Jim Ball wrote:
Interesting, since you do not identify any of the images in your portfolio as being of yourself, I wonder what he thinks you look like? :-)

lol he probly doenst care..he probly sees shes female and photographs fetish and is like OHH She must be sexualy active*jumps for joy* lolol

Kassandra wrote:

lol he probly doenst care..he probly sees shes female and photographs fetish and is like OHH She must be sexualy active*jumps for joy* lolol

hahaha, yea.....but he definitely assumes the wrong thing. I wonder why he asked a photographer and not a model though.

Lexi Evans wrote:
I found this really funny, and somewhat disturbing....

He said it was going to be headshots taken while "something else went on down below". I said this was very unprofessional and not something I was interested. haha

I don't think that the idea itself is necessarily unprofessional.  Why do you say that?  Simply because it's something that you personally are not interested in?  I just do not understand what your complaint is--if you were not interested in the project, why not simply politely decline and move on? 

The photographer can certainly find another model to work with--no need to call him unprofessional simply because you are not personally interested in his project.

Just my two cents...

FemmeArt wrote:

I don't think that the idea itself is necessarily unprofessional.  Why do you say that?  Simply because it's something that you personally are not interested in?  I just do not understand what your complaint is--if you were not interested in the project, why not simply politely decline and move on? 

The photographer can certainly find another model to work with--no need to call him unprofessional simply because you are not personally interested in his project.

Just my two cents...

I don't think the person "doing something down below" would have been someone I knew. I don't think his reasons were purely artistic, either! There was more to the convo that I left out.  Also,he should have been asking a model...why ask a photographer?

FemmeArt wrote:

I don't think that the idea itself is necessarily unprofessional.  Why do you say that?  Simply because it's something that you personally are not interested in?  I just do not understand what your complaint is--if you were not interested in the project, why not simply politely decline and move on? 

The photographer can certainly find another model to work with--no need to call him unprofessional simply because you are not personally interested in his project.

Just my two cents...

Yeah, professional personal porn.

Adrienne Aurora wrote:

Yeah, professional personal porn.

Yea! I make my own personal porn. I don't need someone to do it for me...lol

FemmeArt wrote:

I don't think that the idea itself is necessarily unprofessional.  Why do you say that?  Simply because it's something that you personally are not interested in?  I just do not understand what your complaint is--if you were not interested in the project, why not simply politely decline and move on? 

The photographer can certainly find another model to work with--no need to call him unprofessional simply because you are not personally interested in his project.

Just my two cents...

Him asking a female photographer before asking an actual model makes him seem rather unprofessional...don't you think? Why would he even bother asking her if she doesn't have a picture of herself on her portfolio when he could just as easily ask a model with a bunch of tasteless nudes in her port? This is what makes him sound unprofessional.

Lexi Evans wrote:

hahaha, yea.....but he definitely assumes the wrong thing. I wonder why he asked a photographer and not a model though.

well maybe to him photographers are models and vice versa.
I agree with femme art.  don't pass judgement.  just say no I'm not interested.

FemmeArt wrote:

I don't think that the idea itself is necessarily unprofessional.  Why do you say that?  Simply because it's something that you personally are not interested in?  I just do not understand what your complaint is--if you were not interested in the project, why not simply politely decline and move on? 

The photographer can certainly find another model to work with--no need to call him unprofessional simply because you are not personally interested in his project.

Just my two cents...

I've seen some pretty impressive stuff along these lines - Doug Lester's Faces of Orgasm series is one of the best - and I agree that the idea itself is not necessarily cause for alarm.  However it's not exactly the type of project for which you approach someone out of the blue, and even if you do, it would make sense to start with a model who's port indicates some sort of interest in erotic photography rather than a female photographer.  At the very least, the guy was dense.  At worst, he shouldn't be calling himself a photographer.

Lexi Evans wrote:
I have absolutely no problem with capturing someone in an intense moment. In fact, i love it. But, c'mon.....asking me is where he went wrong. I agree, the idea isn't bad but its definitely not a good idea to ask a stranger if it would be ok to "do something down below" on her while he captured it on film.

ummm, just curious, but wondering about the technical aspects of "doing something down below" to a model while simultaneously taking headshots of her facial expressions.

Sounds awkward... ;^P

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:
Moreover, I dont think it would be that interesting personally.  A bunch of O-faces?  Come on.  What is it, a banner for a porn website?

