Response to Dave’s: “Why Models Suck!!!”
Along with a couple of dozen other photographers from the Twin Cities area, I participate in monthly portrait shooting of models. For the last several shoots, I have teamed up with quite a talented photographer named Dave. Our respective skills sets seemingly complement each other well. Dave is intrinsically a better photographer and composer than I. On the other hand, as a retoucher, I tend to see details that will cause potential problems in post. Working together seems to bring the best of both worlds together and I have learned a lot from him. I hope the reverse is true as well.
Dave posted a recent blog titled, Why Models Suck!!! I was so intrigued at the universality of his message that I thought I would engage my response in a more public way, to see if we can bring others into the thread. Here is the email that I wrote and subsequently decided to post here instead. (Dave, I hope you don’t mind.)
Dave,
Quite the provocative post! I really like it. I have several comments regarding the post.
- Not all images are intended to be story-telling. Some photos may be as simple as a study of line or shape or color. Painters seem to understand the breadth of genre better than photographers. Imagine the former engaging in a conversation about whether the image is true to reality of not. I’m sure the conversation must take place, but not in the course of my everyday events. Contrast that against photography, where the first question anyone asks is how much Photoshop did you do on this image? And the people asking the question, frequently enough, have even seen the program. But your post was presumably speaking to that form of the art that is usually associated with story telling.
- Indeed, I agree with the the generalization that beautiful people make beautiful pix. But I am as convinced as often as not, the reason I take better pix of beautiful people is because I pay more attention to beautiful people. On other other hand, when I take a lack luster pix, I am probably not that engaged in the pix. And the reverse of the previous two statements is also true. I wonder if models are more “alive” in front of the camera when the photographer is beautiful !?!?! A quote from Garrison Keillor comes to mind, “radio is for actors not beautiful enough to stand in front of a camera.” I have also watched numerous photographers (including myself) lose the interest of the model when we chimp too long and too frequently.
- I ceraintly beleive that the “best photos connect you to a place and time, irrespective of whether or not the literal image comprises either that place or time. When I can, I will post the picture of Isis and Kari back to back to contrast against your image of them separated. Your image tells a much better story. In retrospect, I only wish that I had noticed more sooner for your image that Isis could have mimiced the hand on the hip and the other down at the side to connect mother / daughter a little better.
But isn’t that why we go to those shoots???
Rick
I can certainly relate to the points Dave made in his post, that said, we have to keep in mind what we’re trying to create:
If we’re trying to tell stories, we’re working on editorial or journalistic photos and the more character and story the better.
If we’re trying to portray the true person, we’re doing portrait.
For color and geometry we often do nature.
Now back to the models - ultimately models are meant to elements of a commercial image, the purpose of which is to sell something. A piece of clothing, an accessory. They’re not meant to tell stories or even be personal. Sometimes we use model in lifestyle settings, but again, all the model has to bring across is the lifestyle scene, not their person.
In fact the other day I was working with a friend, similar to you and Dave, on refining our technique. I learned that in many fashion poses the model’s eye don’t focus on the camera but on the key light. One effect of this is to have less connection with the viewer, yet have a clear flow.
Where the confusion comes in for us is that we sometimes shoot with models as we practice technique, are in a workshop, etc. In those cases the image of the photo is missing it’s original purpose. There’s no commercial end point that happens and gives the exercise meaning. That’s what leaves this empty feeling - it’s an exercise, it’s not reality. Because we don’t tell the story and we don’t sell anything.
There’s nothing wrong with that, you just have to understand it for what it is. And hopefully you do it not for purpose in itself, but you do it as a path to work that will actually put the purpose it’s meant to have into it.
Jan