GER Photography wrote:
Lions and tigers and bears eat models!:-)))))

LOL!  You hit the nail on the head.  :-)

GER Photography wrote:
Lions and tigers and bears eat models!:-)))))

Sakura Love wrote:
LOL!  You hit the nail on the head.  :-)

But it doesn't feel authentic if the model isn't really being eaten...
Do yourself a favor OP, do shoot of animal then shoot of model, composite. OR maybe get the animal, and YOU model with it. show the models how it's done. Get right in there and go nuts.
THEN, models are sure to be more trusting, and much more receptive,,,once you get out of the hospital...

T-D-L wrote:
Read the casting, and skimmed the thread (mostly reading just the OP's responses).  What I got so far from it is:

OP wants to shoot a mix of art nudes, fashion, and extreme sports.  With several tigers, one of which will be ~600lbs.  TF shoot.  No monetary compensation, or any magazines lined up with interest...not even any mention of submissions despite the word editorial thrown around loosely.

Basically: No one wants to risk their life, or serious injury for someone with your quality of work.  Perhaps if you said "I've got an editorial shoot I'm planning, with a couple tigers, (followed by a lot of safety info on precautions), and I've got a magazine that has commissioned this for possible publication" then someone would risk it.  But that being said, your goal of shooting "Art nudes, fashion, editorial, and extreme sports" makes no sense whatsoever...like none. 

I don't see any fashion work in your book, I also don't see very much art, no editorial, and no extreme sports stuff.  So I'm sure most models are thinking "what the hell am I going to get out of this?".  In fact, most models who aren't getting paid and are shooting for the opportunity to add some images to their books will be asking that question anyway "what's in it for me image-wise?", but when you throw in a couple predatory animals that can kill with one bite to the neck/skull on a whim (here's a hint: tigers aren't domesticated...and they have been known to kill and maim handlers, owners, and people in general) then they are probably even more strict when it comes to the quality of work they expect.  Basically, if they're going to risk their well-being, you better be a great fucking photographer...

Also, you threw this in: "No, you can not bring an escort, we will be too busy to look after them and the tigers should be more of a concern for you anyway."...that just sounded super ominous lol.

Long story short: You need to up the quality of your work...big time.  Follow that with pitching the idea to a couple magazines and see who's interested.  Once you have at the least a commission letter or at least some interest in your theme, contact models.  Also, don't try to shoot fashion/sports/art/editorial...pick a theme, and stick to it.  Trying to do 4 things will end up crappy. 

I know plenty of photographers locally (LA has plenty of opportunities to book animals for a day for really cheap) that have shot the same thing...and they haven't had any issues finding talent.  Hell, one went to a recent workshop of mine and mentioned during the lunch break that he wanted to book lions to shoot with any of the models that might be interested, and to this day I still get told by a couple of the girls that they would love to do that shoot and wish he'd get back in town to set something up.  On the other hand, he had a portfolio of work that showed he had actually shot models and animals before, and that he could pull it off.  So I doubt it's just the danger of the animal that's preventing you from finding someone...

BOOM! +++1

T-D-L wrote:
Read the casting, and skimmed the thread (mostly reading just the OP's responses).  What I got so far from it is:

OP wants to shoot a mix of art nudes, fashion, and extreme sports.  With several tigers, one of which will be ~600lbs.  TF shoot.  No monetary compensation, or any magazines lined up with interest...not even any mention of submissions despite the word editorial thrown around loosely.

Basically: No one wants to risk their life, or serious injury for someone with your quality of work.  Perhaps if you said "I've got an editorial shoot I'm planning, with a couple tigers, (followed by a lot of safety info on precautions), and I've got a magazine that has commissioned this for possible publication" then someone would risk it.  But that being said, your goal of shooting "Art nudes, fashion, editorial, and extreme sports" makes no sense whatsoever...like none. 

I don't see any fashion work in your book, I also don't see very much art, no editorial, and no extreme sports stuff.  So I'm sure most models are thinking "what the hell am I going to get out of this?".  In fact, most models who aren't getting paid and are shooting for the opportunity to add some images to their books will be asking that question anyway "what's in it for me image-wise?", but when you throw in a couple predatory animals that can kill with one bite to the neck/skull on a whim (here's a hint: tigers aren't domesticated...and they have been known to kill and maim handlers, owners, and people in general) then they are probably even more strict when it comes to the quality of work they expect.  Basically, if they're going to risk their well-being, you better be a great fucking photographer...

Also, you threw this in: "No, you can not bring an escort, we will be too busy to look after them and the tigers should be more of a concern for you anyway."...that just sounded super ominous lol.

Long story short: You need to up the quality of your work...big time.  Follow that with pitching the idea to a couple magazines and see who's interested.  Once you have at the least a commission letter or at least some interest in your theme, contact models.  Also, don't try to shoot fashion/sports/art/editorial...pick a theme, and stick to it.  Trying to do 4 things will end up crappy. 

I know plenty of photographers locally (LA has plenty of opportunities to book animals for a day for really cheap) that have shot the same thing...and they haven't had any issues finding talent.  Hell, one went to a recent workshop of mine and mentioned during the lunch break that he wanted to book lions to shoot with any of the models that might be interested, and to this day I still get told by a couple of the girls that they would love to do that shoot and wish he'd get back in town to set something up.  On the other hand, he had a portfolio of work that showed he had actually shot models and animals before, and that he could pull it off.  So I doubt it's just the danger of the animal that's preventing you from finding someone...

I work solely as a photographer and have made a good living from that for many years. I know that extraordinary images come from extaordinary efforts. The casting was written to appeal to models that want to step out and beyond the common muddle. So while some people here say I haven't made people aware of potential danger, you have.

