papa-rotzzi wrote:
Well, when models INSIST that they get EVERY shot from a shoot... Maybe they should re-think their demands.  (becareful what you wish for..)

Or maybe photographers should have enough presense of mind to CARE what they send out as "their work."  I've seen some shots photographers have picked, edited, and posted of models that have given me shudders.

I have *never* insisted on getting every shot from a shoot, and more often than not, I DO get every shot.

Depends on who you think has responsibility over the quality of the final photographs, I guess. 

Personally, I think the word PHOTOGRAPHER comes from PHOTOGRAPHS...or maybe it's photographs that comes from photographer...

Ann Marie wrote:

Or maybe photographers should have enough prescense of mind to CARE what they send out as "their work."  I've seen some shots photographers have picked, edited, and posted of models that have given me shudders.

I have *never* insisted on getting every shot from a shoot, and more often than not, I DO get every shot.

Depends on who you think has responsibility over the quality of the final photographs, I guess. 

Personally, I think the word PHOTOGRAPHER comes from PHOTOGRAPHS...or maybe it's photographs that comes from photographer...

I think I love you...

a model who *gets it*

Hmph...well there goes my faith in humanity's ability to disappoint me..

Ann Marie wrote:

Or maybe photographers should have enough presense of mind to CARE what they send out as "their work."  I've seen some shots photographers have picked, edited, and posted of models that have given me shudders.

I have *never* insisted on getting every shot from a shoot, and more often than not, I DO get every shot.

Depends on who you think has responsibility over the quality of the final photographs, I guess. 

Personally, I think the word PHOTOGRAPHER comes from PHOTOGRAPHS...or maybe it's photographs that comes from photographer...

And I appluad you..

but there are many models on this site that say - in thier profile.. I want every shot on cd or dvd.. some even go so far as to say that they want it as soon as the shoot is over!

I won't give that.. and won't work with anybody that seems to have that expectation. My model gets my full 1% fixed up and ready to go.. with web-sized versions ready to post.

But, if the photog is used to models that demand everything.. that is what your going to get. And if you don't trust the photog to give you his best 1%.. then you should not work with him.

Black Ricco wrote:
Who are the 1%er's? A new breed of digital photographer who lacks the skill, experience,  and knowledge to actually have a preconception of what they want to do, or how they want to approach a project. They come armed with the belief that if you throw enough shit against the wall some of it is bound to stick. They shoot 100 images in the hopes of getting one "keeper" hence the term, 1%er's.

I'm not talking about "event" shooters who are in environments in which they have no control, and shoot thousands of images simply to make sure they covered the event as thoroughly as they could. No, I'm talking about the "machine gunners" who shoot 300 images for each wardrobe change.

Some of these 1%er's even come on internet forums to ask how they can ease their workflows while freely admitting up front that they're going to toss 40 to 50 percent of their images right from the get-go.

The worst thing about a 1%er, other than the fact their work tends to be sub-par,  is they tend to give their work away which is a detriment to all working photographers. The GWC is simply trying to get a quick flash which, although doesn't help our profession, is, I think, less of a danger than the 1%er's who are actually trying to be taken seriously.

Stop stalking me man!!

Michael Bell wrote:
You dont see many REAL photoshoots do you? You know how many thousands of pics Playboy and other magazines shoot in a session with a model just to find 5-6 pics for a layout? A couple hundred is nothing...

Did you read what he wrote?  Here, let me help you...

A new breed of digital photographer who lacks the skill, experience,  and knowledge to actually have a preconception of what they want to do, or how they want to approach a project. They come armed with the belief that if you throw enough shit against the wall some of it is bound to stick. They shoot 100 images in the hopes of getting one "keeper" hence the term, 1%er's.

I think Playboy HAS the skill, experience, and knowledge enough to have a preconception of what they want to do and how to approach their project.

I shoot typically 200 to 300 shots in a session.  BUT, that's assuming they have AT LEAST 3 wardrobe changes.  When I first started, I could shoot over 400 shots in a single outfit.  Of couse, that was changing locations and often shooting continuous (get some nice not planned action stuff).  But now, I start getting bored at about 30 shots.  But when I'm at the beach, I'll often shoot 60 to 100 per outfit.  Why the beach?  Because I love playing in the water and it's TOUGH to get THE shot.  I doubt Ricco is talking about me.  If he is, I'm gonna start talking about how he can't drive a Ferrari F50 in Washington D.C. worth a SHIT unless he's running me into a wall.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
I'm afraid I'm a under achiver. Figured the approximate number of printed frames vs. number taken once and it came to 0.5% So I don't even make it as a 1%er.

Varies depending on the type of photographs you do. For still life and product. About 10 to 1. Architecture 5 to 1. Fashion around 150 to 1.

For still life most everything is controlled. For fashion, well you have hair, clothes, hands, feet, expressions and you hope everything is perfect at some point. I've done landscapes with one frame. Just depends.

