|
Forums >
General Industry >
is shooting web models a fetish?
curious since there are some technically good photographers who actually waste time shooting models that are of no value to there portfolio for no financial gain. Why? is it a fetish? or are they hoping to get lucky? and if they are hoping to get lucky why are they not more confident that they can get just as lucky with the real useful models as well? And I am not counting the occassional friend of said photographer that wants pictures of themselves, I mean photographers that actively seek web models for shoots. {Added from two posts down} ok so lets qualify further. Web model as in never will be a real fashion agency model when you are a fashion photographer, or never will be a commercial model when you are a commercial photographer, I am talking about photographers who shoot high end or are attempting to create high end shooting web models that are 5 foot 1 and 140lbs. they are not useful. the shots can not be used yet the photographers still search them out and shoot, why? Stephen Eastwood http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com Oct 23 06 08:02 pm Link I find models on the net all the time that are great. Of the last seven that I've found on here or MySpace and subsequently photographed, five were already signed to major agencies and one was picked up after we shot together. I find art models on here all the time. Because of the body of work I've created with them thus far I'm going to have a gallery show next year. There are all kinds of good reasons for shooting web based models. Just because someone uses the internet to market themselves doesn't mean they're no good. Oct 23 06 08:08 pm Link This smells like a troll. Should be locked soon! Oct 23 06 08:11 pm Link ok so lets qualify further. Web model as in never will be a real fashion agency model when you are a fashion photographer, or never will be a commercial model when you are a commercial photographer, I am talking about photographers who shoot high end or are attempting to create high end shooting web models that are 5 foot 1 and 140lbs. they are not useful. the shots can not be used yet the photographers still search them out and shoot, why? Stephen Eastwood http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com Oct 23 06 08:12 pm Link While shooting web-based models may not be a fetish....certainly shooting their feet is...= ) Oct 23 06 08:13 pm Link no an honest question that may spark debate but should also be considered by those who are doing it Stephen Eastwood http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com Oct 23 06 08:14 pm Link Right now I'll work with any warm body you put in front of me... When I'm ready to take my book to agencys then Ill start shooting agency type models for an agancy book. But my portrait book will be abot real people not model type people. Oct 23 06 08:14 pm Link and will you take model type pictures of regular people or portraits of those people? and for your agency book will you shoot people who do not fit the mold? if so why? Remember this started not with as a "new photographer with no experience" but as a "technically good photographer" Stephen Eastwood http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com Oct 23 06 08:20 pm Link I think I'm a good example of what you're talking about, Stephen. Even if I were the last model standing on the planet, I wouldn't get signed by an agency. Which is fine, I'm an art model. I get to be short and fat and funny looking. I've also been, and will continue to be, shot by photographers who do primarily commercial or fashion. There are almost ten on this site alone that I've worked with. Some of them have sold prints of me, so they may make back a few bucks. I don't know why they decide to shoot someone so far outside their genre, but sometimes they do. I've had photographers tell me that they enjoy working with me on art projects because it's so wildly different from what they do all day that it invigorates them again, renews their creativity. I dunno. But they do it, and it's definitely not a fetish. Oct 23 06 08:24 pm Link you may be an example of character model? but in any event the question is why did they initially choose to shoot you? was it for the experince of shooting a character model type be it heavy, short, abnormally large nose, ears that stick out way beyond the norm, etc. or was it for some other reason? was it for art sake? did they have expectation of possibly using the images or not? and last but not least is were they good photographers, or better than really bad ones you see around more often? Stephen Eastwood http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com Oct 23 06 09:06 pm Link Mr. Eastwood, are you trying to say that those photographers who don't shoot for agencies as you do are perhaps beneath you? Because your post has an air of extreme arrogance about it. The majority of models I photograph are not agency models. Also the majority of models are under 5' 8" tall and would not fit into the ideal of models that you maybe shooting. Do I make money? The answer is "Yes!" There is a need for commercial photography for website content and commercial images that are not high fashion. Your work is obviously high fashion and not what normally is on websites that cater to fetish or paysites. Your website is not set up to make money directly from being online. Mine are! Before throwing stones at the models who are Internet based, you should consider that you are posting on a website with mostly Internet based photographers and models! I do not intend to enter the same market that you shoot in because I see that it is shrinking fast as more people have access to the same high tech gear we can all use. My purpose is to provide content for my own online publications. Call it what you want. Oct 23 06 09:22 pm Link before you start calling someone arrogant please read my original post. If you make money from them than you are shooting for financial gain and that is a reason. And Yes I am Arrogant but that has nothing to do with this at all. Thats a side issue. Stephen Eastwood http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com Oct 23 06 09:28 pm Link If a photographer is working on their own portfolio, it doesn't matter (or shouldn't matter) whether or not the model is signed with an agency or even plans to. When someone is looking at a photographers port, the person viewing the port isn't thinking : "wow, that girl should be signed" or "well your port would be better if your models were all top professionals" When Iam looking at a photographers portfolio, I am looking at the quality of the photograph. I don't know...maybe that's just me. It's not the model..it's how the photographer has captured the subject. Oct 23 06 09:29 pm Link Stephen, I've often wondered the same thing, although it's really none of our business. Oct 23 06 09:31 pm Link NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: What ever they pay me for...some