Figure Work

[jjj]

But his reasons were nonsense/hypocritical.

[Rob C]

But his reasons were nonsense/hypocritical.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In the way you choose to re-represent them, I´d probably agree, but that´s just you finessing intent, mine, to suit your own purposes.

Suffice to say that I disagree with your liberal interpretation of copyright/model releases and would ever remain on the side of caution in such matters. And taking another point you made, if not for commercial gain, why would I publish on the web or anywhere else, for that matter? I did explain that I am not looking at getting my work seen from the same perspective as does an amateur, something John grasped right away in a previous post. Why do you persist in missing that? I certainly do have material for which I have the correct releases - I did do stock shoots too, remember - but why expose such material to you, and here, for free?

No, I see nothing wrong with saving somebody´s blushes today for whatever they might have done yesterday. As I wrote here earlier, I have never touched porn and I despise it; however, that doesn´t mean that a topless shot from those days will not upset somebody in school if their mates see it online. (A heavy example of that, in some ways, is the manner in which those two princes must have suffered for their mother´s stupidity.) Oddly, I am not alone in this context: I have an Australian friend who was long an official Australian Playboy photographer who has literally thousands of transparencies from those days still in his possession. He will release none of it. (I used to wonder why, but of late I sort of respect him the more for it.) Sadly, I do not have all that many images left anymore, what with moving away from Britain lo those years ago, getting more damaged in various libraries and so forth, but even so, I have tried to get some more releases  for a lot of that old work since my interest in digital printing started, but the model agencies simply can´t help: girls from twenty-odd years ago are hardly on their books anymore and there is not usually much feedback once the commerce is over. That´s why I tried to indicate to you that there is a difference between putting prints up for sale in galleries and publishing on the web - you have a better chance of a simple and easy life away from the computer. I also tried to indicate that a gallery ambience is one thing but a web presence is quite another. And not an improvement, in my opinion, and not a million miles removed from flogging prints in a flea market.

Paparazzi photos are something quite else: sometimes those people do get sued or worse; at others they can claim to have photographed in the public domain whilst on yet other occassions they are simply reacting to information fed them by the PR people behind the very idiots they pursue. I wouldn´t take any of that sort of work too seriously, but your mileage may vary somewhat.

On the topic of political correctness, I never did claim it a reason not to put stuff of mine on  the web; I used it to indicate why so much of the pin-up work that flourished from the sixties to the early eighties has gone with the dodo. Companies doing girl calendars got frightened; some continued after a longish break, as with Pirelli (but they seem to have lost the plot IMHO); I have no idea if Unipart, Mintex, Marlboro, Heineken, Pentax or any of those other top calendar producers still do what they did - I can never find on the web anything to indicate they even had as great a past as they did. Times and people do change, not to mention what they consider a good press! But oh, didn´t somebody here still subscribe to the belief that there is no such thing as bad publicity?

You asked another, somewhat disingenuous question: do they sell cameras in Spain? Yes, and they also have model agencies too. But to employ a model you need a client or a damn good belief that your work has a market. I do not believe that there is a market today that pays for stock photography at the level required to employ models of any value and to employ lesser ones is an exercise in self-defeat, as where we came in with the original point to this thread. If you want to photograph girls without much clothing because it just turns you on and it doesn´t matter how they look, go ahead and buy or con your way into their pants; if you are seriously concerned with the market and your bank balance, then think with your brain, for a change; how else should a pro ever do it?

That´s how I see it, and that´s also where I intend to leave it as there is obviously nothing I can ever write that will change the way you want to believe.

Rob C

[Mike Guilbault]

There are two types of photographers.. those in it for whatever they can make out of it... and those that simply enjoy photography.  Which are you? Either can be pro or amateur.  It's times like this that I long for amateur status, but alas, I am a pro and therefore have to earn a living at my chosen profession.

Is what I do art?  Not most of the time.. but sometimes, once in a blue moon I suppose, I actually 'create' a photograph that I'm proud of.  I don't care what other people think about it.  It doesn't matter what they think - I LIKE IT!  Is it art? I think so. Would others call it art.. I don't care.

