Good Egg Productions wrote:
If creative/funky/edgy means nude or covered in blood, then I could possibly understand the issue.

But if you're doing trade shoots, and they're not interested in doing your concepts that are "different", then why would you bother working with them?  Unless they're paying you, and then who cares.... they're paying you.

There is not one "covered in blood" shoot in my port, and very little nudes. It's not what I do. I'm not looking for shock value or gratuitous nudity.

I have no set style or theme. I go with the flow.

Sabine Luise wrote:
I say the same thing when photographers, magazines, fashion, etc. do the same thing over and over. How uniform, robotic, and BORING... IMO... Everyone has their own likes and dislikes of what they want to do with modeling. What is appealing to you, might not be what they think or want in their portfolio. Maybe they have different goals or aspirations? Maybe they are asking for your help or your opinion? If they don't like it, what can you do? lol...

EXACTLY my point. If they want to keep doing what they have been doing, then there is no point coming to me because I will always suggest they do something that isn't in their port. There is no point in having the same kind of shots that you already have. Might as well just edit some more photos from an older shoot.

And if they come to me asking for "something different", and they suggest more of the same because that's what they're used to, then they just wasted my time. It's like going to a Greek restaurant instead of your usual McDonald's, and the first thing you order are fries.

If you don't like my idea of something different, at least, when you make a counter suggestion, also make it different from what you have.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
If creative/funky/edgy means nude or covered in blood, then I could possibly understand the issue.

But if you're doing trade shoots, and they're not interested in doing your concepts that are "different", then why would you bother working with them?  Unless they're paying you, and then who cares.... they're paying you.

Francisco Castro wrote:
There is not one "covered in blood" shoot in my port, and very little nudes. It's not what I do. I'm not looking for shock value or gratuitous nudity.

I have no set style or theme. I go with the flow.

Usually, I'm looking for nudes, which ought to be obvious.    Not "gratuitous."  But essential and inherent in the concepts.  Remarkably, models sometimes approach me on THIS portfolio, and then say that they aren't interested in nudes.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

Exactly.

For starters, all models should look like models, and then comes the personality and the expression. And those are the things that really make the difference.

Anyone who doesn't listen to what they are instructed are never going to be a good model.

Anyone who doesn't know their body will never be a good model.

Anyone who has a distorted body image will never be a good model.

Anyone who is boring and dumb will never be a good model.

Great look, great attitude, great timing never fails.

Jakov Markovic wrote:

Exactly.

For starters, all models should look like models, and then comes the personality and the expression. And those are the things that really make the difference.

Anyone who doesn't listen to what they are instructed are never going to be a good model.

Anyone who doesn't know their body will never be a good model.

Anyone who has a distorted body image will never be a good model.

Anyone who is boring and dumb will never be a good model.

Great look, great attitude, great timing never fails.

I don't look like a "model." I've done well for myself; a lot of that stuff is subjective. Especially superficial things like "great looks" and "distorted body image." what might be horrible and unphotogenic to you is some other photographer's dream come true.

Jakov Markovic wrote:

Exactly.

For starters, all models should look like models, and then comes the personality and the expression. And those are the things that really make the difference.

Anyone who doesn't listen to what they are instructed are never going to be a good model.

Anyone who doesn't know their body will never be a good model.

Anyone who has a distorted body image will never be a good model.

Anyone who is boring and dumb will never be a good model.

Great look, great attitude, great timing never fails.

"Model" can mean fashion model, glamour model, art model...

As long as you know where you fit and you are moving towards that goal, I don't see an issue.

A "model" can also be someone who just works with a handful of people as a hobby.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
Exactly.

For starters, all models should look like models, and then comes the personality and the expression. And those are the things that really make the difference.

Anyone who doesn't listen to what they are instructed are never going to be a good model.

Anyone who doesn't know their body will never be a good model.

Anyone who has a distorted body image will never be a good model.

Anyone who is boring and dumb will never be a good model.

Great look, great attitude, great timing never fails.

Koryn Locke wrote:
I don't look like a "model." I've done well for myself; a lot of that stuff is subjective. Especially superficial things like "great looks" and "distorted body image." what might be horrible and unphotogenic to you is some other photographer's dream come true.

One of my very favorite models is 4'10" and wouldn't stand out at all in a crowd.  But she's fantastic.

Jakov Markovic wrote:

Exactly.

For starters, all models should look like models, and then comes the personality and the expression.

What exactly does a model "look like"? And is that by your definition of what you shoot?

Jakov Markovic wrote:

Exactly.

For starters, all models should look like models, and then comes the personality and the expression. And those are the things that really make the difference.

Anyone who doesn't listen to what they are instructed are never going to be a good model.

Anyone who doesn't know their body will never be a good model.

Anyone who has a distorted body image will never be a good model.

Anyone who is boring and dumb will never be a good model.

Great look, great attitude, great timing never fails.

What does a "model" "look like", exactly?

DarcieK wrote:
I'm up for shooting almost anything except for nudes or fetish themed stuff.

That's a big "except" and yet it still leaves a lot of things that you might actually not be comfortable with.

Jakov Markovic wrote:
Exactly.

For starters, all models should look like models, and then comes the personality and the expression. And those are the things that really make the difference.

Anyone who doesn't listen to what they are instructed are never going to be a good model.

Anyone who doesn't know their body will never be a good model.

Anyone who has a distorted body image will never be a good model.

