Diana Moffitt wrote:
hmmm...interesting topic.  you do have a point.

However, I don't let this affect the outcome of my images.  whenever i start shooting i pretend i'm a completely different person and i just shut up and model.  i try to adapt to all photogs and their style and execute their vision.

I suppose..

And as a model that is your job - I walk into a shoot with the same intentions, and whether I got the 'relationship' or not, I still do my job...

But - to better execute someones vision and to do my job properly I believe there has to be some sort of 'relationship' between the two.
I don't think art is strictly a performance, nor can it be faked... Whether I walk in with or without the relationship - I will do my best at my performance...

But when I get home - and look at the pictures - whether I conquered the "vision" or not..... I and maybe just me, but I can tell if it's really there... I can tell the difference between "working" and "seeing". - with my own images anyways.. and sometimes with others.

InDecisivE wrote:
I find when I'm working with new people it's important I build some sort of friendship with them first... If we don't get along, or if there is minor little quirks one or the other can't deal with I find it affects my shots!

As a job - and as a model - this isn't a great thing... I don't do it as a career, so I can work around most of it -....
I dunno - Am I the only one?!...

I agree with this 100%. My best shoots tend to be with models that I become close with before we shoot, and/or women I work with multiple times.

But, I do this as a hobby too.

There are a lot of so-called professionals who approach modeling/photography like emotionless automatons and think that "chemistry" or "friendship" between the model and photographer is not a factor.

I notice those people always have shitty pictures too.

Creating great photos is like being in an orchestra, or a dance-troupe, or a movie-crew, or any other collaborative artform. If there is no chemistry, you can create good work. But you can't create GREAT work unless there is a deeper connection there between the people involved.

Shyly wrote:
I am an art model, and a lot of what I do relies upon my willingness and ability to bare some sort of emotion before the camera, which requires trust, both in the safe space of the shoot and in the vision and ability of the photographer.  When I connect with a photographer on a personal level my images zing.  I look for that now, and factor it in to whom I schedule to shoot with.

excellently put

InDecisivE wrote:
I've worked with a few - not many photographers... And whenever I get my pictures back - maybe this is weird.. But I can tell how I felt about that particular photographer, what was good, what was bad... My favorite images are the ones I did with photographers I got along best with and would shoot with again at any given chance... But as I look through the CDs I have full of images, as much as I love someones work, what I was wearing, or what I looked like... I can tell when the two of us just didn't dance like we should/could/or wished we had!!...

This is just my opinion...

This is an interesting point to consider as I'm sure many people feel this way.  For this very reason, I think it's important that people get neutral parties to look over their images. 

Why?

Because on a client-booked gig and even (though perhaps to a lesser extent) on a personal portfolio project, you may deal with some people who you might not like.  But as long as they have the look, you still shoot them.  As long as they can create the image properly, you still pose. 

And sometimes the vibe you feel just has to be ignored for the sake of imagery.  Especially if they aren't being rude or anything.  A neutral party can see beyond the feeling you attach to the shoot.

Which is not to discount how great images come out when you're enjoying yourself!  That can't be ignored.  However, sometimes you have to look like you're having a blast even if you aren't.

Jay Bowman wrote:
This is an interesting point to consider as I'm sure many people feel this way.  For this very reason, I think it's important that people get neutral parties to look over their images. 

Why?

Because on a client-booked gig and even (though perhaps to a lesser extent) on a personal portfolio project, you may deal with some people who you might not like. 

Which is not to discount how great images come out when you're enjoying yourself!  That can't be ignored.  However, sometimes you have to look like you're having a blast even if you aren't.

Ah, but you see, THAT is the beauty of being a hobbist-model or a hobbist-photographer. We NEVER need to fake anything. We don't have clients that we are seeking to please. We have no one to answer to, except each other.

One thing Model Mayhem has made clear in the last year on these forums is that the world of "professional model/professional photographer" has very different rules than the world of "hobbist model/hobbist photographer" and I think this whole topic is an excellent case-in-point of that fact.

Jay Bowman wrote:

This is just my opinion...

This is an interesting point to consider as I'm sure many people feel this way.  For this very reason, I think it's important that people get neutral parties to look over their images. 

Why?

Because on a client-booked gig and even (though perhaps to a lesser extent) on a personal portfolio project, you may deal with some people who you might not like.  But as long as they have the look, you still shoot them.  As long as they can create the image properly, you still pose. 

