Context, it's my favorite word.  No statement can be valid, understood, or meaningful without it.

That being said, a recent thread has brought about many of the same arguments that happen over and over and over again without resolution.  Those topics usually pit various sides against each other, all barking and moaning about something to which the other doesn't even understand, much less agree with.

I've completely resigned to a live and let live policy in most regards, but want to try and clear the air by giving some realizations I've come to to the general public, and more importantly give the appropriate context to which those realizations apply.

Site Context:
Model Mayhem mentions the word model.  Now, model can mean a number of different things, and we all concede that, but for the average casual person outside of the business, to understand the arguments and statements made by those inside, you need to understand what it means to them.  Modeling, or the modeling industry historically refers to Fashion, commercial, fitness, fit, kids, babies, and parts models.  These are the areas in which there is a true, time-tested demand for people who fit a certain criteria and role.  Advertising or Editorial, basically.  Internet modeling isn't considered modeling by the mainstream industry.

Argue with that until you're blue in the face, I don't give a rat's ass...You can make valid points about how a few internet models make a decent living off of what they do.  Great...good for them.  If you want to understand the other side of the argument, you're going to have to just keep that in mind and not argue the OTHER issues without standing on common understanding.  Agree to disagree, or whatever, but don't confuse two different issues and say you're arguing about one thing when you're really trying to justify a market that is, as of yet, not time-proven.

With that said, the assumption of this site, to many is that it deals with "Models."  True, or not true, when nearly EVERY SINGLE person on this site uses the word model, they have a criteria in mind of what they consider a model to be.  I choose to go with the industry standard which says that casual Internet modeling does not a model make.  There are some holes in that theory from a technical standpoint, I understand that.  However, to use anything less than standard accepted practice from the paying world's perspective is a disservice to my career as a photographer.  Everyone does it to some degree though.  Even those who think all the cute 5'3" models with huge boobs are really models occasionally post about girls with webcam pics claiming how they aren't really models.  See the point here?  Unless you walk around very Zen like introducing yourself to every rock, leaf, and butterfly as a model, you likely have some degree of cutoff that you consider a model and everything that falls below it isn't.

Professional Photographer Context:
There are VERY, very few professional "modeling" photographers on this site.  In the context that I describe anyway, I'm talking about those who are in the industry of what paid professionals outside of the photography world consider professional.  Again, an argument that comes and goes and is without a doubt one of the most heated topics on sites like these.

Talent, training, experience, drive, ambition, and technical expertise do not a professional photographer make.  There is much more to being a pro than the ability to create great images.    Do it for love?  Great, happy for you, I really am.  Your choice to shoot your own vision and not someone elses is noble and very Warhol of you, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you're capable of producing images that please the high and often arrogant demands of professionals in the industry.  There are some that have those skills and choose to backseat them in favor of doing their own thing...that great, but like any skill, it gets rusty with disuse.

Context, again with regards to this.  When we talk about portfolios here, we often only discuss on online portfolio, which is what most of the people here will only ever have.  Does being a professional photographer make you better capable and able to shoot a model's portfolio?

...

Did you say yes?  What if said professional is a wedding photographer?  What about a photojournalist?  Often, these types of ancillary photographers are the ones screaming the loudest (without, of course specifically saying what they do) that only pros can shoot a good portfolio, and since they're one, everyone else is a waste of time.

On technical merit, they may know more about photography than the average uncle joe, but it doesn't make them any more qualified to shoot portfolio work than others who lack true industry experience.

Arguing about the EXTENT to which one is professional, meaning the time they spend doing it is laughable if you ask me.  25%, 40%, 100% really?  Who cares.  However, with that in mind, VERY few weekend photographers are ever considered professional by anyone qualified to label them as such (in that regard, clients ultimately).

