Bev wrote:
What do you think of department store make up artists?

I just got a job as a mua for Estee Lauder in Macy's.

I was wondering if anyone out there considers department store muas actual make up aritsts, or if they only consider a mua to be somone with a license.

(Please no bashing on Estee Lauder here. I love it and most of the brands owned by it.)

do you consider the Sears Portrait guy a real Photographer?  It's the same kind of comparison...one makes a bit over minimum wage because he learns a set way of doing things (by the book) there is no creativity involved really, he is there to sell portraits and not real good ones. I consider a counter person in the same league.  When you can get a job without experience and it pays around $10.00 an hour I wouldnt use the term "artist" or "photographer"

Mary wrote:

do you consider the Sears Portrait guy a real Photographer?  It's the same kind of comparison...one makes a bit over minimum wage because he learns a set way of doing things (by the book) there is no creativity involved really, he is there to sell portraits and not real good ones. I consider a counter person in the same league.  When you can get a job without experience and it pays around $10.00 an hour I wouldnt use the term "artist" or "photographer"

Great example! You need no experience or knowledge to do either one of those jobs.You'll have fun though! Before I considered becoming an enbalmer at first all I wanted to do was the restorative arts but you actually have to have cosmetic training for that. Bummer huh? The great thing is that you'll be able to do your own makeup for shoots now.

Mary wrote:
do you consider the Sears Portrait guy a real Photographer?

Well I worked for a year at a plce in the mall called Pose. That was over five years ago. They still have all of my images up in the window as examples. I did very good work, with very few resources.

So yes, there is always the possibility that the Sears Portrait guy is a real photographer who is just trying to eat,

Star

DeathbyNew-Wave wrote:
The great thing is that you'll be able to do your own makeup for shoots now.

Good point!

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
I've asked models to go to department stores to try make-up. Most department store MUA's are competent. A few aren't - but not many. They make money on what they sell. You don't stay long if you're not good at it.

Given the choice between an independent artist and a department store MUA, I would pick the artist. Creative makeup is better than a standardized "makeover face." I'm biased, but I also think that creative shots are better than the Sear's photo guy who can give you a perfect Rembrandt-and-cheesecloth picture every time.

But given the choice between a department store MUA and a first-time model doing her own makeup, I send them over to Penny's every time. The last model I sent got a great face and also spent $300 on makeup, so the makeup gal made more coin on the TFCD shoot than I did!

And given the choice between a first-time model doing her own makeup and me doing her makeup, I'll stay behind the lens.

Ivy Bressler wrote:
For an inexperienced stylist, I think this is a great way to egt experience under your belt. But keep in mind that their make up isnt your art in this case. This is their idea of your art, if not then your clients are unhappy.

I wouldn't recomend a model drop by before a shoot though. (Nothing against op) but my sister and I, (both have similar skin tone, eye color and hair) have had very different results. Mine looked great, and at the time, (I think I was 14 or so) I needed to learn a bit about doing my own makeup. My makeover went quite well and looked pretty much like lite or natural makeup should. My sister ended up looking like a Goth. Nothing against goth's, but she's not one, and consequently was quite displeased with the result.

Like I said, for learning makeup on a lot of different skin tones, conditions, etc, this will be great for the stylist. But as a model, I wouldnt just run into the mall for a free makeover before a shoot. Unless you know the stylist personally, you can't be assured that you won't look like crap.

"Stylist" is a term used for person who does clothes styling. Makeup artist is a person who does makeup.

Bev wrote:
What do you think of department store make up artists?

I just got a job as a mua for Estee Lauder in Macy's.

I was wondering if anyone out there considers department store muas actual make up aritsts, or if they only consider a mua to be somone with a license.

(Please no bashing on Estee Lauder here. I love it and most of the brands owned by it.)

Well , I have a friend who once worked as a MUA for one of thoes high end NY stores ( Barneys I believe ) The celebs and supermodels she met ! and  the stories she tells of her little encouters are often quiite funny ...Like the time Iman came into the store and my friend rushed over and asked to give her a free makup ( just to get a chance to talk with  her ) Reportdly Iman responded "Dont you know who I am , and that I have my own line of makup ,honey  ?

Mary wrote:
to anyone that thinks a department store makeup artist is even close to a pro ask yourself this...  Why would a very good artist work for $10.00 an hour when the rate is $600.00 to $1,000.00 a day on average and good artists work all the time for full rate?  Why would this be? 

On a side note, I have never seen a counter person apply makeup that would fly on a print shoot.  Some photographers clearly do not understand what makeup is good and when it isnt, as is evident in a good deal of the portfolios here on MM

Well perhaps the department store make up artist is working in a department store because he/she is young and attends a college university full time working on his/her B.A.

Black Ricco wrote:
They do more make-up in one week than most photography MUA's in a month. And they have to deal with the general public - that means you have to "read" the client and figure out what they like. You also have a huge range of faces, skin colors and tastes to work with.

