_Cinnamon_ wrote:
or lack thereof. Do you think it shows in a model's pictures? If so, how?

It certainly shows in yours. Warmth and kindness too.
Of course now you'll tell me you're actually Satan's handmaiden and you eat babies for breakfast ;-)
Alexandra Elliott MD. She doesn't eat babies for breakfast just breaks men's hearts, she saves babies eyesight before breakfast:

Le Beck Photography wrote:

It certainly shows in yours. Warmth and kindness too.
Of course now you'll tell me you're actually Satan's handmaiden and you eat babies for breakfast ;-)

Babies are more a dinner course..

They're small, but there's a lot of meat on there..

Be like trying to eat a whole chicken for breakfast!

W.G. Rowland wrote:
At best, a picture shows what the photographer thinks of your intelligence.

The model gives herself of the moment..

Once the moment is gone it's up to the photographer to create the context..

The threads on Richard Avedon..  Some people say you can really tell a lot about the people he photographed from their pictures.. That may be true.. But I think I can tell a lot more of what Mr. Avedon thought about the people he took pictures of..

(I don't think he was too fond of Marilyn Monroe..)

Hmm, so you don't think a good portrait can express something genuine about a person's character? It only conveys what the photographer intended it to?

I guess I do think there are some things that can't be directed or faked. Not sure if intelligence is one of them, though. And I'm trying to grasp just what intelligence is supposed to "look" like.

Brian Diaz wrote:
No, I don't.  I do think acting ability shows.  Even a dumb model who can act can look smart.

If you can act that well, are you really dumb? Perhaps a talented actor can be dumb, but I can't think of any examples.

_Cinnamon_ wrote:
Hmm, so you don't think a good portrait can express something genuine about a person's character? It only conveys what the photographer intended it to?

Yeah, I disagree with Bill on that one.  Portraiture is maybe my favorite thing to do, and it's not because I'm molding people like clay.  The way I light my subjects, or the way I compose them might say something about me.  But the expressiveness and humanity of the people in my photos belongs entirely to them.  The only credit I get for that is being lucky enough to catch that fleeting moment.

_Cinnamon_ wrote:

Hmm, so you don't think a good portrait can express something genuine about a person's character? It only conveys what the photographer intended it to?

I guess I do think there are some things that can't be directed or faked. Not sure if intelligence is one of them, though. And I'm trying to grasp just what intelligence is supposed to "look" like.

Not quite what I meant..

It's not like the photographer is all powerful god and could produce the Mona Lisa even if Lisa didn't show up (except maybe, Bob Randall..)

But the photographer frames the moment (good or badly), chooses the shot the world will see (for good or ill), edits it..

If you take 100 shots together and 1 gets chosen..  It's the person doing the choosing who gets say what the moment captured was about..  They get to edit reality, so to speak..

Now, that's talking the general stuff that goes on here.. There's client situations where the photog isn't the one doing the choosing at all..  Point is SOMEONE is taking a flowing four-dimensional moment in time and space, taking out the sound, cutting down the dimension to 2, altering the color, the contrast, the texture....

And possibly eating babies for dinner..

W.G. Rowland wrote:

Not quite what I meant..

It's not like the photographer is all powerful god and could produce the Mona Lisa even if Lisa didn't show up (except maybe, Bob Randall..)

But the photographer frames the moment (good or badly), chooses the shot the world will see (for good or ill), edits it..

If you take 100 shots together and 1 gets chosen..  It's the person doing the choosing who gets say what the moment captured was about..  They get to edit reality, so to speak..

Now, that's talking the general stuff that goes on here.. There's client situations where the photog isn't the one doing the choosing at all..  Point is SOMEONE is taking a flowing four-dimensional moment in time and space, taking out the sound, cutting down the dimension to 2, altering the color, the contrast, the texture....

And possibly eating babies for dinner..

Okay. So the photogrpher chooses and edits the moment, and that's a significant factor in our perception of the person. But I'm still not clear on why you think that moment can or can't genuinely express the person's intelligence or lack thereof.

_Cinnamon_ wrote:
Perhaps a talented actor can be dumb, but I can't think of any examples.

You... can't?

Or - am I confusing "talented" with "popular"?

Even in the latter case, what gets forced on us/what we devour of actor's lives these days, only really demonstrates their public persona and viewers' perceptions of them. An actual interview might show intelligence more accurately, I suppose, but even then, it's only as evident as their comfort level in speaking.

Look at me... defending popular actors...

...but the concept of intelligence in a photo - I think that's what my favourite models have in common - they at least look the part

Edit: or -actually are!!! *Phew! Avoided unintentional insult*

~S.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
At best, a picture shows what the photographer thinks of your intelligence.

The model gives herself of the moment..

Once the moment is gone it's up to the photographer to create the context..

The threads on Richard Avedon..  Some people say you can really tell a lot about the people he photographed from their pictures.. That may be true.. But I think I can tell a lot more of what Mr. Avedon thought about the people he took pictures of..

(I don't think he was too fond of Marilyn Monroe..)

I think this is a great response!!  But since it came from you, I have to discount it as nonsense.

_Cinnamon_ wrote:

If you can act that well, are you really dumb? Perhaps a talented actor can be dumb, but I can't think of any examples.

You've never watched Hollywood on Jeopardy then?

That young kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun?
Why I can't think of her name because she's hot...the blonde from Spiderman...BOTH of them were on Jeopardy at the same time...they were getting EASY questions...er, answers...and they had these really sad blank looks on their face.  It was pretty embarrassing.  Now, they were teenagers back then so maybe they have improved, but it was still very embarrassing.  Think, "Man on the Street" segment from The Tonight Show.

