Harold Rose wrote:
Have you seen a professional model with a portfolio  of non professional images. ?
I cannot disagree with you more..

It's standard practice for models to include a couple of polaroids at the back of their books. So yes, I see non-pro pictures in pro models' books.

Hope Parr wrote:
Why do the photographers on here tell models to use only their best pics in a portfolio? I am curious, reason is I prefer normal, pre-makeup photos when I am looking for a model to hire.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
How do we as photographers really know what
we are getting?

simply put, with experience you learn to visualize, to see through & behind the image ...

F

Hope Parr wrote:
I dont contact the model if their port does not show the type I am looking for.

How do you know what you're looking for if you don't know what they can look like?

Edit: To me, the most important element I'm looking for is whether the model has the ability to pull off the looks (crying, anger, sadness, etc.) I need, rather than how well the MUA can make her look good.  To me, that's the essence of a professional model.

I shot on incredible model, make up, and all ... who might as well have been dead.  That was basically the only look she had.  On the other hand, I shot another model who took nothing more than base and lipstick, and some slight hair work, and wow!  She could pull off any look you wanted.  She was talented; I had hard time keeping up with her.  It was clear an MUA was not really required, except to keep the hot spots covered.  /tim

Hope Parr wrote:
I know there are allot of you who don't get it, that either your a "model" who does not do this for a living or who does not intend to make money at modeling, or a photographer who does not hire models because he is GWC, only does TFP or only shoots for pay only and does not care who he shoots or what they look like.

Sigh.

You're right Hope, not all of us understand the concept of polaroids, being so GWC TFP amatuer and all that other unprofessional stuff.

Thank you for educating us.

theda wrote:

It's standard practice for models to include a couple of polaroids at the back of their books. So yes, I see non-pro pictures in pro models' books.

Poloroids, sure, but would you put a 9 x 12" in your port showing how you looked before you got in the chair?

KM von Seidl wrote:
Thank you for educating us.

Dave Wright Photo wrote:
models put their best photos on this site, so people will click their avatar and leave them comments.

duh.

if you want polaroids, invite all your models to the casting call, line em up on stage, and grab your polaroid camera. this is modelmayhem, whatever the model decides to put up on her profile is what you get to see... you can complain that there aren't makeup-free polaroids in every profile, but people are too busy trying to get attention on here to listen.

Hope Parr wrote:
Why do the photographers on here tell models to use only their best pics in a portfolio? I am curious, reason is I prefer normal, pre-makeup photos when I am looking for a model to hire. I do not like looking at black and white, glamour or photo-chopped images. These types of images lie and deceive, is it good to have a few yes, but I think everyone should have at least one normal, non professional, no makeup photo in their port. It lets photographers know what you have to work with, what will be required for the shoot and processing the images.

Not really sure what you are saying here
As a model, you are only as good as your worst picture
Also..If photographers cast Models in the usual manner, ie meet them first...you will know what they look like in the "flesh"
I dont see the point of printing pics that look nothing like you
This sort of practice only seems to happen on the internet
All Pro models normally look as good or better than they do in pictures.

Madcitychel wrote:

That's not true!

Yes it is true!

Hope Parr wrote:
Oh I am not complaining, I see models complaining about not making money all the time, what I am offering is a suggestion.
...snip...
But I tell you what, if some of the models I shoot use my finished photos of them  as what a photographer can expect of them, which I know a few have, then they are going to be upset.

Bryan Benoit wrote:
I think there maybe a confusion of terms here:

A clear simple polaroid type pic to see what you really look like is not the same as a 'bad pic'. Both type of photographs seem to be lumped together as the same here.

Maybe I am wrong...

Hope Parr wrote:
I know there are allot of you who don't get it, that either your a "model" who does not do this for a living or who does not intend to make money at modeling, or a photographer who does not hire models because he is GWC, only does TFP or only shoots for pay only and does not care who he shoots or what they look like.

