CLT wrote:
I think it's acceptable for a model to display only her finest images that showcase her versatility and potential. However, I think they should be able to provide a no-makeup, no-retouching image when requested.

Thank you for your input.

Yes, your recommendation sounds very reasonable.

I was prompted to post this thread after seeing the portfolio of a model whose appearance throughout bordered on complete fantasy.  The only thing that was missing was twinkling stars!  :^)

Concept Photo wrote:

Thank you for your input.

Yes, your recommendation sounds very reasonable.

I was prompted to post this thread after seeing the portfolio of a model whose appearance throughout bordered on complete fantasy.  The only thing that was missing was twinkling stars!  :^)

I have a few unretouched images of one my models who had acne. The last time I posted something like that, there was a very suspicious fire at my house. hmmmmm

Val K wrote:
I would actually think it would be most beneficial to models (as opposed to photographers, who are free to show their creativity in whatever way they feel best represents them) to display only untouched or minimally retouched photos.

The model is selling a product- themselves. If the product has been obviously obscured and tampered with, I would think it would be rather difficult for a potential client/photographer to see what they would be getting, should they choose to hire this person. Unless, of course, said retouched photo is a tearsheet, in which case it should definitely go in the portfolio!

Anyway, this is just my personal opinion, of course, but I think it makes some sense.

I agree there.  Two of my pictures that I have posted have been altered-one to a greyscale, and one I believe was just working with the lighting a bit. The others are raw images.  I like the way they look anyway, and that way photographers know what they'll have to work with.

Concept Photo wrote:
How is a photographer supposed to evaluate such a model's credentials if the posted photos do not indicate what a model really looks like?

Two very simple ways:

1.  Meet in person.  Case closed.
2.  And/or-- contact references and ask.

Generally, if you have a fairly well networked local community, you will hear all kinds of things about people before working with them.  And I do mean ALL KINDS.

Concept Photo wrote:
It is rare but not unusual to find an MM model's portfolio completely filled with photos that appear to have been touched-up by air-brushing, Photoshopping, or other means.

How is a photographer supposed to evaluate such a model's credentials if the posted photos do not indicate what a model really looks like?

I'd been told about one model who touches-up all of her photos in order to conceal any skin blemishes she may have from smoking cigarettes.

Shouldn't a model post at least one photo in her portfolio that demonstrates what she might look like in-person?

Just ask.

I have five different polaroid shots for this reason...sometimes it's what the photographer wants to see.

If you want something, and it's not in their port, why not just ask?

Josie Nutter wrote:

Two very simple ways:

1.  Meet in person.  Case closed.
2.  And/or-- contact references and ask.

Generally, if you have a fairly well networked local community, you will hear all kinds of things about people before working with them.  And I do mean ALL KINDS.

Although it maybe a good suggestion this doesn't always work. I mean if you don't have the time to meet or maybe the person is a distance away it makes things difficult. In terms of references with regards to a models look I am not sure how much I would believe some photographers on this site or any online for that matter. There are too many who form these relationships where you see the same models shooting with certain photographers, or a group of photographers, every other day it seems like...ignorant for the model but smart for the photographer to use the model because that is basically what he/she is doing. Anyway now you have a biased opinion formed so how can you believe what the photographer says?

I think polaroids or plain unedited digital images are a great way to check out a model. When I first started getting jobs for models and using girls off of here or omp I would look at their images, only later to realize I was dumb for not thinking about the photos being airbrushed and edited. Companies aren't happy when a model comes in looking very different then what she looked like in the images you shot of her. Agencies do this so if a model online is interested in furthering her opportunities she may want some of these on her/his computer in case someone asks.

One last note...This is why I try and do test shoots with models but for some reason many girls online don't have a clue as to what this means and think you are trying to use them or they should be paid to do a quick test amazing to me.

Ivan123 wrote:
This is great.  Since I have been on MM, a while, there is about one post an hour from photographers saying that models need these slick souped up portfolios, a "professional" look, images that make you say "WOW!" etc, etc.  (I always pooh-poohed the idea when I had the energy.)  And now finally a thread about how models have portfolios that are too slick, too professional, too wowie.  I love it.

There is a mind-numbing chasm of difference between professional post and the kind of photoshop airbrushing, to which the OP was referring.

John

Josie Nutter wrote:
Two very simple ways:

1.  Meet in person.  Case closed.
2.  And/or-- contact references and ask.

Generally, if you have a fairly well networked local community, you will hear all kinds of things about people before working with them.  And I do mean ALL KINDS.

Bingo.

p michael wrote:
Look for the handful of nationally printed photographers here on MM...They are not posting unedited images. Why should a model?

