TXPhotog wrote:

Actually, that wasn't my intention at all.  However, what I intended got hijacked by someone who would rather throw rocks than engage in useful conversation.  And since the conversation with him isn't useful, I'm out of it.

Sounds like a good idea (being out of it).  Even if you are right or have the experience to render an informed opnion, the nature of this (or most any other) internet forum does not lend itself to education or clarity but rather to opinions (uninformed or not).  So it seems like a fairly poor way to spend one's time.  Much more useful just to do the work, study and learn and do the work even better.

TXPhotog wrote:

Actually, that wasn't my intention at all.  However, what I intended got hijacked by someone who would rather throw rocks than engage in useful conversation.  And since the conversation with him isn't useful, I'm out of it.

Haha, too funny.....Oh messr Tx-you say you are not trying to get into an "artistic" discussion on the net? Really? My, how transparent is that! You are so disingenuous.

Oh my...."hijacked"....."throw rocks".....not engaging in "useful conversation"....you poor dear, however will you survive this cruel world (you cannot operate the levers to control).

Ah Tx, you always exit when you are in a corner. It is your familiar M.O. .

If you cannot frame the debate-you cry foul and leave.

Well, three cheers for consistency.

Yours in this case.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Shyly wrote:

Squeaky wheels get the grease.  I disagree that most models are clueless.  The clueless ones just tend to be the most vocal because they run into the most problems.  The rest of us just quietly go about the business of making pictures and working in the market/niche that suits us.

I'm with the guys on this one Shyly.   Yes, if we're only talking art models, that is, a group of models with (and these are generalizations)  1) a decent brain that is used  2) at least a rudimentary knowledge of art concepts up to those who could curate contemporary photo exhibitions 3) a passion for exploring unchartered territories, then yes, I trust those models to be able to determine what works or doesn't.

But alas, most models aren't art models.  Many models have no idea what they want or need, rather they just want to be famous, or rich, or adored.  A good number are young and are seeking approval.


When I first started to transition from using a camera for doing PJ and street photography type stuff and do more formal work with models, I literally couldn't pay one to work with me.  Well, I could, but I was getting quoted outrageous rates.  Even from so-called alternative models.

I had street scenes like the Night rain shot in my portfolio, but most models couldnt see how that look might translate to a human.  And too, my style doesn't fit into a classicall genre (other than weird) and that was hard for a number of models to translate.  Quite frankly it took a couple of photographers (established ones) who liked my work, who would tell me to contact so and so, and be sure to tell them that Mr X liked my stuff to get folks willing to work with me  on trade.

So, in terms of working together, there are a whole bunch of things that come into play, quality of work being one aspect, but popularity and name recognition, particularly for models who can't see quality, can't be ignored either.

KM von Seidl wrote:
I'm with the guys on this one Shyly.

If Kim's siding with the guys, then I must be wrong. 

Dammit.

RStephenT wrote:

Sounds like a good idea (being out of it).  Even if you are right or have the experience to render an informed opnion, the nature of this (or most any other) internet forum does not lend itself to education or clarity but rather to opinions (uninformed or not).  So it seems like a fairly poor way to spend one's time.  Much more useful just to do the work, study and learn and do the work even better.

Yes, so agreed.

studio L wrote:

Long live sir bob, and all his brethren.

Hear, hear! (or is it here, here or maybe aqui, aqui)

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

Hear, hear! (or is it here, here or maybe aqui, aqui)

now bobby, don't go getting all immigrant on me.....you could end up deported with the rest of the people our economy is predicated upon (wouldn't want to lose you)

Michael Kirst wrote:


Already

Ya man...post one for yourself while you are at it!

That's the deadest of all horses.

gr82bart wrote:
I don't understand why you guys read so much into these things.

Here's how I see this. I need a new house. I go online to ArchitectMayhem and look through a bunch of portfolios. Some architects have decent builds - they built the Taj Mahal, the Egyptian Pyramids, etc.... Others have built little tin shacks in shanty parts of low rent urban sprawls. Yet others have potential.

Some state their rates, others are willing to trade for anything from a luxury yaught to a can of stale beer. Everyone wants a CD of something! I couldn't care less if they say they've built castles, but their port shows trailer parks.

In the end it's up to me to make the first move and negotiate with those that I'd like to work with. Regardless what they say in their ports. If they don't want to negotiate a deal - guess what? I don't cry, I don't post on the forum, I don't whine about it.

I move on.

Regards, Art.

love it.

Photoman754 wrote:

Oh great models want $$$, prints, Cd's, DVD's and now add concerts, jewlery, dinners. LOL

Yes the price we pay to be in the presence of and capture such beauty .

studio36uk wrote:

Ink jet = non-art

Giclee = art

Hell, Giclee isn't ONLY "art" if you listen to the art industry it's "fine art"

ROTFLMAO

Studio36

No, no, no, no, no!

Everyone knows that it's fine-art nude if it's black and white. Colour is pornography!