It is quite presumptuous of you to tell me what my shoot will be be. With only a few elements mentioned to intrigue people , you seemed to present youself an authority on all things related to model. You seem not to understand that I may be quite aware of what was done LaLa Land, and have chosen to create something dramatically different. You also fail to realize that what you see here is only one aspect of my creative work. If you felt the need to question the richness of expirence, all you would have to do is look at the models that I showcase here, and you would have found them from fashion, advertizing, Playboy and Maxim. When I look at your portfolio here, I see models as implied nudes, lingerie and bikinis. Personally, I see it as devoid of character, significance and creativity. It demeans, objectifies and stereotypes women as singularly being a sexual element. I'd rather dig my eyes out with a fork than shoot that stuff. However, it it makes you happy and pays your bills, go for it.

Regardless, several quality models have been reading the negative comments from the Naysayers here and have applied to the casting. Surprisingly,  they have been asking the right type of questions about safety and how the shoot can benefit them. It is nice to see people being positive and wanting to do someting imaginative. So I look like I now have the type of models I want.

Dorola wrote:
With only a few elements mentioned to intrigue people , you seemed to present youself an authority on all things related to model. You seem not to understand that I may be quite aware of what was done LaLa Land, and have chosen to create something dramatically different.

You mentioned stuff, we responded to what you mentioned. Mention more, we'll respond to that too.

Tiger, lion, bear, eagles, hawks, WILD ANIMALS Even Moose with model (model in costume, model nude, model partly nude, model outside brick walls, castle walls, in dungeons, in the wild, africa, fire, darkness, and I am sure some I have not seen) has been done before.
Good luck with "DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT".

Dorola wrote:
I work solely as a photographer and have made a good living from that for many years. I know that extraordinary images come from extaordinary efforts. The casting was written to appeal to models that want to step out and beyond the common muddle. So while some people here say I haven't made people aware of potential danger, you have.

It is quite presumptuous of you to tell me what my shoot will be be. With only a few elements mentioned to intrigue people , you seemed to present youself an authority on all things related to model. You seem not to understand that I may be quite aware of what was done LaLa Land, and have chosen to create something dramatically different. You also fail to realize that what you see here is only one aspect of my creative work. If you felt the need to question the richness of expirence, all you would have to do is look at the models that I showcase here, and you would have found them from fashion, advertizing, Playboy and Maxim.

Yes, maybe what you display here on MM is only "one aspect of your creative work" but it's all we get to see. I've got no idea what your other work is like. I didn't even know that you had other work. When deciding whether to work with someone or not, your portfolio is generally all the viewer has. If it doesn't win someone over within seconds (and yes I've become that quick at assessing someone's work) then it quickly gets passed over. I personally don't have time to check out the models you've shot as a measure of your calibre or to sit there and imagine what you are capable of at your fullest potential. I only care about what I see from you in the here and now, especially with such a high risk shoot. I stick with what's real, not what could be.

The fact that people are being "presumptuous" says a lot about your communication skills. Instead of merely mentioning a few details to spark people's interest, maybe try being totally transparent about it. Don't leave room for presumption. Good, clear communication is as important as a strong portfolio when booking talent. Being all vague and intriguing only raises red flags. Again, most people don't have time to piece together what something might be based on a few bits and pieces of information. Just be clear.

Dorola wrote:
You tell me. I'm not going to argue with anyone, I just want to see your thoughts.

But he will critique your work.

"When I look at your portfolio here, I see models as implied nudes, lingerie and bikinis. Personally, I see it as devoid of character, significance and creativity."

Dorola wrote:
It is quite presumptuous of you to tell me what my shoot will be be. With only a few elements mentioned to intrigue people , you seemed to present youself an authority on all things related to model. You seem not to understand that I may be quite aware of what was done LaLa Land, and have chosen to create something dramatically different.

Actually, it's not presumptuous at all.  Per your casting: "It will be and editorial theme with some elements of fashion and extreme sports."  You are the one having trouble finding people interested, so perhaps instead of mentioning only a few random elements that dont' seem to go together, maybe you can learn from others and learn to communicate your ideas better?  I only say this because again, clearly YOU are having trouble somewhere along the line finding people interested in your silly project. 

And for all I know you're from LA...that wasn't the point, I was merely pointing out that here there are a lot of those shoots going on, with other fairly new photographers...who don't seem to have all the trouble you are having.  And am I an authority on all things related to model?  I wouldn't say so.  But I don't have trouble getting models to shoot my editorials, and considering how often I find myself published I couldn't care less what you think of me.

Dorola wrote:
You also fail to realize that what you see here is only one aspect of my creative work. If you felt the need to question the richness of expirence, all you would have to do is look at the models that I showcase here, and you would have found them from fashion, advertizing, Playboy and Maxim.

What you fail to realize (as such an established and decorated photographer) is that people will judge you based on the work you display.  So...if you display shit work on ModelMayhem, you're probably going to be seen as a shit photographer.  If you don't display fashion, or sports, or anything remotely "artistic"...how exactly do you propose to attract models for a shoot involving any of those, much less all of them? 

Just a heads up too: people who say "Look at the models I shot, they were in Playboy, Maxim, Vogue, Random Movie x,y,z, etc, etc" are usually full of shit and are compensating for poor work.  Guess what?  You may have shot a model from playboy (whoop-de-doo...who hasn't?), but YOU didn't shoot Playboy.  She did.  You're trying to impress me by bringing up something someone else accomplished...   Yeah we get it, you paid an accomplished girl's day rate.  Want a cookie?

Dorola wrote:
When I look at your portfolio here, I see models as implied nudes, lingerie and bikinis. Personally, I see it as devoid of character, significance and creativity. It demeans, objectifies and stereotypes women as singularly being a sexual element. I'd rather dig my eyes out with a fork than shoot that stuff. However, it it makes you happy and pays your bills, go for it.

Cool beans.  I don't need to impress you...but just for the record, those models all chose to shoot with me, half of them suggesting those "demeaning" concepts themselves.  I didn't need to rant on MM and wonder why no one wanted to shoot those concepts....and I didn't need to work too hard to get half of them published either...but what do I know?  I'm not an "art" photographer like you with models begging to shoot with him...

Dorola wrote:
Regardless, several quality models have been reading the negative comments from the Naysayers here and have applied to the casting. Surprisingly,  they have been asking the right type of questions about safety and how the shoot can benefit them. It is nice to see people being positive and wanting to do someting imaginative. So I look like I now have the type of models I want.