people will want portraits some will want model type images. or what ever we agree upon,,, I can't do all portraits then pick up my camera get a test with an agency model shoot her get her in my book the first time round... NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: Right now I don't know, do agencys care about the mold? in a photographers book? NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: Woot I'm glad to have moved up the food chain to "technically good photographer" Oct 23 06 09:31 pm Link yes thats just you. for real money its the overall image that sells not a great shot but only if the model was better and the make up was done and the location was nice but wow what an exposure he had. Stephen Eastwood http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com Oct 23 06 09:32 pm Link Some shoot to get lucky, some shoot as a hobby (much like shooting landscapes or flowers) and some shoot for financial gain. Everybody with a camera isn't trying to shoot agency models. I shoot primarily glamour work, which has little value to agency models, but for glamour models that would never be signed by an agency anyway, models with paysites and models looking for pictures for their calendars, posters, etc., my work holds value and i get paid for my work. I make my living doing this so for myself, it's about the financial gain. Oct 23 06 09:35 pm Link than you have no business here answering to this question... Is no one reading my original post! if there is some financial gain then that is a reason to shoot them!!! Stephen Eastwood http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com Oct 23 06 09:38 pm Link NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: I actualyl have every reason because you posed an open question. Nowhere did you say "only those who shoot with NO reason in mind answer this" you said why do THEY shoot as if you were looking for possible reasons as to WHY anybody shooting non-agency type pictures would do it. Not only did I give you MY reason, but I postulated on others as well. Did YOU not read your initial question? Oct 23 06 09:43 pm Link NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: Maybe they don't consider themselves as technically good as you think they are and they want the practice. Maybe they don't consider it a waste of time. Maybe they see value for their portfolio that you don't. And maybe it's a fetish. Oct 23 06 09:46 pm Link NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: I think in my case it's generally for art's sake, particularly now that I have a modest reputation as an art model. Several of them use the images in their portfolios. An example is LA-based fashion shooter James Hickey. He's got all these hot fashion girls, and then four nudes of me. LOL. Go figure. He loves them, he's proud of them, and he puts them up. (Frankly, I can't believe a client hasn't complained about it and convinced him to take them down yet!) Oct 23 06 09:48 pm Link NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: What is this agency book of which you speak? Oct 23 06 09:52 pm Link Shyly wrote: Thank you for your posting a link to James Hickey's website! I like his website for various reasons ... and I've already stated that I am not impressed with Mr. Eastwood's site for it's lack of navigational tools or information on the photographer himself! Oct 23 06 09:57 pm Link What about trying out new equipment or just wanting to be creative and outside the box? Art for the creative process heck of it? There are artists who don't do every single thing for financial gain. Oct 23 06 10:00 pm Link NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: I didn't "call" you arrogant, I said that "your post" shows arrogance. I asked if you were "trying to say that those photographers who don't shoot for agencies as you do are perhaps beneath you?" So I guess you answered the question. Oct 23 06 10:09 pm Link NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: follow up... Oct 23 06 10:41 pm Link I shoot models I find on MySpace and at the beach (here in Cyprus), because: - I need local models or typical tourists to build up a collection of marketing samples should I want to start a business here in the summer of next year; my NYC models don't look Cypriot or European (with few exceptions) - I get a model for free while retaining full publication rights - I get to practice with the kinds of women who would also be my clients if I were to start a business - I don't have any obligations toward the model or an agency after the shoot (other than produce a CD for said model), so I can take my time learning Photoshop Oct 23 06 11:28 pm Link Patrick Walberg wrote: No its not any more important than anything else being discussed I just wanted to ask the question and get responses. Seems I did. Oct 23 06 11:31 pm Link I shoot for no financial gain. Fashion I find lame.. Commercial is interesting but sold out.. The high end is boring.. Respond to this so I can think of some more antagonistic things to say. Oct 23 06 11:34 pm Link I find shooting "average" models to be great practice. If you can make an average woman look amazing through lighting and make-up, then when you step up to the top notch models, you will be golden. Oct 23 06 11:37 pm Link NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: BTW...Damn, fine work...I loved your website....that is what I'm talking about...rockin! Oct 23 06 11:38 pm Link Isn't all photography inherently fetishistic? Art is fetish. I don't think you're going to get the response you're looking for: "I shoot these types of models because I can let down my guard and get-off while producing images to masturbate to later." No one is going to admit to that. And really, plenty of photographers do it. Oct 23 06 11:41 pm Link K. Holden wrote: HEY! How did you know??? Oct 23 06 11:45 pm Link It's more like a form of lust... or at least it can become that for some people. Oct 23 06 11:47 pm Link K. Holden wrote: Really? I'm editing a pic now with swedish swimsuit models fucking on the tv next to me and I haven't even got a semi going.. Oct 23 06 11:47 pm Link NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: I used to respect you even if you know or not...no more. Oct 23 06 11:52 pm Link K. Holden wrote: Thank You! finally someone who has a good valid answer! Oct 23 06 11:54 pm Link K. Holden wrote: Indeed....good answer....thank you. Oct 23 06 11:56 pm Link one more thing not all fetish is sexual in nature defintion 2. any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades. thought that would have been somewhat clear by the initial question. since I asked first "is it a fetish" then asked "or are they hoping to get lucky" people read it the way they want. Stephen Eastwood http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com Oct 24 06 12:00 am Link NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote: can't one be obsessed with shooting as well as hoping to get lucky? Oct 24 06 12:08 am Link |
