'm working with during a session is to try, in the most absolute terms, to collect images of exactly that which interests me with no other considerations or restrictions on vision.

That doesn't mean there are no limits, the material is arrived at through discussion: some models will work with animals, some wish not to, some are good with bondage, others prefer not, some can tolerate very close camera work better than others, etc..

I appreciate your starting this thread and the philosophy that you have espoused. Some of the models that I've worked with have done other work at my home from painting to childcare, some have stayed as guests for weeks. The idea of somehow tricking these people or trying to rip them off is quite far from how I view the relationships with people that I view as having gone out of their way to help me with my projects.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:
My compliments on the images and we are on the same page as to respect.  I understand the point you're making as regards what's showing in the images. With my process I'd pass on the shoots if it became clear that limits on what was showing were important or required.

I'll use your earlier examples to illustrate.

1. Bra strap showing - I never shoot any clothes. The closest I get to shooting coverings is draped fabric, ropes, blindfolds, fur, and it's usually arranged in ways that reveal intimate areas. As I mentioned I've worked with people who wished to remain anonymous and this was the only issue I've ever dealt with regarding clothing reveals.

2. Labia or genital area showing - when I'm in session with a model the rules are that I'm shooting anything at all that I see that interests me for the duration of the session.

The only limit on vision/ shutter that I've ever accepted is anonymity. Other than that the challenge that I'm working with during a session is to try, in the most absolute terms, to collect images of exactly that which interests me with no other considerations or restrictions on vision.

That doesn't mean there are no limits, the material is arrived at through discussion: some models will work with animals, some wish not to, some are good with bondage, others prefer not, some can tolerate very close camera work better than others, etc..

I appreciate your starting this thread and the philosophy that you have espoused. Some of the models that I've worked with have done other work at my home from painting to childcare, some have stayed as guests for weeks. The idea of somehow tricking these people or trying to rip them off is quite far from how I view the relationships with people that I view as having gone out of their way to help me with my projects.

So basically you dont have a need to discuss detailed limits because you and the model have arrived at a general understanding of "if you dont want me to photograph it, dont show it" ? Thats what it sounds like you're saying to me.

Which is I suppose a valid way to do things and it doesn't seem to bother you or your models and thats good. There are of course other people out there who use that same mentality and let it cross over into compromising pose-changes, wardrobe changes, etc where they SHOULDNT still be shooting, but they do, and use the "well you shouldn't have done that if you didn't want it shot!" excuse.

Laura UnBound wrote:

So basically you dont have a need to discuss detailed limits because you and the model have arrived at a general understanding of "if you dont want me to photograph it, dont show it" ? Thats what it sounds like you're saying to me.

Which is I suppose a valid way to do things and it doesn't seem to bother you or your models and thats good. There are of course other people out there who use that same mentality and let it cross over into compromising pose-changes, wardrobe changes, etc where they SHOULDNT still be shooting, but they do, and use the "well you shouldn't have done that if you didn't want it shot!" excuse.

Laura, The view of yours that my mentality at shoots is the same as someone who is somehow trying to compromise or trick a model is interesting. I've made it clear that I would pass on shoots with models who need to only shoot while posing, require wardrobe or have some limits on what they are showing that I'm supposed to restrict myself to.

There's no trickery but neither is there an artistic or personal meeting of the minds with models who wish to operate with rules that place restrictions on my vision.

As I mentioned earlier I shoot anything that interests me during a session. This is a condition for working with me and is not negotiable except for the anonymity exception. As I also mentioned the wishes and well-being of my collaborators is something I concern myself with and I do in all cases support the autonomy and ability to make decisions of anyone I'm considering working with. This includes models who may have restrictions that conflict with my shoot rules. The solution is simple, I just don't work with people that I can't match ground rules with.

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:

Laura, The view of yours that my mentality at shoots is the same as someone who is somehow trying to compromise or trick a model is interesting. I've made it clear that I would pass on shoots with models who need to only shoot while posing, require wardrobe or have some limits on what they are showing that I'm supposed to restrict myself to.

