Christopher Ambler wrote:
Do any of you take doc footage of your shoots, or have an assistant do so?

My assistant takes doc footage of just about every shoot I do. Both still and video. It lets me look over the setup later and see what we were doing. And, to be honest, it documents a professional shoot throughout. Often, models want copies of the video of the shoot to see it from that standpoint.

I've never had a model ask my assistant to not document the shoot, but today, for the first time, a model told me that she had no idea he was doing it in the first place! And she thought it was unprofessional.

I'm floored, because it's impossible to not have seen him doing that between moving lights (his point-and-shoot makes that silly film-advance sound, even). The model in question was looking around our stuff and checked out the doc footage when she saw her name. We don't hide this stuff.

And just to be clear, there was nothing in the doc shots that was questionable (it's not like they were off-angle peek shots). Model posing, me shooting, and that's it. Apparently she flipped out. After talking to her and explaining that there was nothing unprofessional about it, I offered to remove the video, even though I don't have to. I even offered to dump the whole shoot and walk away from it, which she quickly asked me not to do, and still process and post the photos. Apparently she wasn't upset enough to not want her shoot published.

So it seems to me a case of a model saying they didn't know doc shots/footage was being taken, even though I can't see how she didn't know.

I'm actually unsure what to do, going forward, if anything. There was no question that doc footage was being taken, and my release covers all media regardless. But she claims that no photographers document their shoots, and to do so is terribly unprofessional, which is simply not true.

Thoughts? Should I actually have to point to the assistant taking pictures, even if he's standing right there and the model is looking at him?!

Should I just drop the issue? Would using her set and publishing it be asking for more trouble than it's worth?

I'm seriously flummoxed on this one.

I think it's weird, and I agree 100% with the model.  It's this kind of weird stuff that makes models want to bring escorts with them. 

It should just be you and the model.  If an assistant is required it should be for "assisting" reasons only - i.e. holding reflectors; setting up lights - not roaming around doing his own video or still photography.

The model should at all times know when and what shots are being taken of her - having someone creeping around taking photos of her from different angles while she's posing to you is not merely unprofessional, but outright despicable.   

If I was her, I would have walked out.

-Glenn

studio36uk wrote:
Simple as 1, 2, 3

1) Assistants are there to do what they are told... most are there to learn the craft... and, where possible, to be given the opportunity to use a camera.

2) The model can't have her cake and eat it too. It's your shoot, your studio or location, and your business.

3) If the model doesn't like it... tough, they don't have to shoot with you... but they have a lot to learn.

Methinks that she is too full of drama. One brain cell, [is that too much to ask?]  and she would realise that someone, somewhere, is taking pictures of her almost all day on security cameras... and recording her image... and without her even knowing it. When I had my last studio, before I retired, I also had security cameras installed, too.


Studio36

Sorry 36, I don't buy a word of this.

Respect, honor and trust is a two way street - it's not dependant on where you are.  If he was shooting at her house does that mean the photographer can't have his cake and eat it too? It's her shoot too, and her business also.

If the photographer doesn't like all those guys standing there watching him - tough!  He can just leave.  Photographers have a lot to learn.

And that pathetic Red Herring B.S. analogy about security cameras.  There's a major difference between being video taped standing in line at the bank and standing nude in a private studio.

And the reason his assistant is darting around taking snapshots with his silly $20.00 point-and-shoot camera is because he's learning photography from a pro?

This whole story by the OP Christopher Ambler just reeks sleazeball.

-Glenn

Glenn Francis wrote:
And that pathetic Red Herring B.S. analogy about security cameras.  There's a major difference between being video taped standing in line at the bank and standing nude in a private studio.

Red herring? When there is a security camera is mounted on the studio wall? When cameras in the facility cover everything outside and inside the building except the dressing rooms and toilet? ROTFLMAO

OTOH, and conversely, as a stills photographer I often document video shoots for the producers. So does that reek of sleazeball too?                                 

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Bridal pictures with fake blood, wheelchairs and swords? Udo... you just have to put some of those up here when you get finished.

Studio36

I will!

UdoR wrote:
Here we are ending up again with attempt of superimposing internet "rules and habits" onto landbased modeling... and it seems that there are worlds colliding...

I think you just hit the nail on the head.

And let me be clear - there is no way the model didn't know my assistant was taking stills and video. He was not "sneaking around." He was in plain view, he was talking to the model during the shoot and making suggestions that I then responded-to (he's learning, too).

So yea, Udo, I think you just got it right.

Pity, too, as this model was really exceptional - but now I've held her set a day to give me time to consider the situation. I may not run her set, which is too bad for both her and the client.

