...Stacy wrote:

I tried to talk during a shoot once, the photographer slapped me.  I swore I'd never do it again.  I can't speak in compleate sentences anyway...  Unedjumacated, don't you know!

I sure hope you are kidding! 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Gary, I couldn't disagree with you more if I tried!

You got so upset that you went off half cocked and posted this without reading on, didn't you.  Or maybe your one of those people that just loves controversy and couldn't pass up the opportunity to keep stiring it up.

I wish I could just make this whole thread go away.  Of course, I shouldn't blame myself for people who see one thing that they don't like and then shut everything else out huh?

Maggie Shirk wrote:
Wow,
This is really a much more interesting thread than I originally anticipated.  I think I have a slightly different take on all of this.  Let me explain.
1.  As a commercial model I am OFTEN put in situations where the EXACT image is already determined and my job is to make that image look exactly like the client sees it in his/her head.  That being said it is a combined effort of me, the photographer, and the client creating the "perfect" image.... said only because if I dont have a perfect understanding of what is needed neither the client or the photographer will get what they need or be happy.   The photographer too must have this understanding in order to frame and light the image, as well as capture it at the appropriate time.   In this case... I am EMPLOYED for my talent in giving what is desired and having an understanding of what that is, and the photographer is as well.  It is NOT my business to comment or interject just to please, and change to accomodate.  Come on, this is how we make our money folks.

2.  In other commercial settings the situation is not as specific and I am expected to provide expressions and feelings to emulate and project a certain idea or concept or scenario to perfection.  The photographer has a job to create that expression of feeling for the concept or scenario in his images.  We are both still employed for our talents and are both critical to the outcome for that reason.  It is not my business as a model to question what is asked of me, or to interject personal feelings on the photos.

3.  Fashion models:  Are often hired for the look they have.  JUST TO BE THEMSELF.  Because they are who they are.  They are the subject and the punctuation mark of the image.. and the photographer is there to perfect that an portray it the way that best shows the model  FOR the client.  This is usually ALL about the model, they are the commodity.

4.  Glamour:  Also hiring a model for the look they have, but more generic, and the goal is very different.  In this case it is often the photog. or model, whichever the case may be, trying to create a fantasy.  One of them has the idea and it is the others job to create that.  Sometimes this involves the model being a "prop" or "subject", and other times a collaborator.

ALL of the above are cases where pay is involved to the model, to the photographer by a client or to the photographer for copyrighted images by the model.

WHEN:
1. A model books a photog for portfolio work.  It is the photographers JOB to make the model look exactly the way she/he is trying to market herself.  This is often a collaborative effort, because it is the model who is trying to accomplish a feeling or a look.  It is the job of the photog and his team to make him/her look good.  She/he is the sole object and purpose of the shoot.

2.  A photog. books a model for personal work, be it art, glamour, a job,portfolio, etc... with the goal of the photog. being the sole intent... no other party involved.. then it is the model job to listen and provide and do exactly what is expected of him/her.  NOT collaborate, unless it is asked of him/her.  The purpose of this shoot is for the photog only... very similar to #1 above, but without the third party.  There should be no complaints from the model.


Sorry that is so long, but that is the take of a working model.

Maggie, I don't do well shooting for clients who are so uptight that they know exactly what images they want. If that is the case, then why bother hiring a photographer. We are artists.  I do shoot weddings and I understand "getting the shot" as opposed to just shooting for fun.  I've had the mother of the bride in my ear during one wedding, and it was no problem for me ... she happened to be a relative by marriage plus it was her daughter.  I can deal with the most difficult of people, and there are times that I have!  It is about attitude. 

That said, maybe I'm more of a journalistic photographer than Gary?  After thinking about it, I was a little harsh not knowing his clients or how he is to work with.  But to be an excellent photographer of people, it is important to love people with a passion, and to be a great listener.

Gary Davis wrote:
You got so upset that you went off half cocked and posted this without reading on, didn't you.  Or maybe your one of those people that just loves controversy and couldn't pass up the opportunity to keep stiring it up.

I wish I could just make this whole thread go away.  Of course, I shouldn't blame myself for people who see one thing that they don't like and then shut everything else out huh?

Gary, stand by your words man!  Don't up and delete because of some criticism. I read all of what you wrote.  You are right that using the word "prop" to describe what a model does gets off on the wrong foot from the get go!  You did try explaining yourself in more detail, but I don't think you had it clearly in your mind what you were trying to say.  It's ok, I'm not attacking you personally, so please don't take it that way.  It's just that a model is not a thing like a prop is, so the comparison is very bad.