Anyone who is boring and dumb will never be a good model.

Great look, great attitude, great timing never fails.

I needed a good laugh.

M Barnes Photography wrote:
Geez. "Something different" can mean a lot of things.

For one person, it might mean shooting outdoors. For another it may mean black & white. For a third, it may mean dressing up like a chicken and jumping off a moving car while the camera shoots through a piece of plastic.

If someone says to me they want "something different", I try to talk to them and get an understanding of what that entails. I don't judge them for not matching my definition of "different".

I define "different" as something they have not done. They don't have to take my ideas or suggestions. But if they want different, they shouldn't suggest what they have already been doing either, which is the point of this thread.

Francisco Castro wrote:
I get all these requests from shoots from newbie models, asking for "something different". I look at their port and all they have are senior photo style images, with some glamor gown thrown into the mix.

I suggest a few ideas that are more creative/funky/edgy and they are met with hesitation and trepidation, and a counter idea is proposed that is back to senior photos style.

Models-- if you're not willing or able to explore other styles other than what you would like to have displayed on your grandmother's piano, you're not modeling. It's not a bad thing to have standards, but if you're limiting yourself, then you're the one killing your supposed dream of being a model.

In the end, photographers can only capture what's in front of the lens.

Spoken like a photographer who wants models to comply with their wishes and pose nude.

To say, "you need to push your boundaries to be a real model" is not only extremely transparent and self-motivated, it's also a ridiculous comment.

Is this something you learned while enrolled at the Terry Richardson School of Model Manipulation?

SPRINGHEEL  wrote:
Oh brother

You said it much better, and more succinct, than I did.

Francisco Castro wrote:

There is not one "covered in blood" shoot in my port, and very little nudes. It's not what I do. I'm not looking for shock value or gratuitous nudity.

I have no set style or theme. I go with the flow.

then go with their "Senior portraits" flow.....

V Laroche wrote:
So by "newbie models" you mean "not actually models at all," right?

+1

Rachel-Elise  wrote:
"Find your boundary and go past it."

Did that. It was horrible. To a certain extent, boundaries are there for a reason.
(snip)

You say 'horrible' - was the photographer horrible, the shooting experience horrible or were the resulting images or they way in which they were used horrible?

Even a fashion-portrait shoot could be horrible if the photographer was slobbering over you lasciviously as though he wanted to lick you like an ice-cream...

I think so much depends on the working relationship between a photographer and model that if you find the right chemistry there's almost nothing that cannot be achieved. Personal boundaries should be flexible to take account of changing experiences and constantly being re-drawn as we change and grow.

Francisco Castro wrote:
I get all these requests from shoots from newbie models, asking for "something different". I look at their port and all they have are senior photo style images, with some glamor gown thrown into the mix.

I suggest a few ideas that are more creative/funky/edgy and they are met with hesitation and trepidation, and a counter idea is proposed that is back to senior photos style.

Models-- if you're not willing or able to explore other styles other than what you would like to have displayed on your grandmother's piano, you're not modeling. It's not a bad thing to have standards, but if you're limiting yourself, then you're the one killing your supposed dream of being a model.

In the end, photographers can only capture what's in front of the lens.

I think sometimes there are different points of view to what limits are, and how they can be pushed. While I do agree that expanding ones experences can be good I also think there are risks that are and can be very real or at the least result in bad images.

Around here, as with many places "pushing limits" seems to be getting more nude. While this is fine if someone wants to pose nude, its not ok if that person wants to be in a more public job down the road or work with kids (the teachers who have been fired for nude pics or even sexy ones online).

Also sometimes "pushing limits" means "I want you to pose for my stupid ideas that look like crap". In this case it'd just be embarassing, or it could be bad enough that those images would put others away from working with them.

Then with photographers, a lot of people can tell when someone isn't comfortable with the idea as it shows in the images. So I really have to question sometimes if having a model do things outside her comfort zone is more a sexual/control fetish than an actual attempt at creating photography. Not that this is bad, but it may not really help a model further a career or get good images.

Imo on my cell


Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

RKD Photographic wrote:

You say 'horrible' - was the photographer horrible, the shooting experience horrible or were the resulting images or they way in which they were used horrible?

Even a fashion-portrait shoot could be horrible if the photographer was slobbering over you lasciviously as though he wanted to lick you like an ice-cream...

I think so much depends on the working relationship between a photographer and model that if you find the right chemistry there's almost nothing that cannot be achieved. Personal boundaries should be flexible to take account of changing experiences and constantly being re-drawn as we change and grow.

The way that the photos were viciously misused, when the photographer knew better, was horrible.

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:
Spoken like a photographer who wants models to comply with their wishes and pose nude.

To say, "you need to push your boundaries to be a real model" is not only extremely transparent and self-motivated, it's also a ridiculous comment.

Is this something you learned while enrolled at the Terry Richardson School of Model Manipulation?

This is what I said:

Francisco Castro wrote:
I suggest a few ideas that are more creative/funky/edgy...

...if you're not willing or able to explore other styles other than what you would like to have displayed on your grandmother's piano, you're not modeling

Nowhere did I mention "nude", or "naked". "Creative, different, funky, edgy", can apply to CLOTHED shots, but your mind just automatically just go to nude?

Did you even take a look at my portfolio? I have 75 photos posted, only 4 are nudes, 4 are implied nudes. The other 67 are examples of NON-NUDE creative, different, funky.