Fotticelli wrote:
This "documenting" sounds a bit creepy to me.

How so? How is having an assistant document the shoot creepy in any way? It provides me with a visual representation of the setup, shows how I work, and, if you want to introduce the creepy Internet factor, acts as verifiable proof that the shoot was done professionally.

It also serves as a source of self-promotion and additional content. Consider, these shoots are being done for a client who displays the images on the web site for a market-leading radio morning show. The models come to these shoots with the intent of having their images displayed to the world and oogled-over by drooling and sometimes crude radio personalities. They go into it with their eyes open and with the intent of putting themselves in the spotlight.

And taking a video of a professional photo shoot somehow adds a "creepy" factor to it?

This isn't the Internet world of TFP, my friend, don't reduce it to those standards.

Winn Photographics wrote:
I have on occation asked if the model would mind if a video camera just runs in the background. Most have not had any problem with it and usually it is forgotten since it just sit on a tripod in the corner with a view of the whole room. It is not there so I can remember what setup I had for a particular shot or so I can see if I had this lens or that lens... I usually have it there as my "escort". It has already covered my butt once when a model made some claims that I was "constantly touching" and "all over her". The reality was that she was making an ass out of herself, not following direction, telling me what photos she wanted me to shoot even though I hired her and informed her in advance what the shoot would entail. I ended the shoot after 15 minutes, paid her for 15 minutes at her hourly rate and told her to leave. She showed up 3 days later with the police and a story that didn't even come close to the video. Who knows how far her bullshit would have gone without that 15 minutes of tape.

This is something I am seriously considering doing - for the exact same reason you described, and I would like to hear some serious feedback from people who do this.

On practically every one of my shoots, I put oil on the models entire body and touch-up the oil frequently throughout the shoot. In 30 years of doing this, I have yet to have a problem, but the potential is there and I am not immune to having happen to me what happened to Winn. That's the last thing I need.

So I'm thinking of setting up my own "escort" also.  Please offer any more details or stories you might have.

As I see it right now, there are 3 catagories:

1). Christopher's "I'm documenting this photoshoot so I'll know how I did it"

2). Winn's "mind if I have this video camera going while we shoot?"

and

3). Studio36uk's method of: I have security cameras placed and running for the same reasons that banks and 7-11's have them.

I kinda like the securtiy camera option - but that leads to: "aren't many security cameras hidden?"

Then there's the problem of storing and archiving it all!  When I'm testing or shooting final - that's often 12 to 14 hours a day!

Any other suggestions would be appreciated.

thanks.......... -Glenn

Glenn Francis wrote:
I kinda like the securtiy camera option - but that leads to: "aren't many security cameras hidden?"

In my experience most security cameras are not hidden, the fact you can see them acts as a deterrent.

Glenn Francis wrote:
Christopher,

That's the impression I got from your post, and why.  Honest feedback, and answers to your questions - nothing more.

Isn't that why you posted? .....or are you looking for ....... I don't know - sympathy?

-Glenn

I'm looking for those with similar experience or advice.

I'm not looking for people who jump to conclusions and accuse me of taking video for cheap thrills and call me a liar by omission. That, sir, is rude and unprofessional of you, at best.

Your public words do you a disservice.

Christopher Ambler wrote:
I'm looking for those with similar experience or advice.

Which is precisely what you received.

Another Photographer simply stated your story also sounded creepy to him, and you turned around and laid into him like you are doing to me, accussing him of reducing "your" so-called professional standards to that of TFP, or some such nonsense.

Better take a look at yourself before going around calling all the other kettles black.

-Glenn

Glenn Francis wrote:
3). Studio36uk's method of: I have security cameras placed and running for the same reasons that banks and 7-11's have them.

Yup!

Glenn Francis wrote:
I kinda like the securtiy camera option - but that leads to: "aren't many security cameras hidden?"

Nope... simply wall mounted

Glenn Francis wrote:
Then there's the problem of storing and archiving it all!  When I'm testing or shooting final - that's often 12 to 14 hours a day!    Glenn

I used to have a 4 cam [mosaic] splitter on the monitor [can see, and record, from 4 cams at once - or - select, and record, from one at a time - 1 constant or rotating between the 4]; recording done on a specialist security cam VCR = 24 hours per VCR tape. Very inexpensive. Even a standard VCR on LP will do 8 hours per 240min [4 hr] tape, and some will also go longer if there is ELP mode available [ca 12 hr ISTR].

Everything was left running for nighttime security purposes.

Studio36