There's no trickery but neither is there an artistic or personal meeting of the minds with models who wish to operate with rules that place restrictions on my vision.

As I mentioned earlier I shoot anything that interests me during a session. This is a condition for working with me and is not negotiable except for the anonymity exception. As I also mentioned the wishes and well-being of my collaborators is something I concern myself with and I do in all cases support the autonomy and ability to make decisions of anyone I'm considering working with. This includes models who may have restrictions that conflict with my shoot rules. The solution is simple, I just don't work with people that I can't match ground rules with.

Obviously its not a comparison of you and skeevy dishonest people because you specifically work in those conditions and tell your models of such, which is what I was trying to clarify. "if you dont want it shot, dont do it/dont shoot with me, because I'm going to shoot it", yes?

All I was saying was that there are people who use that line AFTER the fact, because they DO work with models who actually have limits and they actively crossed those limits, and when confronted, give the same "if you didn't want it shot you shouldn't have shown it" explanation.

Laura UnBound wrote:

Obviously its not a comparison of you and skeevy dishonest people because you specifically work in those conditions and tell your models of such, which is what I was trying to clarify. "if you dont want it shot, dont do it/dont shoot with me, because I'm going to shoot it", yes?

All I was saying was that there are people who use that line AFTER the fact, because they DO work with models who actually have limits and they actively crossed those limits, and when confronted, give the same "if you didn't want it shot you shouldn't have shown it" explanation.

Okay, we've got the two clear areas: where both parties agree before the shoot and where the same reasoning is used as a post event excuse. I think we can agree the former is ethical and the later... well, I'd describe it as anything from a misunderstanding or unclear communication to a violation or theft.
I think the third possibility of conflicting ground rules interests me. What are your views of a situation where the photographer has described his ground rules as , "if it shows shoot it" and the model has a different set?

Jeffrey M Fletcher wrote:

Okay, we've got the two clear areas: where both parties agree before the shoot and where the same reasoning is used as a post event excuse. I think we can agree the former is ethical and the later... well, I'd describe it as anything from a misunderstanding or unclear communication to a violation or theft.
I think the third possibility of conflicting ground rules interests me. What are your views of a situation where the photographer has described his ground rules as , "if it shows shoot it" and the model has a different set?

If in the third possibility is including honest and open communication of what both parties hope to shoot, and they dont match, then they just dont shoot, unless one party chooses to compromise, at which point they need to stick to whats agreed on otherwise its incredibly unethical. There can't be any "well I know I agreed not to shoot your ass while we walked up the stairs to the other location, but...I did, and look how great it is! Im gonna use it anyway, even though I said before the shoot that I wouldn't even take the photo. Deal with it"

Laura UnBound wrote:

If in the third possibility is including honest and open communication of what both parties hope to shoot, and they dont match, then they just dont shoot, unless one party chooses to compromise, at which point they need to stick to whats agreed on otherwise its incredibly unethical. There can't be any "well I know I agreed not to shoot your ass while we walked up the stairs to the other location, but...I did, and look how great it is! Im gonna use it anyway, even though I said before the shoot that I wouldn't even take the photo. Deal with it"

I was addressing the possibility of conflicting or unclear pre-shoot communication, but no matter. I've no problem in condemning behavior involving lies or trickery, it's wrong and a violation.

Star wrote:
as written that is just ridiculous. So if the model thinks she looks fat or old or she doesn't like that side of her face then Vogue should have to hold off on an editorial?

In the real world that attitude could never hold, and I work in the real world.

If the model said, IN ADVANCE, that she didn't want the left side of her face in a shot, and they agreed to use her, they should honor it.

If a model says she doesn't want XYZ in a shot, the photographer / client is free to not use her.  But, if they choose to do so under those conditions, they should honor it.

Art of the nude wrote:

If the model said, IN ADVANCE, that she didn't want the left side of her face in a shot, and they agreed to use her, they should honor it.

If a model says she doesn't want XYZ in a shot, the photographer / client is free to not use her.  But, if they choose to do so under those conditions, they should honor it.

+1 I believe I've heard of informed consent as an issue even in the "real world".