I call bullshit.  But do prove me wrong...assuming your shoot goes well and you shoot some super awesome art/fashion/nude/extreme sports (lol, I can't even type that without laughing in real life) concept with multiple tigers...then please, PLEASE post the results here.  Show us all how you created something different, and provided models with images that would be beneficial to them

T-D-L wrote:

Dorola wrote:
It is quite presumptuous of you to tell me what my shoot will be be. With only a few elements mentioned to intrigue people , you seemed to present youself an authority on all things related to model. You seem not to understand that I may be quite aware of what was done LaLa Land, and have chosen to create something dramatically different.

Actually, it's not presumptuous at all.  Per your casting: "It will be and editorial theme with some elements of fashion and extreme sports."  You are the one having trouble finding people interested, so perhaps instead of mentioning only a few random elements that dont' seem to go together, maybe you can learn from others and learn to communicate your ideas better?  I only say this because again, clearly YOU are having trouble somewhere along the line finding people interested in your silly project. 

And for all I know you're from LA...that wasn't the point, I was merely pointing out that here there are a lot of those shoots going on, with other fairly new photographers...who don't seem to have all the trouble you are having.  And am I an authority on all things related to model?  I wouldn't say so.  But I don't have trouble getting models to shoot my editorials, and considering how often I find myself published I couldn't care less what you think of me.

Dorola wrote:
You also fail to realize that what you see here is only one aspect of my creative work. If you felt the need to question the richness of expirence, all you would have to do is look at the models that I showcase here, and you would have found them from fashion, advertizing, Playboy and Maxim.

What you fail to realize (as such an established and decorated photographer) is that people will judge you based on the work you display.  So...if you display shit work on ModelMayhem, you're probably going to be seen as a shit photographer.  If you don't display fashion, or sports, or anything remotely "artistic"...how exactly do you propose to attract models for a shoot involving any of those, much less all of them? 

Just a heads up too: people who say "Look at the models I shot, they were in Playboy, Maxim, Vogue, Random Movie x,y,z, etc, etc" are usually full of shit and are compensating for poor work.  Guess what?  You may have shot a model from playboy (whoop-de-doo...who hasn't?), but YOU didn't shoot Playboy.  She did.  You're trying to impress me by bringing up something someone else accomplished...   Yeah we get it, you paid an accomplished girl's day rate.  Want a cookie?

Dorola wrote:
When I look at your portfolio here, I see models as implied nudes, lingerie and bikinis. Personally, I see it as devoid of character, significance and creativity. It demeans, objectifies and stereotypes women as singularly being a sexual element. I'd rather dig my eyes out with a fork than shoot that stuff. However, it it makes you happy and pays your bills, go for it.

Cool beans.  I don't need to impress you...but just for the record, those models all chose to shoot with me, half of them suggesting those "demeaning" concepts themselves.  I didn't need to rant on MM and wonder why no one wanted to shoot those concepts....and I didn't need to work too hard to get half of them published either...but what do I know?  I'm not an "art" photographer like you with models begging to shoot with him...


I call bullshit.  But do prove me wrong...assuming your shoot goes well and you shoot some super awesome art/fashion/nude/extreme sports (lol, I can't even type that without laughing in real life) concept with multiple tigers...then please, PLEASE post the results here.  Show us all how you created something different, and provided models with images that would be beneficial to them

<3

@op: For someone who is only trying to absorb opinions without argument, you sure are offensive.

Miss Kitty Marie wrote:
1. Post forum thread asking for ideas why casting call hasn't been successful.
2. Argue that people are wrong when they suggest ideas that may help or problems that may be obstacles.  Insult their reading skills when they were all nice enough to take time out of their day to try to help with the problem.
3. Vaguely or directly insult photographers that bother to read your posts in spite of having plenty of better stuff to do.
4. Profit!!  Oh wait, no... that definitely isn't right.

Since cats seem fitting for this...

hahahahaha

+1
miss Kitty ROCKS!

Cayleigh Chaos wrote:

Maybe offering food and mentioning it in the casting will attract some models, and maybe more tigers.

Make sure that the tigers understand that the models are not the food.

Dorola wrote:
Humans will likely be solely responsible for killing all the tigers in the next generation. If I can illustrate the harm we have done to this species and many others, my editorial theme will have success. If you read the casting or inquired about its purpose you might even champion the cause. If you assumed that this was to be some silly little nude glamour shoot with tigers, you didn't comprehend the casting or review the seriousness of my creative work.

No, you won't be highlighting that humans kill tigers. You'll be using them. If you want to help the cause, you can raise awareness through other means.

If you want to know if I see the seriousness in your work, post in the critique forum.

Dorola wrote:
I wish you the best with your mediocrity

Someone got mad for hearing what they didn't want to hear. Cute.

T-D-L wrote:
critique of entire portfolio

This isn't the critique forum. There are better ways of making an argument.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Ask Siegfried and Roy what they think of amateurs posing with tigers and see what they say . . . . .

Unless you have a professional team of handlers on hand to control the tiger, it's not a good idea to even be around them.

On movie sets where tigers are being used, women are not allowed on set if they have their periods . . . something to think about.

I guarantee that your standard liability insurance will not cover you if there is an accident and the model gets attacked. Make sure you contact your insurance agent well before the shoot to make sure you have extra coverage.

I had an amusement park as a client several years ago. They had a variety of animals on display and in performances.

The amount of precautions and safety measures park officials took (not to mention the 5 page release I had to sign before being allowed access to the animals) was very impressive.

Best of luck . . .

KM

Listen to this man...

