Photoman754 wrote:
Where do I learn what makes a good model photo?

One technique you may want to try is to copy the work of photographers you like.  Try to imitate their shots in terms of lighting, composition, framing, posing, etc.

I know that's going to send out red flags from some of the photographer's here but I'm not talking about copy photographs to make money. I'm talking about copying photographs to get a feeling for what makes a good image.

It's the same thing the Beatles and the Rolling Stones did when they first started.  They played OTHER bands' songs note for note.  Eventually they developed their own (very) unique sound.  You will too.

Photoman754 wrote:
Some say my photos are great others say they are average and a couple say they suck. I'm beginning to think maybe they aren't all the great after all. Maybe it is because I look at them so long.

That happens to all of us. It's a professional hazard.

Where do I learn what makes a good model photo? I see some on here that are supposed to be my high paid photographgers that have women supposedly flocking to them for photos and shell out big $$$$. But when I look at their ports I'm thinking.....well I guess I just don't get what's all that different about them.

There are two basic parts to being able to produce a good photograph. My approach to this is a little different than some people's idea of the basic elements of being a good photographer. ("There are two kinds of people in the world... those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't.")

1) Did the photograph turn out the way you wanted it to?

2) Is what you wanted to accomplish worth accomplishing?

The first part sounds subjective, but isn't. The second part sounds objective, but isn't. Under this way of thinking, a Henri Cartier-Bresson or a Bruno Bernard might be no better, and no worse, than a Terry Richardson.

First, can you make the camera do what you want? I mean really do what you want, as in, shadows here, highlights there, depth of field controlled and focal plane on target, no more and no less noise than you desire, frame and perspective arranged with control and not subject to random compositional elements? If you can, then the answer to #1 will be, "Yes." If not, it will be, "Sometimes." Example:



This is part of a series of photographs of a horror concept. The lighting is extremely flat, the shadows are extremely harsh, and it's not that sharp. The blacks are lost. However, it's exactly what I wanted to produce. I knew what I'd get when I pressed the shutter and I was right. Therefore, under the first part of the test, this is a good photograph. It's a totally objective test and one which is easy to apply if you are willing to be honest. (Let's be truthful, we've all gotten pictures out of a camera which we were stunned to get, and which are *not* exactly what we were aiming for. Those ones don't count.)

Now, the question of whether what I wanted was worth having now arises. (The eternal question, generally speaking.) The picture, as I said, has extremely flat lighting, harsh shadows, and the tonality range isn't great. It's not as sharp as it might be and it's somewhat noisy. Technically, some people would say it was inadequate.

But it's a picture of a vampire subjugating a zombie in an abandoned basement. (If you don't care for such things in the first place, the question of its worth becomes *very* easy to answer, I readily admit.) To my way of thinking, the listed "flaws" enhance the esthetic vision of the picture. It's a harsh picture of a tragic and evil subject. There is no right answer to this part of the question, only individual ones. *That* fact is what can make a Terry Richardson a world-famous photographer. (I don't care for him myself but he is far more successful than I will ever be: you can't argue with success when it comes to subjective analysis.)

I myself often have the same reaction you do to seeing images by big-name photographers: "What's the big deal?" In my case, arrogant as it may sound, it's often more like, "That picture is not good enough to be on the cover of that magazine." That's because the editors or whoever are applying the second part of the equation: they have a personal vision that the picture needs to fit into. To *them,* that's a cover picture even though technically, it has serious problems. I don't really have an answer for you, it beats the Hell out of me as well. But you're not alone, if that's any help.

M

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=43601
http://www.musecube.com/AnthonyCramer/

I think the problem with all of your pictures is their predictability. Same pose, same look and same feel. It is probably the single most common fault of the photographers on MM. If you view the two examples Leonard gave you, your problem area screams at you... HEY YOU!!! TAKE A CHANCE AND DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH THE MODEL!!!  We all suffer from this to a certain degree and I'm sure the referenced photographers would be the first to admit they run into the problem themselves. You have a handle on light and exposure and all that good stuff, it's time to move on and grow a little. Take some chances, it's only fil.... pixels.