That, or a window into one of the most intimate emotional moments in human experience, as seen in the intensity and expression of a given individual.

Lexi Evans wrote:
I found this really funny, and somewhat disturbing....

I got an IM from a "photographer" asking if I modeled as well. I said I never had. He then offerered me an intresting project in mind. I asked what it was. He said it was going to be headshots taken while "something else went on down below". I said this was very unprofessional and not something I was intrested. Then he said something to the effect that he wanted it to be real and that most photographers are fake! haha

Interesting.. I've been wondering about stuff like this..  I haven't done any sexually charged photos as of yet..  One thing that's always bugged me about such pieces is that the viewer is usually forced into the role of voyeur by the context of the image..  (You're viewing, therefore you can not be part)..

It'd be really interesting to see (and I know it's been done, I just haven't seen it)..  Sexually charged imagery with the photos taken from the perspective of a participant..

It's an idea I like.. But I have no damned idea how you'd pull it off..  If you're a perv or a GWC I suppose it's easy.. Find a sucker(er, model), tell em to hop up on your lap, and tell em it's all for art..  But it'd be a real challenge to do it for real.. 

1) How do you put the idea out there to advertise for a model who could get into something like that.

2) How do you compose it so that the audience feels as if they are part of the scene without imposing yourself as part of the scene..  (One, I don't want to make out with a model.  Two, the camera basically needs to be where the photographer is.. If you put yourself in the scene as a photog, the camera's going to be too close to capture the right perspective.. So, tethering? Stands?  How do you control it.  How do you tell a model to get passionate with a light stand?  Crazy ass logistics..)

So, where my first instinct on reading the OP's "invitation" is to creep out.. I also know there's guys out there like (local examples) D.B. Nelson, and Marcus Ranum (sorry if I spelled that wrong) who do amazing work.. Some of it very sexually charged..  And the "invitation" could in theory be someone with aspirations fumbling around with my questions above..

(I'm just trying to get philosophical.. I don't recommend the OP take the guy's offer.. Even on the hint of a chance something bad might happen.  Just wondering if you ARE moving into an area of sexually provocotive imagery..  What's the learning curve like?  What are the stumbling blocks..? And so on..)

Tim Hammond wrote:

That, or a window into one of the most intimate emotional moments in human experience, as seen in the intensity and expression of a given individual.

Well, ok.  The image I envisioned was absurdly stupid, but in the context of what the previous guy just said, I can see how you could conceivably craft incredible images.  However, I dont think it would necessarily have to be real to be great.  In fact it may well be a detriment.  Its my feeling that women tend to be more incapacitated than men at that moment -- their ability to "perform" for the sake of the shot would fall to about zero.  I think she could get all buzzed up and simulate it very well and you could get some outstanding images but actually crafting a pre-meditated fab shot and getting her into position at that moment seems unlikely.

Lexi Evans wrote:
hahaha, yea.....but he definitely assumes the wrong thing. I wonder why he asked a photographer and not a model though.

Maybe because all the models turned him down.

WG Rowland wrote:
Interesting.. I've been wondering about stuff like this..  I haven't done any sexually charged photos as of yet..  One thing that's always bugged me about such pieces is that the viewer is usually forced into the role of voyeur by the context of the image..  (You're viewing, therefore you can not be part)..

It'd be really interesting to see (and I know it's been done, I just haven't seen it)..  Sexually charged imagery with the photos taken from the perspective of a participant..

It's an idea I like.. But I have no damned idea how you'd pull it off..  If you're a perv or a GWC I suppose it's easy.. Find a sucker(er, model), tell em to hop up on your lap, and tell em it's all for art..  But it'd be a real challenge to do it for real.. 

1) How do you put the idea out there to advertise for a model who could get into something like that.

2) How do you compose it so that the audience feels as if they are part of the scene without imposing yourself as part of the scene..  (One, I don't want to make out with a model.  Two, the camera basically needs to be where the photographer is.. If you put yourself in the scene as a photog, the camera's going to be too close to capture the right perspective.. So, tethering? Stands?  How do you control it.  How do you tell a model to get passionate with a light stand?  Crazy ass logistics..)

So, where my first instinct on reading the OP's "invitation" is to creep out.. I also know there's guys out there like (local examples) D.B. Nelson, and Marcus Ranum (sorry if I spelled that wrong) who do amazing work.. Some of it very sexually charged..  And the "invitation" could in theory be someone with aspirations fumbling around with my questions above..