T-D-L wrote:
Hell, while I'm at it I'll look through some of your highlights of "extraordinarily creative imagery" and let you know again, why you fail as a photographer and why apparently no one is willing to take any risks shooting with you.  We've already covered why you fail with concept, planning, casting, and communication.  Let's look at your work:

1 -
Yes...this is clearly something that a model will see and think "OMG this is so beneficial to me!  I must have this in my portfolio!  I love how the entire top of the head is cut off, not only that but the eyes half cut off too!  Drool!  I wish I could have a photo where the photographer left my nose hairs in, and all the blemishes in my skin still visible, as well as little things like random, distracting hairs all over my face, and wrinkly knuckles too!  I know most people with even a modicum of skill/talent would get rid of that stuff but I love have he left it in "

2 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/27415814 18+
This must be one of your artistic endeavors.  I love the "Sly and the Family Stone wig, mixed with the dollar store tutu, and mardi-gras beads.  I coulda swore I saw this in last months Harper's Bazaar...you must be ahead of the curve   Most people would probably see this and think: "Wow, she looks bored out of her mind...like she can't wait to get her money and leave."  But I look at it and see the future of photography...you're clearly on another level, and models should be dying to have these photos to market themselves with.

3 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/30925298 18+
Seriously, the skill you have with regards to angles and flattering models is second to none.  I'm going to remember this the next time I'm shooting so I can create such dynamic and interesting images.  I love how you managed via foreshortening and compression to give her the stature of a Tolkien character.  Peter Jackson eat your heart out! Dolora is on the scene, turning beautiful women into Hobbits near you! The artistic merit is oozing from this one as well.  Do you have any more from your "Uncomfortable nude on a rock" series that I can bask in the glory of? 

4 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/32741274 18+
Man, I wish I saw this before I was so stupid and demeaned my models with my idea of nude photography.  Putting them a cage, having them look less than comfortable around me, putting a collar on them, and having them drink from a doggie bowl is so much more empowering to women.  The level of detail you've managed to include is staggering as well.  Is this all in camera, or did you use some photoshop?  I especially like how you were able to save the chips in her nail polish, the bags under her eyes, the uneven tones in her skin, and the wrinkles on her brow.  Some other people might suggest that the part in her hair should've been addressed prior to this shot but they're idiots...you're the man.  You're right, very beneficial stuff indeed.  If you'd like I can give you some emails for agencies in LA and NY if you want to get some paid work coming your way...I'm sure they'd love it.

5 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21087679 18+
Tons of artistic merit here, mixed with a little editorial fashion obviously.  I see this as a study on why women frequently put their legs up in the air while nude so as to draw attention/focus on their genitalia.  Most people would say "That is so unnatural it looks like you just wanted to shoot some vag!".  I say nay!  You're a true artist on par with Weston and Ritts.  I bet the model got a lot of use out of this super-beneficial image...what with her labia so prominently displayed, despite any real reason for doing so in such an unnatural pose.  I especially like the attention to not retouching out the discoloration in her thighs and pubic area.

6 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21799101 18+
Ummmm....I got nothing....pure...brilliance on your part.  Stay classy Toronto

7 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21798812 18+
I was just talking to a model the other day on here and she was telling me how many castings she goes to where the casting director will ask for examples of work where she was "Spread-eagle on a kitchen counter, nude of course (because how else can you pull that shot off if we're not seeing pink bits), dressed like a clown, and licking a chainsaw"....and I was like "well shit, there's no one who can pull off such an amazing, genre defying concept as that...maybe Cartier-Bresson, or maybe Schatt, but they're dead."  Well my good sir...I stand corrected.  Good job.  I love that you made the open microwave such a prominent part of the shot as well, to almost distract from her vag....maybe this was a message on womem rebelling against the status quo of being relegating to domestic work?  Or was there a deeper message still?

8 -
Yep...that's Mickey Mouse...staring at a vagina.  If only more people had your vision, your courage to try new and unique things.  This site would be all the better for it.  I mean, who else could take something that otherwise would be cheesy and crude, and serve almost no purpose...and make such an amazing editorial statement about the commercialization of our childhoods.  Bravo *slow clap*  I especially like how you're like "Rules?  Fuck rules...I know that either the model, or Mickey are the subject here, but since I only own one light I'm going to light the fuck out of her left knee instead."  I read an interview once where they called Christopher Nolan a visionary...I think they can go ahead and scratch that out and add "Dorola" to that list.

9 -
Looks like someone just discovered photoshop filters!   Too bad you didn't find the filter for "Clean up this dirty-ass floor".  I think it's under Filter>Pretentious>InstantArtNude  In all seriousness...I'll do you a solid.  A quickie way of doing it would be to make a selection with the lasso, duplication layer by selection, filter>surface blur, adjust opacity to taste.  Or a little more patience and clone tool set to lighten.  Don't say I never gave you anything (other than this detailed critique that points out your many flaws, that you will probably just focus on the negative though and ignore any potential from learning about why you suck and can't find models to trade with you)

10 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/26226561 18+
This works on so many levels.  I love that even though it's a bathtub, she's still wearing underwear.  I thought I was the only person who bathed while clothed....then again, that was gym class back in 96 and I didn't want any of the dudes staring at my junk...but I digress.  Did you intentionally think "What angle can I shoot from, to get the most amount of distracting shit in the background?" or was it (more likely) "Ummm, these girls are hourly, shit...this is gonna cost some $$$....dammit, gotta shoot those titties quick!  Screw composition and planning! *snap snap snap*"  Again, gotta love how one model is giving it her all, and the other looks disinterested to the point she's probably taking a nap during the exposure.

11 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21799101 18+
Open leg, over a mirror.  99x out of 100 you'd think "tacky, tasteless, just a gwc looking for an excuse to shoot some naughty-bits"....but this my friend...this is that 1x out of 100.  Clearly you didn't even care she was nude, did you even notice?  You were too busy with the implications of a model confronting herself, maybe her sexuality as defined by this male-run society, in the mirror...and then smashing that definition.  It's another empowering photo, about how women should stand up for themselves (or squat and show their vag, they both have the same meaning I guess..)  BTW, I love how the light was aimed straight at her labia...as if there could be any other way to make it less artistic and more obvious about your reasoning for this particular shot lol

12 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21089643 18+
When most people do a shot like this it's usually a study in line and form, maybe with shadows defining the female's curves and body.  You said screw it, I'm focusing on the back-snatch (just learned that term from a photographer....was dying to use it lol).  It's not even suggestive....it's just blatant "Hey, look guys!  I shot a girls privates this weekend!"  Was this another shot that your tiger girls can look forward to for their portfolio?  Is the crop of the lower limbs and head supposed to represent the post-mauling?  I can't think of any other reason why you'd choose such a crop, so please...enlighten me.  I'm clearly not the artistic savant you are, clearly I only see women as objects, and you see them as beautiful people...who like to show off their vag.