And sometimes the vibe you feel just has to be ignored for the sake of imagery.  Especially if they aren't being rude or anything.  A neutral party can see beyond the feeling you attach to the shoot.

Which is not to discount how great images come out when you're enjoying yourself!  That can't be ignored.  However, sometimes you have to look like you're having a blast even if you aren't.

I agree with you!
And as a woman - I must greatly appreciate the art of "faking it"... lol!
And - this sometimes has to be the case...

I guess it also comes down to an importance - how much do I need the images, hor valuable is it to me - I'll have to lean with slyly.. and say that - I want fire!... Work for the best - work with whom you work with best, in some situations be picky! - find your element!
And I suppose to a lesser extent, just shhhhh - show up - do your thing - get the cash and leave, but .... Overall, that isn't how I want to represent myself and would rather skip that situation to find another more rewarding...

Diana Moffitt wrote:
at a lot of shoots the photogs are such pricks you just have to learn how to adapt to different personalities.  you shouldn't let the lack of a relationship with the photog effect your images.

But really there are two threads running concurrently here. Diana, for the type of modeling you do, you're absolutely right. You have to have the attitude you to be successful in your chosen career. And while it may be true that you can pick and choose what jobs to accept, once you commit, you're obligated to make the best of the dynamic and still give it you all.

However, for art photographers, those not invested in the fashion model market, the opposite is true. There needs to be that chemistry between a photographer and a model to make it work well. Sometimes it'll work without it, and maybe outsiders can't tell the difference, but I also can look back over 20 years of proof-sheets (anyone remember those?), and slide sleeves, and now CDs an know just when that model, that shoot really clicked. My best work is still the stuff done with those models who worked with me repeatedly over a series of years. And even though a lot of those no longer model, we still keep in touch.

InDecisivE wrote:
I want it all!

I want to look at my work, and remember it!
I dont' want to look through my pictures and say... more often just to myself - "this is me faking being happy, this is me trying to act stressed... this is me walking my dog in a studio!?.. and this is me trying to endure happiness"....

Photographs are memories and I want them to be good ones - I want to be 50 and look back and not only say "look how hot I was" but........ This was a shot I did with "John Smith" and He "blah blah blah blah".... We "blah blah blah blah".... and This "blahb blahb lbah blah... "....

No where in there do I want to say " well he/she was a prude and yadda yadda... The shoots I didn't enjoy - I don't really remember anything but that...
I'm not doing this to be Tyra Banks, or Kate Moss or something... I have dreams and Goals - and I will reach them... But to do that, I think I have options and I'm definately given choices...
With a "job" like this - I think I should do what I like, what I want... Not what someone tells me will "be good"... and from that I will be successful - with myself at least.

You're just too cool InDe!!

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
From this photographer's perspective, having a good relationship and enjoying the shoot is part of a good process.  But the product (photograph) must also be good for the entire effort to be successful.  I may make some good photographs with models with whom I don't click, but not as many and certainly not as good as when it's a real collaboration.

-Don

Soon - I hope to collarborate with you again!

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
I may make some good photographs with models whth whom I don't click, but not as many and certainly not as good as when it's a real collaboration.

-Don

Absolutely... and, Don, your collaborations are fantastic. Everyone I've seen post on here that refers to you mentions your ability to click with your models.

InDecisivE wrote:
Soon - I hope to collarborate with you again!

Real soon.  And I'm looking forward to it.

-D

D. Brian Nelson wrote:

Real soon.  And I'm looking forward to it.

-D

you two did GREAT work together, I'm looking forward to it too lol

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
Ah, but you see, THAT is the beauty of being a hobbist-model or a hobbist-photographer. We NEVER need to fake anything. We don't have clients that we are seeking to please. We have no one to answer to, except each other.

One thing Model Mayhem has made clear in the last year on these forums is that the world of "professional model/professional photographer" has very different rules than the world of "hobbist model/hobbist photographer" and I think this whole topic is an excellent case-in-point of that fact.

Very, very true.  And I'm not saying that you should not be personally satisfied with the results.  Only that sometimes we can't objectively see the beauty in some of our work (or flaws) because we have a bias when looking at it.

Also, with the faking... to convey the mood of complete anger does the model have to actually be upset with the photographer or anyone else involved (probably happened to me more than I'm aware but I digress...)?  To show total elation, should you be excited about the person on the other side of the lens?  Sometimes you have to turn it on or off, even if it's a joint venture that's not for a client.