Sabina N wrote:

You... can't?

Or - am I confusing "talented" with "popular"?

Nah, I didn't mean popular. I'm thinking of people I consider good/talented actors that I've seen interviews with. My impression of them just hasn't been that they're dumb. Doesn't mean those people aren't out there, though.

_Cinnamon_ wrote:

Okay. So the photogrpher chooses and edits the moment, and that's a significant factor in our perception of the person. But I'm still not clear on why you think that moment can or can't genuinely express the person's intelligence or lack thereof.

Sorry, Cin..  I do believe a moment can genuinely express a person..  I just also believe in the power of the photographer to mess that up..

Example.. If you shot with Sita Mae, who is a genuinely caring and thoughtful photographer..  I strongly believe she would get to know you well enough, and care enough to pick the pictures that genuinely represent you, accentuate them to bring forth the best that they can possibly be..

I also believe that once you are rich and famout as a superdupermodel, that some asshat paparozzi, will have no trouble catching you pulling a thong out of your ass on a beach somewhere, and will accentuate to make you look as bad as possible..

It's a two way street..  The photogs pick the models because they see some the connect with and admire (or at least lust after depending on the tog).. The model picks the photographer because they see some aspect of themselves (or how they want to be represented) in the work..

And everybody eats babies.

_Cinnamon_ wrote:

If you can act that well, are you really dumb? Perhaps a talented actor can be dumb, but I can't think of any examples.

Talent and intellect are not always joined together. I'm certain you're familiar with the term "idiot savant". Nevertheless, why do you care?

_Cinnamon_ wrote:

If you can act that well, are you really dumb? Perhaps a talented actor can be dumb, but I can't think of any examples.

I know a lot of actors, and some of them are amazingly empathetic and can memorize lines like nobody's business, but they are not what I would consider smart.

I suppose one should really define intelligence first...

_Cinnamon_ wrote:
or lack thereof. Do you think it shows in a model's pictures? If so, how?

Yes, by checking which photographers they choose to photograph with just a guess

Rich Davis wrote:
Two examples.  Einstein and Steven Hawkings.  2 of the most prominent scientists of the last 100 years.  Can you see intelligence in their pictures.  I don't think so, but you know it's there.

I don't necessarily agree that you can't see intelligence in pictures of these two. But who knows what my impression would be if I didn't already know them to be very intelligent.

I think this exercise of giving examples would work better with pictures of people we don't know. Then we could compare them and say which, if either, looks intelligent, and what about the images gives us this impression based entirely on appearance. It gets to the deeper question of what we think intelligence *looks* like, which I'd be interested in hearing more opinions about.

megafunk wrote:
Talent and intellect are not always joined together. I'm certain you're familiar with the term "idiot savant". Nevertheless, why do you care?

Not necessarily, no, but I think some skills/talents require more intelligence than others, and acting may be one of those. And yes I'm familiar with the term idiot savant--but in order not to stray to far from the original topic, I'll stop there.

Brian Diaz wrote:

I know a lot of actors, and some of them are amazingly empathetic and can memorize lines like nobody's business, but they are not what I would consider smart.

I suppose one should really define intelligence first...

Okay. So I'm sure you've seen some photos of these people. Do their photos convey intelligence in your opinion?

_Cinnamon_ wrote:
or lack thereof. Do you think it shows in a model's pictures? If so, how?

I think it does.  But then again, I am a woman and think I know everything.  Still, I believe the eyes will tell you most about a person from their appearance... that is if you can see the eyes in the photo.

Brian Diaz wrote:
I suppose one should really define intelligence first...

My mumma always said: intelligent is as intelligent does.

_Cinnamon_ wrote:

Okay. So I'm sure you've seen some photos of these people. Do their photos convey intelligence in your opinion?

When I take them.

megafunk wrote:
People who think they know shit are more frequently a problem than those who know they don't.

A picture is a lie.

And yet generally considered worth 1000 words...

Intawesting..

Miss Anya wrote:

I think it does.  But then again, I am a woman and think I know everything.  Still, I believe the eyes will tell you most about a person from their appearance... that is if you can see the eyes in the photo.

I've always heard that the eyes are windows to a person's soul...would that be a window to their intelligence too or just their life's experiences?  I personally think that most images are acting, but occasionally, a photographer gets really lucky and captures a peek inside the model's soul.  But their intelligence....most of the time, I don't think you can see that in a picture.

Rich Davis wrote:
Two examples.  Einstein and Steven Hawkings.  2 of the most prominent scientists of the last 100 years.  Can you see intelligence in their pictures.  I don't think so, but you know it's there.

This reminds me of the story of the photographer who was sent to Pinceton to shoot Einstein. He shot may shots, but none seem to capture him as a thinker.

Then, with the camera to his eye, the photographer asked him if he had a certain book, and pausing, Einstein lifted his hand to his mouth, "Hmmmm." And click. He got the shot. Perfect portrait of the man who gave us the Theory of Relativity. Was he thinking about his famous theory? No, he was thinking, "where was that book?"

Cool, huh?

_Cinnamon_ wrote:
or lack thereof. Do you think it shows in a model's pictures? If so, how?

I think so.

I was recently on a shoot with another photographer shooting a very attractive but very dim model. At the time of the shoot I thought he was getting some great shots, but after the shoot I looked at some of the images on his laptop and you could just tell by the look on her face there wasn't much upstairs.

Not sure how to explain it, that  vacant look is just something you can pick up on right away in some models.

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
There  has to be someplace where the people who pain no attention in school and are still cute can make a living.

So many snarky responses to this are possible, it could be a whole 'nother thread.