13 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/30565366 18+
For anyone who would say I'm being too harsh on you, I would say this: Go look at her portfolio, and see what she looks like...then try to convince me that Dorola hasn't done her a great disservice with this shot.  From shooting her in such a way that both makes her even shorter than she is (she shoots taller than 5'4" in every other shot I've seen), and also makes her look stocky and wide (she's not).  Much like every other model in your portfolio, she does NOT look like she's happy to be there at that moment.  Maybe she knows that in addition to shooting her in such a poor pose from such a poor angle, that you'll also forget to retouch out the stretch marks, blemishes, and vein in her forehead.

14 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/20149600 18+
Well you know what they say, or at least what they tell first year art students: "If you can't think of anything just go for shock value."  The bodypaint from what I can seems to be haphazardly applied, and only to the front of her, which makes me wonder why you'd shoot form the rear 3/4 view.  Compositionally, or even themeatically there's nothing special here...there's a big f'ing tram behind her....full of people who are apparently as disinterested in what's going on in this shot as I am.  Like I said, shock value.  You thought "Gee, you know what'd be cool...if we painted you up and had you dance around in traffic!"  And I honestly think that's the amount of thought that went into the shot, otherwise why do it in public if you were going to do it this why?  You could have played with the obvious of people's reactions, you could've focused on her as an object within the frame of the bustling city background (something like bare/nude/soft/female form vs industrialization/modernism of urban Toronto) but instead you probably just had this poor girl wear a trenchcoat, walked her to the sidewalk, and as soon as the tram came you yelled "Quick! Now!  Do it!" and snapped off a dozen or so machine-gun prayers that she was in focus....

15 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/27700839 18+
*With a lisp* "Everyone knows adding butterfly wings adds 15xp and 40 artistic points."  Bonus points if you can convince your nude model to squat so her inner labia are prominently visible.  +30 noob points.  I'm convinced you only own one light at this point...considering how she is in relation to the sorta/halfassed blown out background.  I'm not knocking you to be honest, I only own one speedlight at the moment...but I know my limitations.

16 -
Is this your idea of fashion?  Really?  Exactly what "mood" are you trying to sell that is going to have women dying to by this ridiculous feather boa?  Horrible styling, poor concept, non-existent retouching.

Hopefully by now you get the point, and if not...cliff notes:
Your work is bad.  On all levels, whether we judge it on artistic merit, or as fashion, glamour, or even "extreme sports" photography.  You lack the day one skills of knowing simple things including how to light different faces, paying attention to details (ie. distracting elements in the frame), flattering/unflattering angles and poses for different body types, retouching 101, and even the basic idea of what is art/fashion/etc photography. 

Basically, it's all cliche, kitschy, and poorly executed, and your portfolio as a whole strikes me as a 2nd rate gwc.  This is why you can't get models to shoot with you.  *shrug*

!!?!!WoW!!?!!

I must admit you are SPOT on about the disservice to #13 the blonde model.

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:

!!?!!WoW!!?!!

I must admit you are SPOT on about the disservice to #13 the blonde model.

No wonder the photo isnt in HER portfolio

T-D-L wrote:
8 -
Yep...that's Mickey Mouse...staring at a vagina.  If only more people had your vision, your courage to try new and unique things.  This site would be all the better for it.  I mean, who else could take something that otherwise would be cheesy and crude, and serve almost no purpose...and make such an amazing editorial statement about the commercialization of our childhoods.  Bravo *slow clap*  I especially like how you're like "Rules?  Fuck rules...I know that either the model, or Mickey are the subject here, but since I only own one light I'm going to light the fuck out of her left knee instead."  I read an interview once where they called Christopher Nolan a visionary...I think they can go ahead and scratch that out and add "Dorola" to that list.

More mickey! https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/27859418
Maybe hes a second shooter?

T-D-L wrote:
Hell, while I'm at it I'll look through some of your highlights of "extraordinarily creative imagery" and let you know again, why you fail as a photographer and why apparently no one is willing to take any risks shooting with you.  We've already covered why you fail with concept, planning, casting, and communication.  Let's look at your work:

1 -
Yes...this is clearly something that a model will see and think "OMG this is so beneficial to me!  I must have this in my portfolio!  I love how the entire top of the head is cut off, not only that but the eyes half cut off too!  Drool!  I wish I could have a photo where the photographer left my nose hairs in, and all the blemishes in my skin still visible, as well as little things like random, distracting hairs all over my face, and wrinkly knuckles too!  I know most people with even a modicum of skill/talent would get rid of that stuff but I love have he left it in "

2 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/27415814 18+
This must be one of your artistic endeavors.  I love the "Sly and the Family Stone wig, mixed with the dollar store tutu, and mardi-gras beads.  I coulda swore I saw this in last months Harper's Bazaar...you must be ahead of the curve   Most people would probably see this and think: "Wow, she looks bored out of her mind...like she can't wait to get her money and leave."  But I look at it and see the future of photography...you're clearly on another level, and models should be dying to have these photos to market themselves with.

3 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/30925298 18+
Seriously, the skill you have with regards to angles and flattering models is second to none.  I'm going to remember this the next time I'm shooting so I can create such dynamic and interesting images.  I love how you managed via foreshortening and compression to give her the stature of a Tolkien character.  Peter Jackson eat your heart out! Dolora is on the scene, turning beautiful women into Hobbits near you! The artistic merit is oozing from this one as well.  Do you have any more from your "Uncomfortable nude on a rock" series that I can bask in the glory of? 