InDecisivE wrote:
I agree with you!
And as a woman - I must greatly appreciate the art of "faking it"... lol!

Lies.  All lies.  Everyone knows that women never fake that.


:::snicker:::

Jay Bowman wrote:

Very, very true.  And I'm not saying that you should not be personally satisfied with the results.  Only that sometimes we can't objectively see the beauty in some of our work (or flaws) because we have a bias when looking at it.

Also, with the faking... to convey the mood of complete anger does the model have to actually be upset with the photographer or anyone else involved (probably happened to me more than I'm aware but I digress...)?  To show total elation, should you be excited about the person on the other side of the lens?  Sometimes you have to turn it on or off, even if it's a joint venture that's not for a client.

I agree with you here - but in order to not only display such emotions a relationship is in order? - for me - it helps, anyhow. I'm not saying certain "looks" can't be generated unless they are real... I mean it's possible.. But with a better understanding, a reason for the 'look/the face' , a basic relationship built with someone you are working with only hightens these expressions and makes them real.

Jay Bowman wrote:

Lies.  All lies.  Everyone knows that women never fake that.


:::snicker:::

No - No.. Of course not.... We would never do such a thing............

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
From this photographer's perspective, having a good relationship and enjoying the shoot is part of a good process.  But the product (photograph) must also be good for the entire effort to be successful.  I may make some good photographs with models with whom I don't click, but not as many and certainly not as good as when it's a good, real colaboration.

-Don

I want to add playful to this.  For me the best relationship is when we're just playing and making pictures.  And I think I'd also like to add that the relationships, at least in my case, are hardly ever sexual.  Friendly and playful are the real key. 

If you have to stop shooting for awhile because everyone is giggling, then it's working.

-Don

If you have to stop shooting for awhile because everyone is giggling, then it's working.

-Don

Halleluja!

Jay Bowman wrote:
Also, with the faking... to convey the mood of complete anger does the model have to actually be upset with the photographer or anyone else involved (probably happened to me more than I'm aware but I digress...)?  To show total elation, should you be excited about the person on the other side of the lens?  Sometimes you have to turn it on or off, even if it's a joint venture that's not for a client.

Oh, no, obviously a model doesn't have to actually BE angry to convey anger. I agree with you totally.

What I meant by "not faking" things was a reference to getting along and enjoying the company of the person you are shooting with. That is something you might need to "fake" if shooting with a client, but not on a hobbist-photoshoot. That is what I was saying.

D. Brian Nelson wrote:
If you have to stop shooting for awhile because everyone is giggling, then it's working.

-Don

I shot two models recently in a girl-girl shoot. They and I had been conversing via email and telephone for six week leading up to the shoot. The shooting produced some intensely intimate images, punctuated with fits of giggles everytime they pulled away, looked at each other or me. The relationship between the three of us made it all work well. So much so that we're booked to shoot again.

P.S. The IRS might disagree with the term "hobbiest," especially when they review my Schedule C form

Scaramanga wrote:
Still, I think a lot of models feel like the OP. I sometimes wonder if this is why more white models don't shoot with black fotogs (and vice versa)--a lack of trust and an apprehension that the vibe won't be right.

Also an interesting topic.... probably could fill an entire post all by itself.

One remarkable thing about this post... it's nearly at the bottom of the page and no one has resorted to name calling, flaming, etc. even though it's clear there are two distinctly different points of view being expressed.

jac3950 wrote:
Also an interesting topic.... probably could fill an entire post all by itself.

One remarkable thing about this post... it's nearly at the bottom of the page and no one has resorted to name calling, flaming, etc. even though it's clear there are two distinctly different points of view being expressed.

Cosign. You know, I've thought about posting it as a topic, but I wonder if I would really get honest answers. It goes to one of those areas that people tend to be in denial about.

Scaramanga wrote:

Cosign. You know, I've thought about posting it as a topic, but I wonder if I would really get honest answers. It goes to one of those areas that people tend to be in denial about.

Probably all too true.... most of us go with our comfort zone, and not always at a conscious level.

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
Oh, no, obviously a model doesn't have to actually BE angry to convey anger. I agree with you totally.

What I meant by "not faking" things was a reference to getting along and enjoying the company of the person you are shooting with. That is something you might need to "fake" if shooting with a client, but not on a hobbist-photoshoot. That is what I was saying.

Ah, I see what you're saying now.