Most of the models I hire are out of state, and I can spend a large amount of money on flying them to me or to where ever it is I intend to shoot them. When I meet them for the first time, usually its on the set. Now if their portfolio does not represent them and I cannot use them, then I am out of money and the model just flew in from where ever for nothing and will not get paid.

Maybe I define model different then most of you, maybe I visit these sites for a different reason then most of you. To me a model is a business person who poses or models, for pay. Her skill level is not important to me, photoshopped images are not important to me. What is important to me is if she has the look I am looking for, is she marketable to me. I try to always give the make up person I hire a heads up on who I am shooting and what they look like, if they have acne scars that need special attention or maybe the model will need two hours to do her makeup instead of one.
All this is important information. But only if this is a business for you, if its not then you don't have to worry about it. But if you are a model who does this for pay, regardless of your experience, then this is for you.

Now on to the people who think they are smart about calling unedited photos crap. I never said to post bad photos, those were not my words.  Personally I dont care if they are bad, as long as I can see you and if you have what I am looking for.
I am not hiring you for what the last guy shot, I am hiring you for what I need to shoot. I am hiring you for you, for who you are, for your uniqueness, then I can edit the photos to suit my needs.

When I hire a model for a shoot, I tell them to come without makeup and without their hair done, why , because my makeup person will do it the way its needed for the shoot. When you sit in the chair in front of her, and I have another model coming in for makeup an hour after you, and you are going to take 2 hours or more guess what... you just blew my time schedule and guess what else...maybe your paycheck.

If you are a model and your wanting to make money working as a model, then its not in your best interest to have only images that do not represent you as you are. Its fine to have some, to show what you CAN look like, but you should have at least one natural shot in your portfolio, but again, this only applies to those models who want to make money at modeling.

Hope Parr wrote:
US ?
Why would you think your speaking for everyone who reads this board?
I am sure there are some who do not need educated.
But your welcome.

Well, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.
Thanks for painting a picture with some pretty BROAD strokes of your brush.
I am a model. I make quite a bit of money off of this site, and others. I work hard, this is a part time job for me. (The third one, infact) I don't, however, have any plain shots in my portfolio. Why? Because I generally don't wear makeup. 75% of the shots in my portfolio are makeupless. And rarely do I *do* anything to my hair more than pull it back simply or put a bit of gel in it to tame it just a shade.

Obviously, what you are doing works for you. You say that you're not complaining, but it is coming across as lamenting the fact that not enough models have plain enough shots in their portfolio for your taste. Thanks for the suggestion, though I think that David Wright Photo's suggestion should be taken: the wording is important. Your initial post here says "Why do the photographers on here tell models to use only their best pics in a portfolio?" What that does to the reader is automatically revert to the negative. So the reader's brain says "What? This person wants models to post poor images of themselves just so the photographer can "see" what they look like?" I also think that Dave Moore's comments are well thought out. A picture of a model minus makeup and styling that is not a well taken picture is still a bad picture. Its important to distinguish between the two.

Thanks for your suggestions, but please know that there are plenty of people out there in the industry that are professional and making money at this that are doing just fine as they are.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
You're only as good as your worst pic.

You said it all right there.   However, in my camp, we're not at all great fans of heavily photoshopped imagry when it comes to models.  Our niche is a natural look vs. a ton of makeup and using photoshop to blur a womans skin to the point of her looking like a plastic doll.  I find that ridiculous- that said, as a photographer you shoot whatever you're getting paid to shoot.  If someone wants a painted or photoshopped-to-death photo, then we'll offer it up on a silver platter.

The industry dictates what should be in a port. and on the z card.  Photographers are smart enough to simply ask for a minamally post processed photo if they truly want to know what lies beneath the 1,000 Photoshop 'layers and masks'.

... if you happed to be one of those photographers that makes a woman "beautiful" via Photoshop, then whats the concern anyway