4 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/32741274 18+
Man, I wish I saw this before I was so stupid and demeaned my models with my idea of nude photography.  Putting them a cage, having them look less than comfortable around me, putting a collar on them, and having them drink from a doggie bowl is so much more empowering to women.  The level of detail you've managed to include is staggering as well.  Is this all in camera, or did you use some photoshop?  I especially like how you were able to save the chips in her nail polish, the bags under her eyes, the uneven tones in her skin, and the wrinkles on her brow.  Some other people might suggest that the part in her hair should've been addressed prior to this shot but they're idiots...you're the man.  You're right, very beneficial stuff indeed.  If you'd like I can give you some emails for agencies in LA and NY if you want to get some paid work coming your way...I'm sure they'd love it.

5 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21087679 18+
Tons of artistic merit here, mixed with a little editorial fashion obviously.  I see this as a study on why women frequently put their legs up in the air while nude so as to draw attention/focus on their genitalia.  Most people would say "That is so unnatural it looks like you just wanted to shoot some vag!".  I say nay!  You're a true artist on par with Weston and Ritts.  I bet the model got a lot of use out of this super-beneficial image...what with her labia so prominently displayed, despite any real reason for doing so in such an unnatural pose.  I especially like the attention to not retouching out the discoloration in her thighs and pubic area.

6 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21799101 18+
Ummmm....I got nothing....pure...brilliance on your part.  Stay classy Toronto

7 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21798812 18+
I was just talking to a model the other day on here and she was telling me how many castings she goes to where the casting director will ask for examples of work where she was "Spread-eagle on a kitchen counter, nude of course (because how else can you pull that shot off if we're not seeing pink bits), dressed like a clown, and licking a chainsaw"....and I was like "well shit, there's no one who can pull off such an amazing, genre defying concept as that...maybe Cartier-Bresson, or maybe Schatt, but they're dead."  Well my good sir...I stand corrected.  Good job.  I love that you made the open microwave such a prominent part of the shot as well, to almost distract from her vag....maybe this was a message on womem rebelling against the status quo of being relegating to domestic work?  Or was there a deeper message still?

8 -
Yep...that's Mickey Mouse...staring at a vagina.  If only more people had your vision, your courage to try new and unique things.  This site would be all the better for it.  I mean, who else could take something that otherwise would be cheesy and crude, and serve almost no purpose...and make such an amazing editorial statement about the commercialization of our childhoods.  Bravo *slow clap*  I especially like how you're like "Rules?  Fuck rules...I know that either the model, or Mickey are the subject here, but since I only own one light I'm going to light the fuck out of her left knee instead."  I read an interview once where they called Christopher Nolan a visionary...I think they can go ahead and scratch that out and add "Dorola" to that list.

9 -
Looks like someone just discovered photoshop filters!   Too bad you didn't find the filter for "Clean up this dirty-ass floor".  I think it's under Filter>Pretentious>InstantArtNude  In all seriousness...I'll do you a solid.  A quickie way of doing it would be to make a selection with the lasso, duplication layer by selection, filter>surface blur, adjust opacity to taste.  Or a little more patience and clone tool set to lighten.  Don't say I never gave you anything (other than this detailed critique that points out your many flaws, that you will probably just focus on the negative though and ignore any potential from learning about why you suck and can't find models to trade with you)

10 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/26226561 18+
This works on so many levels.  I love that even though it's a bathtub, she's still wearing underwear.  I thought I was the only person who bathed while clothed....then again, that was gym class back in 96 and I didn't want any of the dudes staring at my junk...but I digress.  Did you intentionally think "What angle can I shoot from, to get the most amount of distracting shit in the background?" or was it (more likely) "Ummm, these girls are hourly, shit...this is gonna cost some $$$....dammit, gotta shoot those titties quick!  Screw composition and planning! *snap snap snap*"  Again, gotta love how one model is giving it her all, and the other looks disinterested to the point she's probably taking a nap during the exposure.

11 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21799101 18+
Open leg, over a mirror.  99x out of 100 you'd think "tacky, tasteless, just a gwc looking for an excuse to shoot some naughty-bits"....but this my friend...this is that 1x out of 100.  Clearly you didn't even care she was nude, did you even notice?  You were too busy with the implications of a model confronting herself, maybe her sexuality as defined by this male-run society, in the mirror...and then smashing that definition.  It's another empowering photo, about how women should stand up for themselves (or squat and show their vag, they both have the same meaning I guess..)  BTW, I love how the light was aimed straight at her labia...as if there could be any other way to make it less artistic and more obvious about your reasoning for this particular shot lol

12 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/21089643 18+
When most people do a shot like this it's usually a study in line and form, maybe with shadows defining the female's curves and body.  You said screw it, I'm focusing on the back-snatch (just learned that term from a photographer....was dying to use it lol).  It's not even suggestive....it's just blatant "Hey, look guys!  I shot a girls privates this weekend!"  Was this another shot that your tiger girls can look forward to for their portfolio?  Is the crop of the lower limbs and head supposed to represent the post-mauling?  I can't think of any other reason why you'd choose such a crop, so please...enlighten me.  I'm clearly not the artistic savant you are, clearly I only see women as objects, and you see them as beautiful people...who like to show off their vag.

13 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/30565366 18+
For anyone who would say I'm being too harsh on you, I would say this: Go look at her portfolio, and see what she looks like...then try to convince me that Dorola hasn't done her a great disservice with this shot.  From shooting her in such a way that both makes her even shorter than she is (she shoots taller than 5'4" in every other shot I've seen), and also makes her look stocky and wide (she's not).  Much like every other model in your portfolio, she does NOT look like she's happy to be there at that moment.  Maybe she knows that in addition to shooting her in such a poor pose from such a poor angle, that you'll also forget to retouch out the stretch marks, blemishes, and vein in her forehead.