Professional Vs Professional Quality Context:
Now, everything I've said to this point is directed at being a professional, and not professional quality.  There are some DAMN good photographers out there who aren't considered professional.  Some have been hobbiest for longer than I've been alive.  I respect that, they're good, really good.  I mean like WOW good.  Take their portfolios to an agency or ad agency and they'll just look at it and shrug, usually.  It isn't always about quality in this business.  If your client asks you for a picture of a tree and you take an absolutely breathtaking picture of a shrub...YOU FAIL.  YOU LOSE.  GAME OVER.  Sometimes, the rules may not be so clear cut, there are various nuances of the business that are generally unspoken and learned through time and experience.  Learning those is one aspect of the business that you simply MUST learn if you want to become professional in that arena.  Period, end of story.  Yes, up and coming photographers may get to the technical level that their work is more aesthetically pleasing than many pros...but that doesn't cut it.  It doesn't matter how well you know how to drive an 18 wheeler.  If you don't have a commercial drivers license you can't drive a rig professionally.  This is no different.  Photography is only one skill of the business, albeit an important one.  If the photography is all you want to learn, great, but understand when the pros don't start calling you a pro.  It isn't mean, it isn't harsh, it's a reality.  There are aspects of the business that it takes to qualify for the title and respect from your peers, if you're not interested in all of it, don't expect the recognition.  Doesn't mean you're less talented on the one aspect, but the term applies to a large group of skills necessary to compete at a certain level.

Portfolio development in context:
Most photographers who test agency models (and get paid for it, it's actually fairly easy to test agency models for free, but that's another topic) are either professionals or are good enough that they soon will be.  Oh, and quickly the context of the word agency means real, land-based agencies...not web agencies or www.glamourgirlwithbighoostersagency.com.  I would bet that there are probablly 20 or less models on this site that aren't already with agencies that ever have a hope of signing with one.  It's common for an established agency to sign 10 or less models in an entire year, yet at their open calls there are literally 50 girls there every single week.  Yes, the odds are that low. 

That being said, few people give a crap what you do with the other vast majority of people on this site.  Groom them to become web models, shoot for fun, shoot for pleasure or whatever, most don't really care.

What really pisses people off is when ambiguity and lack of context creeps in, and these young people are lead to believe that if they shoot enough, work hard enough, and push themselves enough, they can become professional models.

Without context you have no idea how much harm you're doing.  They might be thinking that with enough experience they can get with a real agency...hell, they may not even know that there isn't even a SINGLE real agency where they live...

Even those with the best intentions rarely consult with their talent to make absolutely sure that they understand what they're getting into and the likelyhood of sucess is for the people they're working with.  Shame on you, if you're truly as much in the dark as they are, you need to educate yourself or at least let them know that you are.  If you aren't and you assume they know, that's even worse.  Those who intentionally leave out details start to make me personally queasy...then we get down to the people who downright lie, intentionally or not.  Think they're uncommon, think they're all GWCs?  Think again.  Look at the critique section.

Ultimately I have two major points to make with this exceptionally long post.

First, and most importantly is that people complain all the time about flakes and no shows, etc, etc.  Honesty is the best policy.  If, as a community we really start to define what web modeling is, what the criteria for being a non-web model are, and MAKE SURE that people who sign up for a site like these understand where they fall into the scheme of things, we'll end up with a much better forum.  That does mean that there are those who will buck the system and continue to try and do fashion at 5'3", but at least then that's their deal, and their responsibility...they were given valuable knowledge and feedback and choose not to accept it.  With no context:  "Can I be a model?"  "Sure, anyone can be a model" is why we have so many here who have absolutely no clue what the hell is going on...and ironically, the people who complain about it the most are the ones causing it.

Second, when you argue points about professional, non-professional, TFP, testing, paid vs non-paid, art vs a living, I hope at least some will consider the context in which the other is making their claim a little more heavily than has been done in the past.  Christian Behr recently made the statement "TFP doesn't build portfolios" in another thread (or something very similar).  He's right, but again, in context.  From an agency standpoint, absolutely, but I would no more encourage a 5'3" model to pay a fashion photographer, of any quality, than I would encourage them to gouge their eyes out with a fork.

If that short model wants to go commercial and is of an appropriate age and look, great.  If not and they want to shoot TFP in hopes of becoming a web model or what not, also great, fine.  However, the role of a photographer to talent is supposed to be one of mentoring, at just about any level of the business.  When facts about what's really happening are obscured, you're doing a disservice to your client...even if it's just a TFP shoot.

Andy

Wow, that was a long post...probablly even enough time for me to put my flame retardant suit on before anyone responds.

Andy

I will wait for the mini-series on HBO.

It should be pretty clear that I said nothing that could conceivably be misconstrued as suggesting there's no room for hobbiests here.

What I want to see is some tolerance between the two, and more importantly more realistic expectations from the talent about what the industry contains.

If you want to shoot art for no purpose other than creating art, that's fine.  I'm not even going to make assumptions or accusations, but you know as well as I do that some people lie or mislead about what the purpose behind those shoots are, and what a model needs in their portfolio to suit their needs.

