Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
It's always a collaboration.  Photographers just don't like to admit it for the obvious reasons.

It's always a collaboration if you always work with serious artists who want to collaborate.  That's not everyone.

Ken Mierzwa wrote:
There have been a couple of mentions of collaboration in other threads today, but I'm inferring that people mean different things by it.  What is collaboration for you?  Thoughts?

For me, it's more than a model showing up and knowing how to pose, how to look good.  Those things are important, but they're not unlike the photographer knowing how to properly expose or compose an image.  These are, for model and photographer, the basics, the building blocks.  Once one has reached a certain experience level, they're largely taken for granted.

For me, true collaboration begins when model and photographer are able to discuss ideas, concepts; when things happen in synergy that would not have happened alone or even with another.  At it's best, collaboration results in heightened senses, two people passionate about creating, two (or more) people excited about working together.  It's a little abstract, a little difficult to explain in words.  But somehow, the sum is greater than the parts.

I agree with ideas and concepts. For me, it is also about planning and communication in  order to complete the idea efficiently.

Amanda Schlicher wrote:

It's always a collaboration if you always work with serious artists who want to collaborate.  That's not everyone.

That must be a drag...Maybe it's the reason why all the "professionals" I know hate photography so much.

Ken Mierzwa wrote:
Melvin... does that mean I can shoot with any model on MM and get good results?

Of course not.  The part of the process that photographers ignore is being selective.  If you're not perceptive enough to find the right collaborator, then you're going to get the results you deserve.  There are actually well-known models who I would never think of working with because they're all wrong for what I do [and vice-versa].  Being thoughtful enough to know who to work with and who not to work with is part of the deal.

Like a metaphor?  Here you go:

When John Entwistle passed away, Townsend and Daltrey didn't call Yo-Yo Ma to replace him.  That dosen't make Yo Yo Ma a bad musisician, just the wrong one for that particular job.

If we photographers just gave up this coctail of insecurity and conceit for a while, things would go a lot smoother.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
The part of the process that photographers ignore is being selective.  If you're not perceptive enough to find the right collaborator, then you're going to get the results you deserve.  There are actually well-known models who I would never think of working with because they're all wrong for what I do [and vice-versa].  Being thoughtful enough to know who to work with and who not to work with is part of the deal.

We're not as far apart as you might think; the majority of the models I work with do fall into the collaboration category under my definition, and that's because, like you, I'm usually selective.  But every now and then someone asks for a basic portfolio update and I have time so I agree.  Some of those shoots, while I don't regret them, and they can be a way to do something fresh or just to stay sharp... aren't the same thing... at least for me.

So I think we're both saying that there are different levels, and I'll agree with you that with the right approach and a little patience we can, more often than not, work at whatever level we desire.  But then do we still call those levels the same thing?  If the simple physical act of two people being in the same room with a camera is a collaboration, then maybe we need to call the intense creative/emotional level something else.  Or if the more intense level is a collaboration, then maybe what those GWCs and wannabe models are doing should be called something else.  Maybe there's yet another word for a basic catalog shoot where the client dictates the terms, and so on.

See what I mean?  Some people seem to feel that any shoot is a collaboration.  You seem to make a distinction (if I'm interpreting this correctly), and put the responsibility on the photographer to find the right model; but that's still a distinction.  Others are applying the word to a more intense experience.  That's what I was seeing earlier, people using the same word to mean different things, and basically I'm curious how widespread this is.  Not sure there's a right or wrong, just shades of gray, a sometimes ambiguous word, and a variety of perspectives.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:

That must be a drag...Maybe it's the reason why all the "professionals" I know hate photography so much.

It's not a drag.  I think photography is fun, whether I'm creating serious art or shooting a wedding.  It'd be a drag if I only saw myself as an artiste and any other form of photography was boring or unfulfilling for me, but it's not.