Forums >
General Industry >
When All Of a Model's Photos Are Touched-up
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? Nov 12 06 07:41 am Link 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. Nov 12 06 07:48 am Link CLT wrote: Thank you for your input. Nov 12 06 08:28 am Link If I were to ever hire a model off of here for a job, then I would ask her to send me an unretouched digital polaroid. No makeup, hair pulled back, wearing a bikini standing up against a plain wall. Doesn't get any simpler than that. But due to the reliability factor I would definitely go with an agency model before I go with an internet one (unless I have already worked with them and know their demeanor). Good agencies weed out the bad ones...that is why pros use them. And rarely have I seen an internet model's portfolio that impressed me enough to want to hire them. I recently did a casting call on craigslist. I had about 20 models respond. None of them had images that would be worthy of the professional modeling world. I can't stress enough to beginning models how important it is to have the right images...seems to fall on deaf ears. Nov 12 06 08:35 am Link Concept Photo wrote: 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 Nov 12 06 08:35 am Link 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. Nov 12 06 08:37 am Link Val K wrote: 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. Nov 12 06 09:12 am Link I definitely agree that providing an untouched image upon request is nice.....there are times I asked to see snapshots or untouched pics, if I were to hire the model. I didn't want to pay someone that would cost me a ton of photoshop time.....I would shoot that image for a model prior to makeup and shooting, but wouldn't use that image to showcase my own work.....in other words, no photo credits, but she can use it Nov 12 06 10:00 am Link That probably means she (and in this case, it's nearly always a "she") has worked almost exclusively with web photographers and wedding/portrait people. Doesn't say much more than that, but that alone can say a lot about what it will be like to work with this person, and what sorts of expectations and understandings they'll have. Nov 12 06 12:42 pm Link Concept Photo wrote: Two very simple ways: Nov 12 06 12:48 pm Link Concept Photo wrote: Just ask. Nov 12 06 01:43 pm Link Josie Nutter wrote: 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? Nov 12 06 02:03 pm Link 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. Nov 12 06 02:04 pm Link Ivan123 wrote: There is a mind-numbing chasm of difference between professional post and the kind of photoshop airbrushing, to which the OP was referring. Nov 12 06 03:04 pm Link Josie Nutter wrote: Bingo. Nov 12 06 03:17 pm Link Look for the handful of nationally printed photographers here on MM...They are not posting unedited images. Why should a model? Nov 12 06 03:27 pm Link If I am going to use photoshop on a pic I am planning to post, I will only allow myself ten to fifteen minutes to work on it. If I can't fix it to my standards in that time than I figure it's not flattering enough and then I don't use it at all. Some models (and photographers) do need to realize that your port should be quality over quantity. If you only have a handful of good images with only a few touched up, that is much better than a million over blurred, over shopped images. Nov 12 06 03:29 pm Link p michael wrote: This is a good point too. Nov 12 06 03:32 pm Link Concept Photo wrote: Ask them to send you an unedited photo before you decide. That's what the agencies do when they send me new faces. Nov 12 06 03:33 pm Link Nov 12 06 04:16 pm Link Thank you for all of the feedback. The diversity of responses has been remarkable, and many good points have been made. I'm especially glad to see that everyone has been most civil! :^) Nov 12 06 05:59 pm Link Val K 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. Nov 12 06 06:05 pm Link IMO it is fair to say that there is a consensus on several points. Shall address one particular point? It's a good idea for a model to provide a photo that will give a photographer a fair indication of her appearance. Some responses say that such a photo should be in the online portfolio. Others say that posting such a photo is optional but should be provided upon request. Should the profile state that "unembellished" appearance images are available upon request? Should the model omit such a statement and leave it to the photographer to request such images? Nov 12 06 07:28 pm Link Concept Photo wrote: 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. Nov 12 06 07:31 pm Link Kaitlin Lara wrote: 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. Nov 12 06 07:32 pm Link One issue that's been raised concerns the legitimacy of online portfolios. Let's level the playing field and say that this thread is about any and all portfolios. Ultimately, whether or not a portfolio has been vetted by an agency or directly posted on MM by a model, a photographer wants know what a model might actually look like in-person in order to hire the kinds of models he/she is looking for. Nov 13 06 06:49 am Link I think every model should include one pic with no make up, no touch ups. I have one on my port. But it's not for the weak of heart! LOL Nov 13 06 06:53 am Link Concept Photo wrote: 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). Nov 13 06 07:02 am Link To avoid any confussion, I have added a snapshot of me with no makeup and no photoshopping on, even though most of my photos have not been altered or have only been barely altered. Nov 13 06 07:20 pm Link This is why I love agencies that send me scanned raw polaroids in addition to what all they have in the models' books. Nov 13 06 07:50 pm Link I have a pretty simple no makeup shot in my port. I just keep it in there so you can see how I really do look- I wouldn't say its really flattering but its real. I've got nothing to hide. Nov 13 06 07:52 pm Link p michael wrote: 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) Nov 13 06 07:54 pm Link Although I do have to admit its kind of funny when (and I get this alot) a photographer looks at me in person and says "wow! you look like your photos!" I didnt know it was that rare. Nov 13 06 07:55 pm Link None of the pics in my port are photoshopped. Nov 13 06 08:32 pm Link When I see images that obviously haven't been edited, I think it looks unprofessional. That said, when I see images that look cartoonish, I think it looks unprofessional. 9 times out of 10, unedited images are sub-par, somebody please show me a portfolio with no edited images that is really good. Nov 13 06 08:46 pm Link Josie Nutter wrote: I agree 100% with Josie..... Nov 13 06 08:52 pm Link The number of responses has been encouraging. The variations on the early responses show that the approaches are not painted in black and white. The are many subtly different ways of approaching this issue. I am especially grateful for the models who've participated. They've all been gracious about acknowledging the topic as an honest, relevant, and worthwhile one. It's also great that the models have invited all of us to view their portfolios for reference purposes. Have a good evening! Nov 13 06 09:56 pm Link There is an old book called: "I know it when I see it!" I never read it although I still have it, but the title itself gives out the solution, we look at a portfolio to see the potential in the model, her versatility, etc. First impresions are all... so I am all about editing images before showing them, but when contact, I expect the model to be honest if she/she has things to worry about, some even mentiones it in their portfolios. The best way to know if it is an important job is to meet prior the shoot. Also, as professional photographers, we can ussually tell when an image has been retouched, if it is done right more power to them, if it is overly noticed photoshoped, then we wonder why. Only show your best in your port, don't scare them before they talk to you! that is where negotiation and information comes into play! XP out! Nov 13 06 10:57 pm Link The suggestions about meeting in-person are worth looking at more closely. Sorting out models by previewing their portfolios online or through drop-off's or via postal mail helps photographers manage their time and energy and resources, so that it is not necessary to meet every prospective model on first go. When a photographer has narrowed down a search, he/she may want to ask for more photos, including those that aren't touched-up, or request a meeting in-person. What I find more interesting is having the first-look portfolios more responsive to a photographer's need to know what a model might actually look like. Nov 14 06 09:03 am Link Personally I think photoshop is a slippery slope. Use it to make special effects on the photos (b/w, sepia, etc), but when a model has a major defect like bad skin, and photoshops all her photos to fix it, then that's misrepresentation. Nov 16 06 08:49 am Link |