Andy

Hard to respond to that because there's so much of it.

Web llamaing is not the same as commercial and editorial llamaing as you described early on.  Everyone should be aware of that, but they are not, and this place doesn't do education very well. 

You did miss art llamaing which predates commercial and editorial, and which does not exclude anyone that wants to do it.

And your point that the term professional photographer could just as well describe someone doing photomicrography as a llama portfolio shooter, is well taken.  Not that it matters much, because this isn't the place to start a commercial or editorial llamaing career.

And I really understand where you're coming from because I used to work for llamas doing portfolio photography, and it made me bitter too.  So I quit.

Respectfully,
Don

Don,

I didn't miss art modeling, it was excluded, just fyi.

Art modeling is valid and has a historically important role in various forms of art, including photography.

It was excluded from the standpoint that art modeling has never had stringent enough requirements to really be considered a "career" for those involved.  Sure, the local college guy or girl may make $100 a day for a few weeks to be some sculptor or painters muse, but that doesn't make it a career.

I in no way meant to discount the validity of it, I was simply pointing to what many consider to be truly commercial ventures.  All in all, most models that come and sign up for a site like this come with the expectation of making money at it.  Many learn, rather quickly that it isn't there and still choose to do it for fun or other reasons.

Yeah, my only point had to do with a statement about the photographer's responsibilities to the model. I posted to the extent that my opinions diverge from that statement. Although the OP may not care about any other opinions, perhaps the readers do.

I largely agree with your statements, especially because too few people understand for context affects communication.  Many people cannot see outside of their own set of circumstances and see that their ways of doing things are not necessarily the right ways for others, even if they give themselves identical titles (e.g. "photographer"). 

I learned long ago that in order to avoid many fights, one should insert the phrases "I think" or "for me" before every statement someone else makes. Try it.  People sound a lot less offensive.


But...

A. H A M I L T O N wrote:
However, the role of a photographer to talent is supposed to be one of mentoring, at just about any level of the business.  When facts about what's really happening are obscured, you're doing a disservice to your client...even if it's just a TFP shoot.

I'm uncomfortable with the assertation that photographers are supposed to be mentors.  You are assuming that photographers have some inherent wisdom that clients (which may include models) lack.  I completely agree that the wrong photos for a certain purpose is a disservice, but this goes in all directions.  How many photographers ask short models to do fashion looks?  Too many.  In this case, shouldn't the model take on the role of the mentor and say that she would be doing the photographer a disservice by taking the gig--even if it's just a TFP shoot?

A. Hamilton,
'Talent, training, experience, drive, ambition, and technical expertise do not a professional photographer make'.  I disagree with this because these are just a
few of the things that define a pro.  I would agree with you that most of the
shooters here aren't doing agency model ports.  However most could
based on the very simple images you show.  This is in no way a put down of your
work which is very nice but is shot to showcase the model and thats it...
I think that many of the shooters here are focused on trying to produce art or
intresting images or at least sexy images.  I think that most of the photographers
here if given fashion model attractive models along with a MUA, hair and maybe
a stylist could produce slick and solid work all day long.  However many of the
shooters here work with they have and if that means the neighborhood girl who
is pretty but maybe a bit heavy or only 5'2" you go with what you have. 
I'm more impressed by someone who takes a less then beautifull women or men
and produces kick ass images.  When I see those pretty images of already pretty
people in pretty clothes and with pretty make-up I get pretty bored.  Yes its
nice.  Yes its sometimes unusual or cool but its mostly the same and goes back
to my point give 90% of the photographers here the same attractive models
with soild support and you will get good to great images at least modeling
port level images however boring that may be.  Along with the things you describe
in your first post things like talent, etc the basic defination of a pro is. Do
you make a living from what you do?  As a model if people pay you for modeling
and its your only job then you're a pro.  Doesn't matter if its on-line on porn sites
or in Vogue.  Same for a photographer.  If all you do is shot in the studio at
Walmart you're a pro now the level you work at and who sees your work may
define what level you're at but you are still a pro.  There are basketball players
who play at NBA level and those who play in Europe or other places.  All pros
but the NBA would be considered the best of the pros.  By the way I would add
that you are a million times better then me.  Which may be in agreement with your
post about context let me know your thoughts.

