thatzkatz wrote:
Recently, several models were very "open" with their poses, showing very NSFW content. Usually, if it's one or two "slips," I don't send those to the models as that's just what happens when you're posing nude

The time to discuss this is at the moment of the slip.

You are responsible to not take the shot. If you do take the shot, you should deliver the shot along with all of the other images so that the model can evaluate her posing.

Edit: I have seen this situation occur during group shoots. I refused to take the shot and I mentioned the problem but no one else seemed concerned.

thatzkatz wrote:
I don't know if I should ask the model if she wants these more graphic images along with my regular selections

This sounds more like a work process issue than a moral quandry.

Do you spend time adjusting, retouching, and sending photos to the model when they are out of focus? What about when they sneeze or blink or make a weird hand shape or the lights don't fire? What about when you get 5 of *exactly* the same thing because you accidentally turned on burst mode?

Artists send their best and trash the rest. Don't make the model do the work of sorting through photos that provide them no benefit or that don't meet the goals of the shoot, regardless of the reason.

As for the argument above that genitals can be in art too? Sure, fine, yes. But if the model wants a beautifully-lit fine art photo of their genitals, they know how to ask. But if the shoot concept didn't include that as a goal, it's just one more shot that shouldn't make it past the first round of culling.

thatzkatz wrote:
Recently, several models were very "open" with their poses, consciously showing very NSFW content.

How should I treat the "girly bits" photos that were not in my mood-board?  Also, do any of you discuss this question up-front with each other before the session?

If it’s happening with several models, consider the possibility that you may be inadvertently signaling those poses. Maybe. It’s my experience that good models will follow both your spoken directions as well as your unspoken lead. Maybe you create an easy, relaxed session like many of us.

On my very first outdoor session with a brand new model (her first shoot), I was flashed ala Basic Instinct. Instinctively my finger left the shutter button as I waited for her to settle. When it happened again I asked her to move her dress a bit “for modesty” She and I laugh now but the moment was a bit awkward and surprised her at the time. I took the pressure off laughing at my own prudish word choice and with the awkwardness dissipated, addressed things. Turns out she just wanted to add a touch of sexy to the shots and didn’t realize that labia were showing.

Long story short. As the shooter, watching everything, you see these things as they happen. Communicate ASAP. 
To answer your question, I do discuss beforehand the type and feel of the shots we’ll make.

thatzkatz wrote:
Recently, several models were very "open" with their poses, consciously showing very NSFW content… But with these recent experiences, I don't know if I should ask the model if she wants these more graphic images along with my regular selections, or not.

If several models are doing XYZ and you’re not sure how to deal with XYZ, you might consider adding a discussion about XYZ to your preshoot process.

thatzkatz wrote:
How should I treat the "girly bits" photos that were not in my mood-board?

Models are individual people. Sessions are unique. Only you and each model can answer what is appropriate or expected so that all involved are satisfied.

thatzkatz wrote:
Also, do any of you discuss this question up-front with each other before the session?

Yes. Every time.

JSouthworth wrote:
One of the conventions in traditional art nude photography is that you don't show the model's pubic area. There are others; the model is not supposed to express emotion, or look directly at the camera, or do anything that would suggest an awareness of the camera's presence. So in a sense the traditional art nude photograph is a more voyeuristic type of picture than the glamour, or art photograph in which these rules don't apply.

The soles of the feet are another area which are not supposed to be shown in traditional art nude photography, according to the article, "nude photography" in the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, which admittedly is an old book, originally published in the 1950s. At this time it was usually illegal in the US and UK to publish or distribute photographs showing external genitalia, so commercial photographers had to either pose their models to avoid showing the pubic area which was restrictive, or retouch their photographs to obscure these details, with unnatural looking results.

Your 'conventions' are at least 25 years out-of-date.

JSouthworth wrote:
In practical terms "art nude" levels restrict the range of poses possible, in a frontal standing pose for example it is typically necessary for the model to keep her legs together or even cross them over, which makes a normal stance or an active pose impossible.

Mature, intelligent people (both models and photographers) engage in meaningful discussion about precisely what will be shot and reach agreement without relying on the use of outdated or readily misunderstood terms.

P R E S T O N wrote:

Mature, intelligent people (both models and photographers) engage in meaningful discussion about precisely what will be shot and reach agreement without relying on the use of outdated or readily misunderstood terms.

It's almost as if an AI robotic mechanism has ingested billions of discrete data bits and tried to make the leap to general inferences without one whiff of human sensibility or intuition or logic  or experience. Fascinating, actually.

Mark Salo wrote:

The time to discuss this is at the moment of the slip.

That's what I do. If a model is showing more than my understanding of what was agreed before the shoot commenced, then I pause and alert her to that fact. Having said that, the common response I've received is to STFU and keep shooting. Makes me feel like a prude for interfering with the flow of the shoot but I do it with every model, just in case.