I've photographed nudes.. not models, although one was a fitness instructor... but mostly "ordinary" women.  I did not photograph them because I wanted to gawk at their nudity.... I was commissioned by them to create a portrait.  I've seen enough naked women to realize they all have the same parts, some in more abundance than others.. but yet the same.  I don't need to photograph a naked women to 'turn me on'.  I photographed them for their own personal use.. not commercial use in any way.

I think this may be part of the problem with this discussion.  There are so many ways to photograph a person and every photographer has their own ideas of how a person should be photographed.  If it's for commercial use, which I assume is the market Rob is relating to, then by all means, choose a beautiful, shapely model.  If it's a commissioned work for the subject... you have no choice.  As a professional, you have to find WHAT IS beautiful about that person and try to capture it.  

If you create a nude portrait of an ordinary person and they like it... you've succeeded. Is it art?  That is up to them to decide.  In my opinion, art is not created for monetary gain.  But, if it happens, then at least you can afford to create more.

Beauty is all around us... and sometimes in the most inconspicuous places.  We only have to see with our hearts to understand that.

[Sanders]

Greetings, all.

I was pointed to this thread and would have replied sooner
except my site registration was lost in The System.

Samuel Johnson, that ripe bastard, once said that he "would
rather be attacked than unnoticed. For the worst thing you
can do to an author is to be silent as to his works."  So I am
grateful to all of the people here who have taken the time
and trouble to engage in this discussion.

I won't try to answer five pages' worth of posts.  But there was
one in particular that moved me to speak up. John Camp wrote:

"My attitude toward the photos shifted somewhat when I learned
that a number of the models were professionals, a fact not mentioned
by the photographer in the original post. My attitude shifted because,
while (as the accountant says) the models are still women, they are
people who are paid to project what the photographer wants, not what
they are. I felt somewhat, mmm, tricked."

Two things about that.  First:  I have not spoken, in the T.O.P. post
or here, so it is unfair to complain that I did not "mention" that some
of my subjects call themselves models.  Second:  It is a fallacy to
suggest that once a woman calls herself a "model," she becomes
somehow less real, less an individual capable of genuine expression.  

For what it's worth, I never shoot agency models -- "real" models.
I do often find subjects from web sites where people hold themselves
out to be "models," but who are as accomplished in the profession of
"modeling" as most photographers on sites like this are in the
profession of "photography."  And I do pay each person who works
for me (US$60), regardless of how she arrives before my camera.  
Because it is work, and people deserve to be paid for their work.  It
is a matter of principle to me.  But I doubt that many of my subjects'
interest in participating in this series was driven by sixty US dollars.

John also wrote:

"In fact, I'm not sure there can be anything new/unusual/interesting
about nude photographs; most of them, I think, say more about the
photographer's psyche than about anything else."

I would go further and say that John's sentiments apply equally to all
photographs.  Ever since the days of Sidney and Spenser, artists have
fretted over the burden of the past.  And, ultimately, all photographs
do say more about the photographer than their subjects.

Thanks, all, for the discussion.

Sanders McNew

[jjj]

In the way you choose to re-represent them, I´d probably agree, but that´s just you finessing intent, mine, to suit your own purposes.

No finessing, that's simply how you come across.

Suffice to say that I disagree with your liberal interpretation of copyright/model releases and would ever remain on the side of caution in such matters. And taking another point you made, if not for commercial gain, why would I publish on the web or anywhere else, for that matter? I did explain that I am not looking at getting my work seen from the same perspective as does an amateur, something John grasped right away in a previous post. Why do you persist in missing that? I certainly do have material for which I have the correct releases - I did do stock shoots too, remember - but why expose such material to you, and here, for free?

After all your equivocating, it's now to simply show that you are actually a decent photographer and not just a talentless poltroon who likes to sneer at others. Alternatively, I'd simply like to see your work, just like I do with others on here, the reason, it helps put an image rather than a face to the posters on here. One of the best things about LL is that people [mostly] don't hide who they are and via their work we get to know a bit more about them than simply by reading posts.

No, I see nothing wrong with saving somebody´s blushes today for whatever they might have done yesterday. As I wrote here earlier, I have never touched porn and I despise it; however, that doesn´t mean that a topless shot from those days will not upset somebody in school if their mates see it online.

