How to Alienate Models

[tirediron]

So, her first three "tips" are essentially telling photographers to not be dicks. Okay, fine. Her last two, though? Since when do models get copies of the photographer's work, and since when are they credited? As for being compared to a chair...well, that's kind of the purpose of a model. They are props. Specifically, they are clothes hangers. The focus is supposed to be on the clothes or accessories, and not on the model.

This is Model Mayhem stuff - Trade for Print (TFP) is very common, and crediting the model in the images is a generally expected courtesy (as it is for the model to credit the photographer). It's where a lot of "models" go for their first portfolio work, and it can be a great resource for both photographers and models, BUT... many (most?) of the models are the modelling equivalent of the "Fauxtog"; that is, they're young people (most female, 16-25) who've been told by friends and family that they have 'the look' and should become a model.

The simple fact is that most of them are not models; they are aspiring models at best, but like the "professional" photographer who just bought is camera at Best Buy and is now flogging $100 weddings with 1000 images on a CD, they know virtually nothing about the industry. When an "experienced" model shows up for a headshot session and then looks at you like a Labrador puppy when you ask to see her comp card/Z sheet so that you can see her last images...

Seems about right.

I'm still not really feeling her pain.

Nope.. nor me. This is the elementary school playground of the fashion and glamour photography world.

 

[bribrius]

And of course, how many of these "models" have alienated photographers by showing up with outfits that were not the ones agreed upon, being late, cancelling at the last minute, no-showing, etc, etc...

Fewer than you'd think. Her complaints echo those of models I know who've seen more than a few creep/deadbeat/perv "photographers."

Hey I resent that remark. Just because I happen to prefer all women be nude and own cameras there is no reason to insinuate negative labeling.

 

[Derrel]

She seems like a whiner. The article focuses on negativity instead of providing useful tips on how not to alienate models.

Her concerns are those of an inexperienced, self-described exhibitionist, "loves to pretend", wanna' be hobby model. As Tirediron mentioned, the Model Mayhem kind of wanna' be that thinks that on payed modeling shoots, the model is automatically entitled to a full "sharing" of the images, as well as named modeling credit for PAYED modeling. Uh, sorry honey...barking up the wroooooong tree on all of these specific whines.

 

[cgw]

She seems like a whiner. The article focuses on negativity instead of providing useful tips on how not to alienate models.

Her concerns are those of an inexperienced, self-described exhibitionist, "loves to pretend", wanna' be hobby model. As Tirediron mentioned, the Model Mayhem kind of wanna' be that thinks that on payed modeling shoots, the model is automatically entitled to a full "sharing" of the images, as well as named modeling credit for PAYED modeling. Uh, sorry honey...barking up the wroooooong tree on all of these specific whines.

So Model Mayhem isn't a co-dependency for models and photographers? Think her arguments slipped you if you think it isn't for many who do "business" there. The problems she details aren't as widespread among those fortunate enough to work professionally outside MM. You may dislike her tone but her "tips" struck me as "useful" for anyone on either side of the camera.

 

[cgw]

So, her first three "tips" are essentially telling photographers to not be dicks. Okay, fine. Her last two, though? Since when do models get copies of the photographer's work, and since when are they credited? As for being compared to a chair...well, that's kind of the purpose of a model. They are props. Specifically, they are clothes hangers. The focus is supposed to be on the clothes or accessories, and not on the model.

This is Model Mayhem stuff - Trade for Print (TFP) is very common, and crediting the model in the images is a generally expected courtesy (as it is for the model to credit the photographer). It's where a lot of "models" go for their first portfolio work, and it can be a great resource for both photographers and models, BUT... many (most?) of the models are the modelling equivalent of the "Fauxtog"; that is, they're young people (most female, 16-25) who've been told by friends and family that they have 'the look' and should become a model.

The simple fact is that most of them are not models; they are aspiring models at best, but like the "professional" photographer who just bought is camera at Best Buy and is now flogging $100 weddings with 1000 images on a CD, they know virtually nothing about the industry. When an "experienced" model shows up for a headshot session and then looks at you like a Labrador puppy when you ask to see her comp card/Z sheet so that you can see her last images...

Seems about right.

I'm still not really feeling her pain.

Guessing you've never heard of Terry Richardson?

 

[limr]

Guessing you've never heard of Terry Richardson?

Nope. Should I have?

 

[Derrel]

She seems like a whiner. The article focuses on negativity instead of providing useful tips on how not to alienate models.