TBH though I only get this with fairly inexperienced models who it seems want to explore their limits if they feel comfortable enough to do so, but without the sense of obligation or pressure which can arise if discussed in advance.

thatzkatz wrote:
I presume I'm not the only photographer who has this experience, so I'd appreciate guidance from both photos and models. How should I treat the "girly bits" photos that were not in my mood-board?  Also, do any of you discuss this question up-front with each other before the session?

I find the best approach is to discuss levels and posing before the shoot so as to reach a mutual understanding, and then let the model, or models do their thing during the shoot with minimal direction, allowing you to concentrate on the photography. Let the models express themselves, try not to interrupt the shoot more than is necessary for breaks, changing cameras/lenses/backdrops and so on.

JSouthworth wrote:

I find the best approach is to discuss levels and posing before the shoot so as to reach a mutual understanding, and then let the model, or models do their thing during the shoot with minimal direction, allowing you to concentrate on the photography. Let the models express themselves, try not to interrupt the shoot more than is necessary for breaks, changing cameras/lenses/backdrops and so on.

Take a look at the photos in your portfolio and ask yourself if they really depict 'models doing their thing with minimal direction'. It's clear to me, and I suspect others too, that you grossly underestimate your particular contribution to the aesthetic, style and content of modelling and photography during your shoots. Own it dude.

thatzkatz wrote:
How should I treat the "girly bits" photos that were not in my mood-board?

Delete them so they don't waste valuable storage space.

JSouthworth wrote:

I find the best approach is to discuss levels and posing before the shoot so as to reach a mutual understanding, and then let the model, or models do their thing during the shoot with minimal direction, allowing you to concentrate on the photography. Let the models express themselves, try not to interrupt the shoot more than is necessary for breaks, changing cameras/lenses/backdrops and so on.

As a general rule, time spent discussing levels or posing with the model during the shoot itself, is time wasted. An hour or two hours may seem like plenty of time, but it isn't, because you have a lot to do. Time spent talking will significantly reduce the productivity of the shoot in terms of numbers of pictures.

The really important thing is to choose the right model, or models for a shoot. They must have the right looks, and it's just as important to reach an understanding with them as to what you're going to shoot, before you book a shoot with them.

JSouthworth wrote:

As a general rule, time spent discussing levels or posing with the model during the shoot itself, is time wasted. An hour or two hours may seem like plenty of time, but it isn't, because you have a lot to do. Time spent talking will significantly reduce the productivity of the shoot in terms of numbers of pictures.

The really important thing is to choose the right model, or models for a shoot. They must have the right looks, and it's just as important to reach an understanding with them as to what you're going to shoot, before you book a shoot with them.

The mind boggles as to how much time you spend discussing a shoot with a model prior to booking if, as you state, discussion during a shoot would impinge significantly on a shoot of 'an hour or two hours'. Mind you, I often see models complain about photographers who engage in constant 'ping-pong' in messages - perhaps your approach is not uncommon.

BTW - most models and photographers I know prefer quality over 'number of pictures'. Slowing down a bit, taking your time and easing off your trigger finger is likely to pay dividends.

P R E S T O N wrote:

Take a look at the photos in your portfolio and ask yourself if they really depict 'models doing their thing with minimal direction'. It's clear to me, and I suspect others too, that you grossly underestimate your particular contribution to the aesthetic, style and content of modelling and photography during your shoots.

You don't like my work? Good. It would be annoying to think that we had anything in common beyond the fact the fact that we live in the same country.

JSouthworth wrote:

You don't like my work? Good. It would be annoying to think that we had anything in common beyond the fact the fact that we live in the same country.

If you're looking for critique you need to request it here:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/thread/8
Site rules I'm afraid.

JSouthworth wrote:
As a general rule, time spent discussing levels or posing with the model during the shoot itself, is time wasted. An hour or two hours may seem like plenty of time, but it isn't, because you have a lot to do. Time spent talking will significantly reduce the productivity of the shoot in terms of numbers of pictures.

The really important thing is to choose the right model, or models for a shoot. They must have the right looks, and it's just as important to reach an understanding with them as to what you're going to shoot, before you book a shoot with them.

I think it's also important to have well defined ideas as to what you want to shoot in a photo session, and also a realistic idea of what the models are able to deliver, coupled with an ability to adapt, especially when the model is one you haven't worked with before. I used to write out a detailed plan before each shoot to refer to, but I came to realise that it wasn't very useful. Now I just write down a few ideas in a note book. If the model looks good posing with a particular prop or hat it may make sense to shoot more pictures with that item, rather than moving on to something else simply because the plan calls for it.