(I'm just trying to get philosophical.. I don't recommend the OP take the guy's offer.. Even on the hint of a chance something bad might happen.  Just wondering if you ARE moving into an area of sexually provocotive imagery..  What's the learning curve like?  What are the stumbling blocks..? And so on..)

WG asked me to respond to this, but even after reading the thread it's confusing.  I do have some thoughts, however.

Sexual photography is a legitimate use of the medium, whether as art or porn or something of both.  The difficulty I most often find is in authenticity.  A photograph of parts in place doesn't carry any of the emotion or empathy I personally want to show.  That requires a face and unlike Meg Ryan spoofing Billy Crystal, reality of expression isn't easily faked.  People, women in particular, only lose control of their faces when asleep or when approaching, experiencing or just trailing off an orgasm.   This is what makes commercial pornography so silly is that the faces are so obviously posed for and directed to the camera.

I am not sure whether the solicitor wants someone to do him while you photograph him, or wants to photograph you while someone's doing him, or wants to photograph you while someone's doing you.  The only options that make sense to me are the ones where the person getting photographed is also getting done. 

But beyond that there are loads of layers to such photography and it's possible that your solicitor really does want to explore some of these.  The first obvious one is what's happening within the frame.  A higher level is the role of the other person - the viewer or photographer - in the narrative.  And an even higher layer might be the story told by the artist about his role in the story or if he's really clever, the role of the viewer in the conspiracy that made the photograph.

As far as finding models to do sexual work, I think that depends on the anticipated end use.  Art models often will work if they consider what is being made to be art.  Porn models can also be found if one wants to look (sorry, I don't know where, exactly).  In my own work I use models that are interested in what I make.  I don't do terribly explicit photographs as far as physicality goes, but try very hard to make emotionally explicit stuff.

OK, that's about the end of my thoughts.  Wish I could be more helpful.

-Don

At worst, he shouldn't be calling himself a photographer.

A bit harsh, don't you think?

Also,he should have been asking a model...why ask a photographer?

Of course, I don't know the whole convo that you guys had, but maybe he felt more comfortable asking a fellow photographer, as a photographer may be more likely to get his artistic vision and less likely than a random model to assume he was merely looking to shoot porn.

Jim Ball wrote:
ummm, just curious, but wondering about the technical aspects of "doing something down below" to a model while simultaneously taking headshots of her facial expressions.

Sounds awkward... ;^P

Ah!  Hadn't thought of that permutation.  Yes...it is difficult.  Especially with a medium format camera.  With manual focus.  (No one here, but an old girlfriend.  And no, she won't let me show the pictures.)

-D

WG Rowland wrote:
What did early D.B.N. look like?  Before you knew you wanted to do the kind of pictures you do.. Before you knew how to present models the ideas and locate the ones who were, not only willing but capable of pulling off the final product?

This thread has officially been hijacked.  Now it's about...me!

Well, there's real early and there's early.  Real early doesn't matter.  What matters is since the web.   Once the web happened I became an early adopter.  I pretty much kept shooting fashion as that's sorta what I did back before I realized there wasn't any in San Diego.  But I was an habitue of the Fashion Only Forum and connected with a lot of models through that venerable old forum.  And I travelled on dayjob business then too.

So I photographed and got to know a ton of fashiony models.  And we all did nudes among all the rest of the fashiony stuff, because that is and always has been part of it.  Not the greater part, but part.  I'm old school.  We'd hang around and fool around and talk as much as shoot.  The result is that I'm comfortable with pretty girls and they're (for the most part) comfortable with me. 

I guess the break came when I started shooting fetish or bondage.  That is by definition sexual, and the new stuff grew directly from it.  When I pretty much quit the fetish in favor of the more directly erotic work I already had quite a body of work to show, and that gave me some credibility. 

Credibility buys a lot of tolerance.  Therefore starting out from scratch would be a difficult undertaking.

Gotta go drink a beer with Click.  Gonna be there?

-Don

Jim Ball wrote:
Interesting, since you do not identify any of the images in your portfolio as being of yourself, I wonder what he thinks you look like? :-)

Don't you know, photographers all wear masks when they shoot for anonimity.  That probably fit well with his fetish.