|
Forums >
General Industry >
Model portfolios vs phographer portfolios
When do model portfolios start to showcase the photographer more than they showcase the model? I have been thinking about this past few days. A models portfolio needs to showcase the model and his/her range of work and experence and look. At what point do the images showcase the photographer more and it this a good thing? Oct 06 06 10:53 am Link how do they showcase the photographer more than the model? if the images are good then they show case both parties. Oct 06 06 10:54 am Link I think a model's portfolio starts to showcase the photographer more when they only have photos from one photographer, and the style is so recognizable that you look at it and say "That's such and such photographer." But truly, a good portfolio should showcase both, shouldn't it?  Oct 06 06 10:57 am Link Dearest_Grudge wrote: I have plenty of great images that I don't use in this portfolio (or any other than has a limited number of slots) because they showcase the photographer more than me. One example is many of my nudes-in-landscapes. In some of them, my pose is great and the whole thing looks amazing, but I'm not filling the frame and it's more about the skill of the photographer. Another example would be anything artistic that doesn't show the model's body or posing skill because of other image elements like lighting (shadows etc), styling, etc. Oct 06 06 11:00 am Link For starters, a model's portfolio should not contain photos in which the model is not clearly shown. For example, a photographer can take a great photograph in which the model appears only in silhouette. While it may make a great addition to the photographer's portfolio, it doesn't convey a great deal of information about the model. Models should include in the portfolio images which show her to best advantage and allow her best features to come through. Oct 06 06 11:07 am Link Frank McAdam wrote: Very good point about images that showcase the model as aposed to the photographer. Oct 06 06 11:13 am Link You know my dear there are photographers who would do anything to shoot with you... You and e string are really 2 of the best examples of modern day muses that MM has to offer. Having said that, while it is important to clearly represent yourself, it is also a great idea to inspire others, to show them what they could with you. A lot of photographers cannot envision art past a head shot. Oct 06 06 01:26 pm Link Iona Lynn wrote: A models' portfolio MUST showcase the model period. If the quality and or style of the images reflect a professional job so much the better. It says that the model has an interest in showing herself to her best advantage. Oct 06 06 01:32 pm Link There are two theories on model presentation. One suggests that the pictures need to show off the model and make it easy to tell what she looks like and is capable of. The other suggests that the model's quality is defined by the quality of the team she attracts to work with her. Pictures of the first type are necessary, without question. But there is valid place for pictures of the second type as well, as long as the first issue is taken care of somewhere in the portfolio. Oct 06 06 01:40 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: ::: gets out rubber stamp to approve this valuable message ::: Oct 07 06 02:49 am Link Iona Lynn wrote: have often seen this in newer models' books; they have primarily one or two photographers doing all their images ... Oct 07 06 02:56 am Link This is the question I was skirting in your critique thread. There are a couple of the oodles that aren't entirely flattering in the usual sense, but are creative and excellent images, and reinforce your 'muse' qualities. Typically, I'd expect to see them in a photographer's portfolio rather than a model's one, but your rule breaking is one of the outstanding features of your portfolio. I am hoping that the more experienced photographers will weigh in with their opinion and help indicate whether the striking aspect of the pictures over-ruled conventional wisdom, or alternatively are rendered moot by the other pics which highlight your physical beauty. This is a really good problem to have, regardless. Oct 07 06 04:12 am Link unless i'm getting paid or in love with my subject, i'm not shooting to make the model look good. the model is there to make my picture look good. Oct 07 06 04:27 am Link Iona Lynn wrote: When there is so much Potatoshop that you can't tell who the model is to begin with. That's a bad thing. Oct 07 06 04:50 am Link Iona Lynn wrote: Hence the need for every model to have a mix of images.... and they should include a beautiful headshot, an upper body shot, and a full length shot all of which can be shot in studio (with great lighting) and against a plain, neutral (grey) background. Oct 07 06 05:02 am Link TXPhotog wrote: Bruce Talbot wrote: yeah yeah i'm a joiner, but Roger spoke it true and Bruce already had the good sense to rubberstamp Oct 07 06 05:06 am Link Alas...a question(thank you OP) that art directors for magazines have screamed about for years..... The model's portfolio is not ment to make the party reviewing the portfolio think.."Gosh..that photographer is good!!" If it does...then it was shot all wrong. Photographer portfolios are designed to show the wide range of work, quality and services available via that photographer. The more you photo shop a model's images to go in her portfolio the more you are defeating the model portfolio's purpose... Models need clear, professional, colorful images featuring them....not featuring the photographer. Oct 07 06 05:06 am Link Christmas wrapping paper........enough said! Oct 07 06 05:12 am Link |