JSouthworth wrote:
I think it's also important to have well defined ideas as to what you want to shoot in a photo session, and also a realistic idea of what the models are able to deliver, coupled with an ability to adapt, especially when the model is one you haven't worked with before. I used to write out a detailed plan before each shoot to refer to, but I came to realise that it wasn't very useful. Now I just write down a few ideas in a note book. If the model looks good posing with a particular prop or hat it may make sense to shoot more pictures with that item, rather than moving on to something else simply because the plan calls for it.

Dude, you're thread-hijacking again.

Take a peek at the OP's portfolio and background and ask yourself, honestly, if he's likely to be the least bit interested in how you approach your shoots. Your rabbiting does not assist the OP in any way. MOVE AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD!

thatzkatz wrote:
I shoot fine art nudes. I don't shoot glamour or cheesecake. I mostly shoot TFP.  Recently, several models were very "open" with their poses, consciously showing very NSFW content. Usually, if it's one or two "slips," I don't send those to the models as that's just what happens when you're posing nude, and O.F. content is not what I'm aiming for - which is why I presume is the reason the models choose to work with me. But with these recent experiences, I don't know if I should ask the model if she wants these more graphic images along with my regular selections, or not.

I presume I'm not the only photographer who has this experience, so I'd appreciate guidance from both photos and models. How should I treat the "girly bits" photos that were not in my mood-board?  Also, do any of you discuss this question up-front with each other before the session?

Here's my suggestion - stop calling women's genitals "girly bits." It sounds pedophilic. Use adult words.

And just because you find images with vulva showing distasteful doesn't mean that your model does. This is what an adult discussion is for. Before the shoot and/or during the shoot. Speak up if you are uncomfortable shooting certain things. Or pay better attention and don't take the "offensive" images to start with.

Thatzkatz wrote:
I shoot fine art nudes. I don't shoot glamour or cheesecake.

Model MoRina wrote:
Here's my suggestion - stop calling women's genitals "girly bits." It sounds pedophilic. Use adult words.

A good point. Using adult vocabulary is a good idea if you want anybody to take you seriously as an artist, which presumably you do if you claim that your work is "fine art nude" photography. Personally I find that term pretentious in this context.

On the other hand some artists seem to go too far in writing lots of wordy twaddle to accompany their work, which most people would need a good dictionary to decode.

Andy Warhol's work in photography is considered fine art, he made films as well of course. But most photography is considered as photography rather than as fine art. In education there are photography courses and fine art courses, with some overlap.

JSouthworth wrote:
As a general rule, time spent discussing levels or posing with the model during the shoot itself, is time wasted. An hour or two hours may seem like plenty of time, but it isn't, because you have a lot to do. Time spent talking will significantly reduce the productivity of the shoot in terms of numbers of pictures.

The really important thing is to choose the right model, or models for a shoot. They must have the right looks, and it's just as important to reach an understanding with them as to what you're going to shoot, before you book a shoot with them.

Here's a suggestion, old chap: Book a session for 3-4 hours. Speak to the model. Slow down. Who knows, you may even produce  some "fine-art " after all.

"The really important thing is to choose the right model."

When exactly has that not been so?

Richard Tallent wrote:

thatzkatz wrote:
Artists send their best and trash the rest. Don't make the model do the work of sorting through photos that provide them no benefit or that don't meet the goals of the shoot, regardless of the reason.

I agree. I would never send a model a picture that I wished I had not taken i.e. a wardrobe slip and the shutter fires. It happens when the model is moving quickly and the photographer is shooting fast. In the edit you see it and have an "opps" moment so you delete it along with the others that are not up to your standard. I, myself, would never agree to send every picture I shot and never have for that very reason. I don't show my mistakes or poor images. This is not to say the pictures I do send are great, but they are at my best level. And I certainly would never send a picture that I thought might embarrass the model. They are deleted. I think we know what a model wants and doesn't want because we  are sensitive people and listen to what she/he is looking for from the shoot.

Focuspuller wrote:
Here's a suggestion, old chap: Book a session for 3-4 hours. Speak to the model. Slow down. Who knows, you may even produce  some "fine-art " after all.

"The really important thing is to choose the right model."

When exactly has that not been so?

Your profile pictures are correctly focused and exposed, I'm just wondering why it is that some of your models look a little pissed.

LightDreams wrote:
Poor old JSouthworth.  Continuing his tactic / long history of attacking everyone else's portfolio's (and it's quite the distinguished club!) while, understandably, STILL flatly refusing to allow anyone to critique his portfolio.

You obviously have a short memory.

JSouthworth wrote:
Your profile pictures are correctly focused and exposed, I'm just wondering why it is that some of your models look a little pissed.

Yes, old chap.  They are so "pissed" they return for more sessions.

And BTW, your critique of my portfolio its out of order.

Focuspuller wrote:

Yes, old chap.  They are so "pissed" they return for more sessions.

And BTW, your critique of my portfolio its out of order.

Somehow I don't think so.

JSouthworth wrote:

Somehow I don't think so.

Feel free to contact any one of them, old chap.