Oh. The logo on the bike and the foot rest isn't lite well. Could have done better one the circular chrome pattern instead of the "X" look, it's kinda busy for me. Just my preferrences.

For film, Kubric went into 100 takes. Hitchcock, when the editor got done, could barely fit the out takes onto one film reel. Just the way each one works.

You realize that for the so called GWC, they can take 1000 shots and still not get one decent one.

Exactly right.  This whole "if you take a lot of pictures there is something wrong with you" argument is tiresome.  Different types of photography require different approaches.  Different photographers have different styles.  Economy of shots is not a high value in the overall scheme of things.

Black Ricco wrote:
The point is no one could afford to shoot 300 looks per view on film. The polaroids, the film, the processing, it would be totally cost prohibitive. You'd have to charge your client $400.00 an hour to make a living.

The discipline is fast disappearing. The preconception, the planning, all going south. That's my point.

There used to be a time the AD would come to you with a detailed layout of what he had in mind. You sat down, held a pre-production meeting, and you both, sometimes along with a set designer and stylist, decided the best way to approach the project. You knew going in what the goal was, and you all worked together in the most efficient way possible to achieve that goal.

Now it seems to be all run & gun, work on spec, and hope for the best.

Do you really believe the REAL industry has changed?  Perhaps my defense of you was premature?  I mean seriously, the GWC doesn't have clients (other than a possible membership website to show boobies).  So who really cares how they get their results?  But for the REAL pros that have clients and are making money, do you think they are run & gunning while hoping for the best just because they have a digital camera?  I don't see it.  But if they are...hey, I say more power to them.  I wish I had clients.

Garry k wrote:

Too Funny ,too true !

And these 1%ers also like to screw with the model payment curve, deciding to pay what they blow in a strip club in one night to a cute girl to pose naked for them for a couple of hours, thereby giving that model a hyper-inflated sense of their worth as a model.  Which, when these models post their rates on their MM page, encourages other models with crappy snaps on their profile to ask for similar rates.

Black Ricco wrote:
And by the way, if you'd keep that piece of shit Porsche out of my way I wouldn't be forced to nudge you as I fly by.

Heh, I drove that car to give you a chance.  When I took out my F40 or F50 you were often half a lap behind.  in your defense, you're usually drinking

But now if you ever get a 360 and PRG3, I'll be blowing past your F50 with my Ford GT!

Oh yeah, and it's Spook to you!  Only my friends get to call me Chris

DigitalCMH wrote:

Heh, I drove that car to give you a chance.  When I took out my F40 or F50 you were often half a lap behind.  in your defense, you're usually drinking

But now if you ever get a 360 and PRG3, I'll be blowing past your F50 with my Ford GT!

Oh yeah, and it's Spook to you!  Only my friends get to call me Chris

Oooh.. Dem's fightin words..

Man.. I need to get me PGR3..  Sure.. I'll be watching the whole race from the start line (I could strip a clutch in a virtual golf cart)..  But still..  This sounds like a race not to miss..

Black Ricco wrote:
Some of these 1%er's even come on internet forums to ask how they can ease their workflows while freely admitting up front that they're going to toss 40 to 50 percent of their images right from the get-go

I forget how many frames it was that Robert Frank shot when he produced his brilliant and significant monograph "The Americans" -- but I believe it was something like 10,000 frames of 35mm film. He "tossed" quite a number but the end result was something that most of us could only achieve in our wildest wet-dreams.

Maybe you should worry less about how other people do their photography, and worry more about how you do your own?

mjr.

Black Ricco wrote:
And maybe you should worry less about what I think about anything, and stop taking humorous "jab" threads on internet forum boards, not to mention yourself,  so seriously.

Hey, if you're gonna post a "waaah waaaaah waaaah" thread in a public forum, and make a retard of yourself, don't shoot the messenger when someone points it out.

...talk about taking yourself too seriously! Sheeesh!

mjr.

Black Ricco wrote:
It's amazing what Nikon is doing with cardboard and plastic these days. Some of those actually look like they're in focus.

Nice! I like the way her elbow covers your logo. Very nice dimensional touch.

Btw, I see you upgraded to the D200.

Thanks, I like to fool around a bit with photoshop sometimes when I feel creative.  Yeah, that's about the extent of my creativity, haha.

And yes, I upgraded to the D200 last January.  Nikon actually makes them out of some type of metal.

Black Ricco wrote:
Maybe you should worry less about how other people do their photography, and worry more about how you do your own?

And maybe you should worry less about what I think about anything, and stop taking humorous "jab" threads on internet forum boards, not to mention yourself,  so seriously.

A quote about humorous jabs...guess he thought this whole thing was humorous...I'm tired now...

Vintagevista wrote:
He Noticed Me!!  *swoon*

:-)

Next you two will be having babies together....

Black Ricco wrote:
Btw, I looked at your port. If GWC were actually in the dictionary, your picture would accompany the definition.

Awww Ricco, that's not right man.