Her concerns are those of an inexperienced, self-described exhibitionist, "loves to pretend", wanna' be hobby model. As Tirediron mentioned, the Model Mayhem kind of wanna' be that thinks that on payed modeling shoots, the model is automatically entitled to a full "sharing" of the images, as well as named modeling credit for PAYED modeling. Uh, sorry honey...barking up the wroooooong tree on all of these specific whines.

So Model Mayhem isn't a co-dependency for models and photographers? Think her arguments slipped you if you think it isn't for many who do "business" there. The problems she details aren't as widespread among those fortunate enough to work professionally outside MM. You may dislike her tone but her "tips" struck me as "useful" for anyone on either side of the camera.

You seem to have some reading comprehension problems. I do not disagree with her "tone", I disagree with her efforts to spew B.S. "facts". Like for example, when a model is PAYED to model, according to Model Mayhem's culture, and that of the world at large, the model is NOT ENTITLED to "say" in the shoot, the model is not entitled to "chimp and review" every shot, freely and constantly, nor is she entitled to a full sharing of the images. That's not the way it works. And I also disagree with her assertion that the model deserves to be credited. Ummm, sorry, but no, that's not the way payed modeling works.

As Tirediron mentioned, this little whine/rant piece, which you so graciously linked us to, is the whining of a hobby model who is upset that other people conduct the photography end of shoots in a way that does not satisfy HER expectations...you know, those of a part-time, hobby model who has a little bit of experience, but not a lot. And who seems to think that she deserves to dictate how a shoot will be conducted, that she receive a full "sharing" of the entire shoot, that she be allowed to chimp and review the shots constantly, and that she will be credited by name on every use of the images.

Sorry cgw, but these facile, click-bait pieces (typically, anything found on Petapixel is not good enough to be called an article) from Petapixel are shoddy work, almost every single time. This one is no exception, it's yet another hatchet piece. Are you familiar with the terms click-bait and hatchet piece?

 

[tirediron]

Her concerns are those of an inexperienced, self-described exhibitionist, "loves to pretend", wanna' be hobby model. As Tirediron mentioned, the Model Mayhem kind of wanna' be that thinks that on payed modeling shoots, the model is automatically entitled to a full "sharing" of the images, as well as named modeling credit for PAYED modeling. Uh, sorry honey...barking up the wroooooong tree on all of these specific whines.

So Model Mayhem isn't a co-dependency for models and photographers? Think her arguments slipped you if you think it isn't for many who do "business" there. The problems she details aren't as widespread among those fortunate enough to work professionally outside MM. You may dislike her tone but her "tips" struck me as "useful" for anyone on either side of the camera.

You seem to have some reading comprehension problems. I do not disagree with her "tone", I disagree with her efforts to spew B.S. "facts". Like for example, when a model is PAYED to model, according to Model Mayhem's culture, and that of the world at large, the model is NOT ENTITLED to "say" in the shoot, nor is she entitled to a full sharing of the images. That's not the way it works. And I also disagree with her assertion that they model deserves to be credited. Ummm, sorry, but no, that's not the way payed modeling works.

Well, in fairness, those are more or less 'facts' in the world of Model Mayhem. UNFORTUNATELY, Model Mayhem is NOT the real world when it comes to glamour and fashion photography.

 

[cgw]

Her concerns are those of an inexperienced, self-described exhibitionist, "loves to pretend", wanna' be hobby model. As Tirediron mentioned, the Model Mayhem kind of wanna' be that thinks that on payed modeling shoots, the model is automatically entitled to a full "sharing" of the images, as well as named modeling credit for PAYED modeling. Uh, sorry honey...barking up the wroooooong tree on all of these specific whines.

So Model Mayhem isn't a co-dependency for models and photographers? Think her arguments slipped you if you think it isn't for many who do "business" there. The problems she details aren't as widespread among those fortunate enough to work professionally outside MM. You may dislike her tone but her "tips" struck me as "useful" for anyone on either side of the camera.

You seem to have some reading comprehension problems. I do not disagree with her "tone", I disagree with her efforts to spew B.S. "facts". Like for example, when a model is PAYED to model, according to Model Mayhem's culture, and that of the world at large, the model is NOT ENTITLED to "say" in the shoot, the model is not entitled to "chimp and review" every shot, freely and constantly, nor is she entitled to a full sharing of the images. That's not the way it works. And I also disagree with her assertion that the model deserves to be credited. Ummm, sorry, but no, that's not the way payed modeling works.

As Tirediron mentioned, this little whine/rant piece, which you so graciously linked us to, is the whining of a hobby model who is upset that other people conduct the photography end of shoots in a way that does not satisfy HER expectations...you know, those of a part-time, hobby model who has a little bit of experience, but not a lot. And who seems to think that she deserves to dictate how a shoot will be conducted, that she receive a full "sharing" of the entire shoot, that she be allowed to chimp and review the shots constantly, and that she will be credited by name on every use of the images.