Others would consider what you did porn, just like you may consider more explicit stuff porn. I saw a Film Censor talking about how to rate a film once. There was no nudity in it, no sex of any kind as all it contained was shots of feet in shoes. It was obviously aimed at foot fetishists and the censor gave it an 18 certificate to aid sales, simply as it wouldn't be seen as porn otherwise. You shot women who posed naked for money for calendars, from what I can gather. Such calendars were meant to titilate and arouse and to my mind there is no distinction between them and porn. My view of what porn is - Porn is stuff that is honest enough to admit that it is sexually arousing. Nicely lit porn is erotica and if it's in B+W then obviously it's art!  

Sadly, I do not have all that many images left anymore, what with moving away from Britain lo those years ago, getting more damaged in various libraries and so forth, but even so, I have tried to get some more releases  for a lot of that old work since my interest in digital printing started, but the model agencies simply can´t help: girls from twenty-odd years ago are hardly on their books anymore and there is not usually much feedback once the commerce is over. That´s why I tried to indicate to you that there is a difference between putting prints up for sale in galleries and publishing on the web - you have a better chance of a simple and easy life away from the computer. I also tried to indicate that a gallery ambience is one thing but a web presence is quite another. And not an improvement, in my opinion, and not a million miles removed from flogging prints in a flea market.

Not at all snobbish are we? A gallery can be seedier than the web as it's all to do with context and presentation.

Paparazzi photos are something quite else: sometimes those people do get sued or worse; at others they can claim to have photographed in the public domain whilst on yet other occassions they are simply reacting to information fed them by the PR people behind the very idiots they pursue. I wouldn´t take any of that sort of work too seriously, but your mileage may vary somewhat.

I don't like pap work, but the point that you missed was that model releases are not necessary as if they were, unflattering pap work would disappear immediately.

On the topic of political correctness, I never did claim it a reason not to put stuff of mine on  the web; I used it to indicate why so much of the pin-up work that flourished from the sixties to the early eighties has gone with the dodo.

Most of the lads mags around now, have even more pin up work than then, in case you hadn't noticed and have had for a long time.
Personally a topless women posing on a car bonnet against a plain background is about the most boring, unimaginative  photography I can think of. Tackier than porn as it pretends to be better, when it's exactly the same. It's making money from sexualisng people.
 

You asked another, somewhat disingenuous question: do they sell cameras in Spain?

Not disengenuous, it was a rhetorical question.  

Yes, and they also have model agencies too. But to employ a model you need a client or a damn good belief that your work has a market. I do not believe that there is a market today that pays for stock photography at the level required to employ models of any value and to employ lesser ones is an exercise in self-defeat, as where we came in with the original point to this thread. If you want to photograph girls without much clothing because it just turns you on and it doesn´t matter how they look, go ahead and buy or con your way into their pants; if you are seriously concerned with the market and your bank balance, then think with your brain, for a change; how else should a pro ever do it?

I've done male nudes as well as female, does that mean I'm bisexual now? Wahey! Twice the choice, though better not tell the girlfriend.  
Psst Rob, I'll let you into a secret, some, probably nearly all professional photographers like to take photographs, even if they are not being paid. It's not as if photography is like working in a slaughterhouse and probably why so many people do it by choice, as a hobby.

And back to the main point, you claim to have been a successful commercial professional photography for many years and yet you seem to find reason after reason as to why you have no photos at all of any kind to show anyone online.
That's very odd behaviour for a photographer.  Especially on here.

[jjj]

Samuel Johnson, that ripe bastard, once said that he "would
rather be attacked than unnoticed. For the worst thing you
can do to an author is to be silent as to his works."  So I am
grateful to all of the people here who have taken the time
and trouble to engage in this discussion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=198957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Stimulation is far better a response than indifference and with any creative endeavour it will appeal to some and not others.
A very foolish and arrogant assumption is to believe one's own taste is somehow definitive and better than anyone else's.

I thought your work was great, other hated it, but then I may dislike what they love. Either way, it's not the end of the world, and it's a very good thing we have varied tastes, it makes for a less boring world.