14 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/20149600 18+
Well you know what they say, or at least what they tell first year art students: "If you can't think of anything just go for shock value."  The bodypaint from what I can seems to be haphazardly applied, and only to the front of her, which makes me wonder why you'd shoot form the rear 3/4 view.  Compositionally, or even themeatically there's nothing special here...there's a big f'ing tram behind her....full of people who are apparently as disinterested in what's going on in this shot as I am.  Like I said, shock value.  You thought "Gee, you know what'd be cool...if we painted you up and had you dance around in traffic!"  And I honestly think that's the amount of thought that went into the shot, otherwise why do it in public if you were going to do it this why?  You could have played with the obvious of people's reactions, you could've focused on her as an object within the frame of the bustling city background (something like bare/nude/soft/female form vs industrialization/modernism of urban Toronto) but instead you probably just had this poor girl wear a trenchcoat, walked her to the sidewalk, and as soon as the tram came you yelled "Quick! Now!  Do it!" and snapped off a dozen or so machine-gun prayers that she was in focus....

15 - https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/27700839 18+
*With a lisp* "Everyone knows adding butterfly wings adds 15xp and 40 artistic points."  Bonus points if you can convince your nude model to squat so her inner labia are prominently visible.  +30 noob points.  I'm convinced you only own one light at this point...considering how she is in relation to the sorta/halfassed blown out background.  I'm not knocking you to be honest, I only own one speedlight at the moment...but I know my limitations.

16 -
Is this your idea of fashion?  Really?  Exactly what "mood" are you trying to sell that is going to have women dying to by this ridiculous feather boa?  Horrible styling, poor concept, non-existent retouching.

Hopefully by now you get the point, and if not...cliff notes:
Your work is bad.  On all levels, whether we judge it on artistic merit, or as fashion, glamour, or even "extreme sports" photography.  You lack the day one skills of knowing simple things including how to light different faces, paying attention to details (ie. distracting elements in the frame), flattering/unflattering angles and poses for different body types, retouching 101, and even the basic idea of what is art/fashion/etc photography. 

Basically, it's all cliche, kitschy, and poorly executed, and your portfolio as a whole strikes me as a 2nd rate gwc.  This is why you can't get models to shoot with you.  *shrug*

My God I laughed so hard I literally fell out of my chair

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

No, you won't be highlighting that humans kill tigers. You'll be using them. If you want to help the cause, you can raise awareness through other means.

+1 and thanks for pointing that out!  This is demeaning for the tigers.

Locutus wrote:
MICKEY MOUSE, Is a nanny cam.

Haha, now wouldnt THAT be the ultimate plot twist and GWC move?

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Oh, would you look at that; this is the critique forum. Carry on.

OP: your work isn't good. That's why I models don't want to shoot with you.

Actually you are quite wrong. Since I joined MM I've done over 500 shoots with models from here. It seems they like the break from the mundane. Judging from the number of times viewers have opened my images, that would indicate that they are far more interest in mine than yours. Check it out yourself. And I don't even troll on the internet for comments.

Jordan Bunniie wrote:
I would be stoked at the opportunity to shoot an editorial with tigers, but there are safety issues as others have pointed out. I, personally, would want at least one trainer per animal...

CaraH wrote:
*I agree*

Did either of you see the video with two handlers unable to control the lion? One trainer did not suffice, nor did two!

Imageri by Tim Davis wrote:

Listen to this man...

I have absolute respect for Ken. Back in 1986 I took a seminar with him. One of the things that came out of that was that if you do the same thing as everyone else, you are the same. Ken was innovative about how he shot and the social aspect of his work. I remember him retelling the facts of when in court, he was suggesting that there was not much difference in the visual texture of a clump of seaweed on the beach and the pubic hair in his model's crotch. Ken when to bat for freedoms that should be inherent in our culture.

What I liked about Ken's comments on my posting was that he was offering helpful advice that potentially might have been overlooked. Unlike many here, he did not assume that I had no regard for safety with the tiger shoot. I started working with wild animals from the age of 5 with everything from snakes to bears as the son of a Veterinary. I learned that wild animals are that and are not to be accepted as domesticated. I don't even trust other peoples dogs. But an opportunity to shoot an exceptional them with the tigers is attractive. In this day and age is is considered acceptable to play with Sting Rays (except Steve Irwin), swim with sharks in open water, mountain bike in woodland areas, be photographed with snakes (a real salmonella risk) and eat genetically modified food. Society is wisely, unwisely or ignorantly making risk assessments with everything they do. So I recommend review everything and do what you consider acceptable.

And again. kudos to Ken for being one of the few people that read the casting, the posting and responded professionally.

Dorola wrote:

Actually you are quite wrong. Since I joined MM I've done over 500 shoots with models from here. It seems they like the break from the mundane. Judging from the number of times viewers have opened my images, that would indicate that they are far more interest in mine than yours. Check it out yourself. And I don't even troll on the internet for comments.

Uhhh....you have a premium account. Youre practically guaranteed more views and exposure

T-D-L wrote:
But do prove me wrong...assuming your shoot goes well and you shoot some super awesome art/fashion/nude/extreme sports (lol, I can't even type that without laughing in real life) concept with multiple tigers...then please, PLEASE post the results here.  Show us all how you created something different, and provided models with images that would be beneficial to them

Thank you for your review. At first glance it should be obvious that our objectives are different. There is a rawness about what I like to do and if some of it looks unfinished that is actually true. As a viewer that might be interested in the purpose or theme of an image, I would expect the viewer to do a more that cursory look. The items you mention actually reveal more about your limitations in perception and conceptuality. With over 500 model shoots with models from MM since I started here, I think the tribe has spoken. They are tired of pictures that are devoid of emotion and character and look like cattle grazing in a field. If you looked at your photos, how would you say they are any different than 5000 other photographers in LA. Are your photos any more memorable than a Windows screen saver? So, if you think my photos are RAW and leave details to be answered, that is so, I'm different.

Since you question how I make images, all I can do is let you know how gauge success. My photos are in federal buildings, museums, galleries, numerous magazines and online with many internet businesses. Corporate customers include most of the automotive companies such as M-B, aviation and health and beauty products. If a metric is needed, in the last 11 month my company had done $823K in gross sales and $203K in gross profit. Next year is even looking better.