This is a good point too.

Concept Photo wrote:
It is rare but not unusual to find an MM model's portfolio completely filled with photos that appear to have been touched-up by air-brushing, Photoshopping, or other means.

How is a photographer supposed to evaluate such a model's credentials if the posted photos do not indicate what a model really looks like?

I'd been told about one model who touches-up all of her photos in order to conceal any skin blemishes she may have from smoking cigarettes.

Shouldn't a model post at least one photo in her portfolio that demonstrates what she might look like in-person?

Ask them to send you an unedited photo before you decide. That's what the agencies do when they send me new faces.

Val K wrote:
I would actually think it would be most beneficial to models (as opposed to photographers, who are free to show their creativity in whatever way they feel best represents them) to display only untouched or minimally retouched photos.

The model is selling a product- themselves. If the product has been obviously obscured and tampered with, I would think it would be rather difficult for a potential client/photographer to see what they would be getting, should they choose to hire this person. Unless, of course, said retouched photo is a tearsheet, in which case it should definitely go in the portfolio!

Anyway, this is just my personal opinion, of course, but I think it makes some sense.

When people sell a product, they go to great pains to make sure that they advertise only the best images of it. No product I've ever seen advertised on TV actually looked the same in person. I'm not saying models should post all photos of them photoshopped to within an inch of their lives, but if your best photos are ones that have been edited, then those are the ones that should be posted. If a photographer wants a snapshot they can ask for one.

Concept Photo wrote:
It is rare but not unusual to find an MM model's portfolio completely filled with photos that appear to have been touched-up by air-brushing, Photoshopping, or other means.

How is a photographer supposed to evaluate such a model's credentials if the posted photos do not indicate what a model really looks like?

I'd been told about one model who touches-up all of her photos in order to conceal any skin blemishes she may have from smoking cigarettes.

Shouldn't a model post at least one photo in her portfolio that demonstrates what she might look like in-person?

I don't do much to mine at all.  I prefer natural as do the girls I shoot with.  Touching up some blemishes, sharpening it up, etc. is about all I do.  Some color saturation. A friend of mine was on a bikini team.  She said their images had been so messed with she would show up for appearances and the clients wouldn't recognize her.  LOL  That is ridiculous.

Kaitlin Lara wrote:
When people sell a product, they go to great pains to make sure that they advertise only the best images of it. No product I've ever seen advertised on TV actually looked the same in person. I'm not saying models should post all photos of them photoshopped to within an inch of their lives, but if your best photos are ones that have been edited, then those are the ones that should be posted. If a photographer wants a snapshot they can ask for one.

You have a point. And when I was with a large agency, I did have some retouched photos in my book. However, in the sometimes sketchy world of internet modeling, if I were a photographer I would be wary of hiring a model whose portfolio was obviously photoshopped. Who knows what you would end up with? I still think the majority of a model's photos should not be obviously photoshopped *unless they are tears*. To me, it just sometimes seems as if the model is hiding skin flaws, figure flaws, etc.

Just my opinion, though. I'm not a photographer, so this doesn't really affect me. I was just trying to offer some advice to some of the models on here who are probably attractive, but have been photoshopped to the point of un-recognizability.

Concept Photo wrote:
It is rare but not unusual to find an MM model's portfolio completely filled with photos that appear to have been touched-up by air-brushing, Photoshopping, or other means.

How is a photographer supposed to evaluate such a model's credentials if the posted photos do not indicate what a model really looks like?

I'd been told about one model who touches-up all of her photos in order to conceal any skin blemishes she may have from smoking cigarettes.

Shouldn't a model post at least one photo in her portfolio that demonstrates what she might look like in-person?

I will usually pass right by any such model, otherwise I ask for clear untouched head and body shots, if they cannot or will not supply them, I either pass or may consider a short test, usually it is far easier to just pass. Have had plenty of 5'6 50kg models (plausable from th e folio snaps) come in the flesh at 5 nothing and 60kg's (and 22 lbs makes a big diff at that height).

p michael wrote:
Look for the handful of nationally printed photographers here on MM...They are not posting unedited images. Why should a model?

Wow very good point, I think the point of a portfolio is to put out your absolute best images. Then again I know when submitting to big agencies they require no makeup, non professional pictures, so its good to have some on hand. (per request)

Josie Nutter wrote:

Two very simple ways:

1.  Meet in person.  Case closed.
2.  And/or-- contact references and ask.

Generally, if you have a fairly well networked local community, you will hear all kinds of things about people before working with them.  And I do mean ALL KINDS.

I agree 100% with Josie.....