The original post (I won't quote it again) is welcome. Before criticising it... read it and understand the context. That it was too long for the average internet attention span makes it no less valid. Thanks for posting it!

Oh, and lastly I'm not trying to pit what I do against every other type of photography by any means.

It's simply a means to an end and since I know my business it's easiest for me to make comparisons.

Those who make art,
Those who do portraits,
Those who do weddings,
Those who do fashion,
Those who test,
Those who do commercial,
Those who do editorial,
Those who take pictures at a crime scene (sorry, watching CSI =P),
and to any other out there...

The similarities *largely*, albeit not completely end with the fact that we're all holding a camera.  Specialization and becoming the absolute best at what you have to offer is the trend you see across almost all freelance pros.

Assuming equality in other areas I would fare poorly when pitted against any other type of photographer in their area, and they would fare poorly against me in mine.

I think ALL of us have forgotten that a time or two, and made illogical arguments based on false assumptions.  Or maybe not and I'm just admitting that I personally have.

Andy

Now I agree with the ideal that people could be trained to do model comp
shots.  Its important to know current styles with clothing and make-up.
However I note all of your models are pretty and have great figures.  Given
a real chance most of the shooters will produce solid images maybe they wouldn't
be as consistant as you and thats one big difference its producing work at the
same level all the time.  One thing that many amateurs can't do.    If there is
a problem with a models look many people wouldn't know how or what to do to
correct the problem.  Yet a stylist could help with all that.  Take a look at many
of the photographers ports they could shoot for most agencies or even do
advertising shots.  Why aren't they?  Well there's only so much work to go around.

Anyone here remember the old Blackwood-Steele forum? Anyone, model or photog that took a chance presenting there unknowing, unprepared butts in there had it handed back to them, nicely grilled and digested. It had a very evening effect on the casual observer.  Know your stuff before you tread on territory you know nothing about. There is none of that here.  It really doesn't reflect the reality of-dare I say- legitimate modelling/photography.  I use that term...legitimately, rightfully,as I work in Theatre and it represents something very real and important.
    That was a superb, well thought out and much needed editorial.
     My sneakers are on fire.

I have often been quilty of being wrong.  I also have been right to.  No doubt
I've been wrong more times then right.  I in no way am a pro.  I don't make most
of my money from shooting nor do I shoot agency models.  So my thoughts and
views don't hold the same relative value as the OP.  Its just my humble opinion
and its just that not as good as those working in the field on a daily basis.
I however may or not make a valid point and I'm glad that no one here feels the
need to hand me my ass.  There are things written here about lots of subjects and
at times the posters have facts wrong yet there is no need to be nasty, rude
or saracastic.  So if I'm wrong be respectfull and mindfull that I may be wrong.

Nah, no one's going to argue with you that better models make better photographs Tony. =P

I don't remember that forum, but I've been in similar.  I've had an agency booker open my book and look at me and say, "You're kidding, right?"

For as much as you can say you're glad we don't have any of that type of critique here Tony, no one can deny that the human spirit is WELL known for being faced with horrible rejection and working harder and harder to overcome it.

I think the reason we don't have that here though is a genuine lack of true knowledge, understanding, and experience.  This isn't a place where one comes to become something else, it's a place where people have staked out the claim that they can do anything they want.  So a harsh review doesn't kick into motion a desire to improve, push, and better ones work, it's met with harsh defensive resistance by the community saying "Not everyone has to be x or y to be good, not everyone is here for the same reason."

Because that is true, this will never be an appropriate forum for improvement outside of the scope of gentle coddling by others relatively strugging with some aspect, or the occasional looking over the shoulder by a seasoned pro.  The knowledge base is simply too spread out and unfocused to be any sort of appropriate forum for that....which is why the critique forum is largely useless and consists of more "Look at me, ain't I pretty" posts than anything else.

Andy

Thats a good post.  I would also continue with a part of my thread I started.
Many of the photographers here are stuck with working with people who aren't
fashion models.  Yet they do fashion type images which often fail.  There are people like you who have a real working base of information because you work with
models who really work with agencies and not just on-line.  As far as artistic merit goes well the work produced by many here is excellent however not always
consistant.  That as I stated also in another post is what seperates the pros from those who are hobbists.  Pros produce solid work almost all the time others produce
often very good work but in spurts.  The people posting here vary widely in information and expirence.  They are often wrong but not on purpose.  So I guess
its important to pick and chose who you listen to.  With people like you at the top
of the list.