So, I'll keep doing things a bit different than most people, do a unique tiger shoot and ensure that every safety measure possible is in place.

M E L U X I N E wrote:
The fact that people are being "presumptuous" says a lot about your communication skills. Instead of merely mentioning a few details to spark people's interest, maybe try being totally transparent about it. Don't leave room for presumption. Good, clear communication is as important as a strong portfolio when booking talent. Being all vague and intriguing only raises red flags. Again, most people don't have time to piece together what something might be based on a few bits and pieces of information. Just be clear.

I thank you for your comment. You are right that is was presumptuous of me, to assume that people would read the casting. There are a lot of details involved in a potentially dangerous shoot like this. That I why I asked applicants to respond (mentioned in the casting) with any questions that they had. I actually have 10 pages of safety items to review with everyone before proceeding. It would have not been appropriate to have a casting that long. As Ken Marcus pointed out, where the models are in their menstrual cycle is key detail. However, I thought it was best to discuss on a one on one basis with the models, rather than ask on the casting and be thought of as a perv.

Again, I thank you for pointing that I presumed (incorrectly) everyone would understand a model's health and well being are paramount. Next time I have a potential dangerous theme, I will state: all safety measures will be discussed with successful applicants.

Dorola wrote:
Thank you for your review. At first glance it should be obvious that our objectives are different. There is a rawness about what I like to do and if some of it looks unfinished that is actually true. As a viewer that might be interested in the purpose or theme of an image, I would expect the viewer to do a more that cursory look. The items you mention actually reveal more about your limitations in perception and conceptuality. With over 500 model shoots with models from MM since I started here, I think the tribe has spoken. They are tired of pictures that are devoid of emotion and character and look like cattle grazing in a field. If you looked at your photos, how would you say they are any different than 5000 other photographers in LA. Are your photos any more memorable than a Windows screen saver? So, if you think my photos are RAW and leave details to be answered, that is so, I'm different.

Since you question how I make images, all I can do is let you know how gauge success. My photos are in federal buildings, museums, galleries, numerous magazines and online with many internet businesses. Corporate customers include most of the automotive companies such as M-B, aviation and health and beauty products. If a metric is needed, in the last 11 month my company had done $823K in gross sales and $203K in gross profit. Next year is even looking better.

So, I'll keep doing things a bit different than most people, do a unique tiger shoot and ensure that every safety measure possible is in place.

Considering several of your peers have already msg'd me to inform me that you are quite the accomplished PRODUCT photographer (ie. cars and trains and such) it wouldn't surprise me that you have some work published here and there.  BUT we're critiquing your ability to take a decent MODEL photograph.  Which you're incapable of doing. 

And by the way, yes the tribe has spoken: You've done 500 shoots since you've been here.  Have a cookie.  BUT, don't try to throw that around like a badge of honor, when you had to pay them all to work with you   Yes, if you pay models (obviously you've got a budget to do so with 200k in profits) they'll shoot with you.  But how many are willing to shoot with you because they like your work?  I'd wager none.  That's like me saying "Chefs at 4 star restaraunts have fed me consistently during the last 5 years."...but leaving out the part that I had to go in and actually pay them to do so.

So, if you wanna be braggardly about your accomplishments then do tell:

How many of your model photographs are used by "Corporate customers include most of the automotive companies such as M-B, aviation and health and beauty products."?  Some links would be lovely. 

Anyone can post online and imply they've shot for major automotive companies, or beauty campaigns, but I highly doubt Ford Motor Co. or Pfizer has your work on their homepage (at least work involving a person).  Again...where's the proof?  832k in less than a year, I'd expect to see a large portfolio of images that showcase your talent.  Again, I'm not doubting it...because from what I'm told your automotive photography is supposedly quite nice...but please, as long as you want to somehow try to slam me, who can at least light a fucking portrait properly...you might want to put up some proof that your work is as in demand as you imply.

How about you start another critique thread, along the lines of "Models, would you shoot trade with me?  Why/why not?" and see what responses you get.

T-D-L wrote:

Considering several of your peers have already msg'd me to inform me that you are quite the accomplished PRODUCT photographer (ie. cars and trains and such) it wouldn't surprise me that you have some work published here and there.  BUT we're critiquing your ability to take a decent MODEL photograph.  Which you're incapable of doing. 

And by the way, yes the tribe has spoken: You've done 500 shoots since you've been here.  Have a cookie.  BUT, don't try to throw that around like a badge of honor, when you had to pay them all to work with you   Yes, if you pay models (obviously you've got a budget to do so with 200k in profits) they'll shoot with you.  But how many are willing to shoot with you because they like your work?  I'd wager none.  That's like me saying "Chefs at 4 star restaraunts have fed me consistently during the last 5 years."...but leaving out the part that I had to go in and actually pay them to do so.

So, if you wanna be braggardly about your accomplishments then do tell:

How many of your model photographs are used by "Corporate customers include most of the automotive companies such as M-B, aviation and health and beauty products."?  Some links would be lovely. 

Anyone can post online and imply they've shot for major automotive companies, or beauty campaigns, but I highly doubt Ford Motor Co. or Pfizer has your work on their homepage (at least work involving a person).  Again...where's the proof?  832k in less than a year, I'd expect to see a large portfolio of images that showcase your talent.  Again, I'm not doubting it...because from what I'm told your automotive photography is supposedly quite nice...but please, as long as you want to somehow try to slam me, who can at least light a fucking portrait properly...you might want to put up some proof that your work is as in demand as you imply.

*claps*

Dorola wrote:
Actually you are quite wrong. Since I joined MM I've done over 500 shoots with models from here. It seems they like the break from the mundane. Judging from the number of times viewers have opened my images, that would indicate that they are far more interest in mine than yours. Check it out yourself. And I don't even troll on the internet for comments.

I'm not wrong in that I think your work is bad. It's full of tits and ass; of course many people are going to view them. People love tits and ass, bad photography or not.