An expansion on Ivy's previous comment and an excellent point. Baptism under fire, so to speak. Once one becomes competent enough to greatly improve  the often greasy, pot-marked, and incredibly varied faces of the general public, and once they learn to "amp" it up a notch or two for the camera,  they'll be armed with the ability  to routinely perform miracles on attractive folks with decent skin.

I also  agree with your comment that anyone who makes their living with a camera, regardless of where and how, is a "photographer".

I also agree with this. Thank you for your input.

Mary wrote:
to anyone that thinks a department store makeup artist is even close to a pro ask yourself this...  Why would a very good artist work for $10.00 an hour when the rate is $600.00 to $1,000.00 a day on average and good artists work all the time for full rate?  Why would this be? 

On a side note, I have never seen a counter person apply makeup that would fly on a print shoot.  Some photographers clearly do not understand what makeup is good and when it isnt, as is evident in a good deal of the portfolios here on MM

Bev wrote:
Well perhaps the department store make up artist is working in a department store because he/she is young and attends a college university full time working on his/her B.A.

Bev, sometimes I think some of the pros on this site forget what it was like being young and starting out....

Mary wrote:

do you consider the Sears Portrait guy a real Photographer?  It's the same kind of comparison...one makes a bit over minimum wage because he learns a set way of doing things (by the book) there is no creativity involved really, he is there to sell portraits and not real good ones. I consider a counter person in the same league.  When you can get a job without experience and it pays around $10.00 an hour I wouldnt use the term "artist" or "photographer"

I disagree Mary.  I worked for Olan Mills and PCA (department store studio in Emporium Capwells) as a photographer and manager early in my career.  I was very good!  The experience was valuable for my future as it taught me how to think fast, look for the best features of many different people, and also polish my customer service skills for when I went out on my own. 

There are many great photographers who have come up through the ranks of shooting at institutional studios, or for newspapers, etc. and it's not hurt them one bit!  So to say that there is "no creativity involved" or that the portraits are "not really good ones" is an insult to those like myself who didn't "do it by the book!" I agree with the photographer who said it's not the camera but the person behind it that matters.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
A Sears photographer, Glamor Shots photographer, your local portrait photographer Ansel Adams, Hemut Newton and Sarah Moon are all photographers. They use cameras to take photographs.

Are they artists? Yes and no, depending on your tastes and definitions. Judging them by lables is not the way to go. Are all MM models and photographers flakes? Are all MM models and photographers professionals just G&GWC&P (guys & girls with cameras & pictures)?

To sit on the other side of the fence, I've met MUA working on movies, editorial shoots, cover shoots, large advertising jobs. Not all of them were great make-up artists. I've also worked with some of the best - there's a big difference between the two.

I've asked models to go to department stores to try make-up. Most department store MUA's are competent. A few aren't - but not many. They make money on what they sell. You don't stay long if you're not good at it. They do more make-up in one week than most photography MUA's in a month. And they have to deal with the general public - that means you have to "read" the client and figure out what they like. You also have a huge range of faces, skin colors and tastes to work with. The good vs. bad ratio is no different if they work in a spa, department store or anywhere else. Do they have the eye and ability is the question.

Perfect! 

I have befriended MU artists who worked at MAC counters. Some are quite good!  I take models to those who will work with me on the outside at locations too.  MAC encourages education and they also allow their people to work with photographers on a freelance basis. Some people who work at department stores doing MU can eventually work 100% on their own or move up in the company.  It's not a bad thing! 

I have met people who went to elite photography schools.  Some had bad attitudes and shot equally bad pictures IMHO.  Others are quite enjoyable to hang out with! I shared my studio with some Brooks graduates in sort of a co-op situation.  We got along great!  We learned much from each other!  There is something to be said about a good balance of job experience mixed with schooling.  One is not likely to do well without a bit of both.

Mary wrote:
to anyone that thinks a department store makeup artist is even close to a pro ask yourself this...  Why would a very good artist work for $10.00 an hour when the rate is $600.00 to $1,000.00 a day on average and good artists work all the time for full rate?  Why would this be? 

On a side note, I have never seen a counter person apply makeup that would fly on a print shoot.  Some photographers clearly do not understand what makeup is good and when it isnt, as is evident in a good deal of the portfolios here on MM

So I guess you can tell which of the models in my images were done by MAC, which were done by a "pro" and which were done by the model herself? 

Pamela Anderson has a woman who exclusively is at her beck and call to do the make up and hair that is the signature "Pamela" look.  That woman is paid $5,000 a day to do that!  Now how many jobs are out there like that for a MU artist?  Not many!

Mary, do you get $5,000 a day for your work?   If so, then I guess you are above us.  I'll probably never photograph Pamela Anderson either ...  no big deal! lol