Gary, YOUR WORK is great!  It shows that you don't really think of models as some sort of objests or props. There is emotion in their faces that show they are having as much fun as you do shooting it.  Again, I'm not sure what the point really was that you were trying to make ... It's all good, no hard feelings, ok?

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Gary, stand by your words man!  Don't up and delete because of some criticism. I read all of what you wrote.  You are right that using the word "prop" to describe what a model does gets off on the wrong foot from the get go!  You did try explaining yourself in more detail, but I don't think you had it clearly in your mind what you were trying to say.  It's ok, I'm not attacking you personally, so please don't take it that way.  It's just that a model is not a thing like a prop is, so the comparison is very bad.

I'm not deleting because of criticism.  I'm deleting because so many people are grossly missinterpreting what I was trying to say.  In fact, I agree to a large extent with what the people who say they "couldn't dissagree with me more" are saying.  I can handle dissagreement if it's based on a correct understanding of my position, everyone has their own opinion, but I don't like being missrepresented (even if I brought it on myself).

I know the comparison was bad and I don't want to stand by my words because they were chosen poorly.  They give the wrong idea about what I believe and that idea is what everyone seems to be latching on to.

The idea seems so clear and simple in my head, it's just getting it out in writing that is proving even more difficult than I expected.  I never did do very well in english

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Gary, YOUR WORK is great!  It shows that you don't really think of models as some sort of objests or props. There is emotion in their faces that show they are having as much fun as you do shooting it.  Again, I'm not sure what the point really was that you were trying to make ... It's all good, no hard feelings, ok?

And now the edit..

Ya, no hard feelings.  I have a great deal of respect for your opinions and your work.

I'm glad you recognize the emotion in my photos because that is one of the most valuable aspects to me.  But I think that my point is that many of those emotions are ones that I tried to evoke from the model, colored with her interpretation and personality vs. just asking for whatever emotion she was feeling at the time.  Both our inputs were critical to acheiving the final image, but it still fit within my vision of the image at the time.

Now for example if the model were to say, "let's try this emotion" and it's something completely different from what I was going for, then IMO she is stepping out of her role of strictly being a model and now contributing art direction.  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, I'm just pointing out what I see as two distinct roles.  I'm usually very open to these sorts of suggestions and love working this way under the right circumstances, but it depends on the project and the conditions we're working under.  In fact, I also have many photos where I just let the model come up with the look.  Some photographers lean heavily to one side or the other, I'm pretty flexible but see the merits of both.

Now, if the model wants to edit the images, again IMO she is stepping out of the role of strictly being a model.  I'm a little more reluctant to give a model this kind of freedom but if both parties agree then again I see nothing wrong with it.  I have in the past allowed a model to use an image she edited herself, but she handled it correctly, asked first, allowed me to approve the image, and credited it properly.  I've also come down on a model who removed my watermark and added a business logo without my permission.  That IMO severly crossed the line.

Is that more clear at all or am I going to have to delete this too

And thanks for the compliment on my work, much appreciated.

Henry Tjernlund wrote:

Literally struck you?! You should have beat the snot out of him! Or at least left the shoot and charged him with assult.

The only excetion to this is a scene (still or movie) where this is part of the scene and everyone is ready for it.

I was JOKING!

Maggie Shirk wrote:
1.  As a commercial model I am OFTEN put in situations where the EXACT image is already determined and my job is to make that image look exactly like the client sees it in his/her head.  That being said it is a combined effort of me, the photographer, and the client creating the "perfect" image.... said only because if I dont have a perfect understanding of what is needed neither the client or the photographer will get what they need or be happy.   The photographer too must have this understanding in order to frame and light the image, as well as capture it at the appropriate time.   In this case... I am EMPLOYED for my talent in giving what is desired and having an understanding of what that is, and the photographer is as well.  It is NOT my business to comment or interject just to please, and change to accomodate.  Come on, this is how we make our money folks.

While I agree with EVERYTHING Maggie said, I really like what she said here. Sometimes models don't get it, and should learn when to collaborate and when to keep quiet.

I had a shoot where I sat in meetings for months with the president of the company, the marketing manager and the sales manager defining the concept and the look of a campaign. Video spots were already in the works before the print work was being done. I had found the "perfect" male model. He had the exact look we wanted. When interviewed, he thought the concept was silly, and proceeded to enlighten us as to how HE thought it should all be done. How his idea was better. Needless to say, he did not get hired. And it was a shame because he would have been great. So sometimes, a model should just be a model.