Sorry cgw, but these facile, click-bait pieces (typically, anything found on Petapixel is not good enough to be called an article) from Petapixel are shoddy work, almost every single time. This one is no exception, it's yet another hatchet piece. Are you familiar with the terms click-bait and hatchet piece?

Well, art without commerce is just a hobby for models and photographers. You're probably well-aware of that, right?

 

[Derrel]

I know...she's p*****g and moaning about "pervs" as her excuse not to do nudes....yadda yadda yadda....she's a wanna-be model, operating on the idea that models need to constantly be chimping the back of cameras, you know, so they "know how well they are doing", and so they "know how they look", and whining about not being credited by name, yadda yadda yadda...she's got all these ideas that models dictate HOW photography work is to be conducted! It's a hilarious "piece", based on one woman's new-found experiences working as a hobby "model"...and indicting an entire class of people, and an entire industry, as a bunch of pervs...

See, the thing is, an "article" has more than one,single,solitary person's noob-like point of view in it; this is not really an article of interest; it's a click-bait piece, written by one, single woman who is admittedly, new to a field, with only a little experience, and she thinks her opinion is the way things ougghta' be. Again, this Petapixel rant was introduced here and the link to it was posted in the Articles of Interest segment of TPF; I would argue that this woman's writing does not in any way constitute an "article"; it's a one-woman, personal point of view rant. A rant found on Petapixel, one of the photography web's biggest click-bait publishers. It is not that I do not agree with the tone of the ranting model, I do not agree with much of anything she ranted about. A real "article" has some validity, and some depth, and some countering points of view to most of the central issues. When one,single person's point of view is all a piece contains, it's not an article, but something else; an essay, a story, a hatchet piece, a rant, a fantasy, whatever.

 

[Derrel]

Well, art without commerce is just a hobby for models and photographers. You're probably well-aware of that, right?

I love throw-away phrases. You know that, right?

 

[Braineack]

Guessing you've never heard of Terry Richardson?

Nope. Should I have?

No.

 

[Derrel]

Guessing you've never heard of Terry Richardson?

Nope. Should I have?

No.

I am wondering if limr will stumble across the well-known web-published piece written about T.R. by a model who he seduced/conned/convinced/persuaded into having sex with him in the course of a shoot at his place...

Perhaps she will Google search "Terry Richardson is a creep"..and find that piece, and multiple others...

like this one: http://www.ixdaily.com/drop-your-skirt/e6aa11a4667ca6f49ffd114aa3e7065ea2137ac4

 

[limr]

Okay, so I googled Terry Richardson and found out that he's horrible and should be castrated.

But what was the point of bringing him up? "Proof" that one scumbag horror show photographer is indicative of fashion photographers in general, and this validates her point about not wanting to do nudes?

*shrug* Whatevs. I continue to not feel her pain. So she's figured out that not everyone is professional, especially those at the bottom tier of the industry. This is not unique to modeling or photography. And some of her expectations continue to be unrealistic. Why should the model be credited? First, it's not her work - it's the photographer who owns the photo. Second, it's not about the model. It's about the clothes and the fashion designer. The model is simply a conduit, a place holder for the clothing. The phenomenon of the supermodels who become household names is a fairly recent one. But even famous models don't get credited in the ads they appear in.

 

[Derrel]

Stop making so much sense, limr!!!!

It's difficult to apply reasoned, rational lines of thought to click-bait pieces where one-person, extreme opinions are trotted out as if they are representative of anything resembling the real world, or the way "most people" view things. In the past, we've argued over other Petapixel click-bait pieces presented here. Often all they do is serve to sow discord. Some of the crap Petapixel slaps up is really the equivalent of junk science or poison-pen journalism...cheap, trashy controversy, designed to gain hits. That's what I mean by, "Stop making so much sense," in that you're applying real thinking to a click-bait piece that's basically, a massive troll on the author's part and on the site that hosted the typing.

As most people realize, but as many forget, the little guy web sites like Petapixel NEED to draw people in for clicks, to build those all-important 1/5 of a penny advertising click-through numbers. The easiest way to do that is to periodically slap up some piece of fertilizer that is deliberately provocative, or controversial, with the old maxim, "Any publicity is good publicity!" being the M.O. of such sites. I've read numerous web guru articles that advise webmasters to do just this: post deliberately controversial pieces, to build clicks. It's a well-worn strategy. Tedious, but proven.