Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MF Entry with PhaseOne ?  (Read 7333 times)
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #60 on: April 03, 2013, 07:25:44 PM »
ReplyReply



 My experience of photography leads me to believe that exactly the same situation holds in photography - you think my opinions of the *models* are bad? Well, sorry, the models are a bit flaky but they aren't evil. My really bad opinions concern the clients. I have a story I love to tell about a cosmetics rep sponsoring an "haute couture" show who asked me to shoot the show for free. Afterwards there was one particular iconic image that I retouched for an hour and blew up to A3 size and brought in. I said they could have it if they paid $10 for the paper. They said "they didn't know". I said ok, went to Habitat, bought a heavy metal frame, and told them they could "decide" whether they wanted the print but couldn't photocopy it - well, they broke the frame to copy the image, and prove they weren't going to pay $10 to an idiot photographer.



This is more Events, not fashion.  This is retail stuff, and your experience doesn't surprise me in that context.  Shooting a show isn't fashion either, its events, more like press.  

Models are pro's.  The ones that are "new faces" and are sent out on tests to build their book can be inexperienced and even flakey, but this is part of the test.  Bookers always called to ask about the model's comportment.  Always.  I only had two or three not show or be really late without a legit excuse.  I had one girl show up two hours late and freezing, dripping wet.  She got lost, lost her phone, couldn't get a cab in Brooklyn.  She walked three miles through the driving rain to show up.  Trooper.  She is doing well now, by the way.  She's had a very strong career, retired, went to NYU, opened a bar/restaurant.  
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4121



« Reply #61 on: April 03, 2013, 08:04:11 PM »
ReplyReply

TMARK,

 There is a trend now where *in content* you are either at the very top or your life is hell, and I think that when I started in photography the trend was beginning as digital was taking hold. Be it in "events" or in studio editorial, or fashion design, people were expecting me to provide free images to run full page in their magazines or use on their web sites, and shoot whole catalogs for free. Of course from your lofty perch you can say "pay peanuts, get monkeys", but there really is an issue in getting paid for stuff that a few years ago would have been resolutely middle class photography and not floor sweeping.

A similar attitude has closed down a lot of print media that fed journalists, while enshrining the "Huffington Post" as the glowing paragon of contemporary media. I and my colleagues used to be quite well paid, by companies that made a profit. Our erstwhile employers have now been driven out of business by web sites who pay less, or like the Huffington Post not at all.

In photography, I think digital is responsible for a lot of this change. When every editor knew that an image meant film costs and lab fees, it was much easier to justify at least a minimal amount to cover your own time.

Edmund



This is more Events, not fashion.  This is retail stuff, and your experience doesn't surprise me in that context.  Shooting a show isn't fashion either, its events, more like press.  


« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 09:05:27 PM by eronald » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #62 on: April 03, 2013, 09:04:02 PM »
ReplyReply

.... - models are "I'm beautiful" starving bundles of insecurity, which is why I think a dSLR is what you need to catch the 1/10th of a second in the day when they feel strong enough to stand up and can manage a smile Smiley
....

The problem, as it's been discussed in another thread, is that all a certain corny celeb BS lite imagery that has been associated with fashion has deformed everything and created clichés as well as bad image.

Models like any other field are of all sorts of types.
There are some insecure one's and there are ones that are remarkably secure.
There are also some that appear to be insecure because of circumstance.
It's a very competitive career and it depends on some very intimate things like the persons appearance,
in general and on a daily basis. Many are also very young... one should accept a bit of insecurity if one wants to work with 16,17 or 18  year old women that are coming of age.


The same should be said about working with celebrities. I've experienced all sorts of different characters and
behavior. The range of people that fit the label of celebrity is really vast. From oscar winning actors, directors to the pop culture figure like the
cast of Jersey shore. Personally as a fashion photographer and portrait photographer I find them nearly all of them intriguing.

While models are a historic part of fashion who are also mostly quite extraordinary young women I think there is much more to fashion.
Personally I think that shooting with an extraordinary actress, singer or comedian is just as interesting and in some ways more interesting as well as more of a challenge.

As far back as the early 90s I would shoot fashion with actresses and ballet dancers.

In thios whole Celebrity vs Model debate.... many models are celebrities... more in the past than today.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #63 on: April 05, 2013, 10:06:32 AM »
ReplyReply

This is correct.  These media outles, like HuffPo, need "content" to compete, and need more of it than they ever needed pre-web when they had set publication dates dictated by print, and they either don't have the budget or just have a business model of trolling for free "content" or abusing people.

HuffPo is an abusive organization.  Since they rarely pay, what are they going to do when their writer's parents can no longer afford to support their kids, thereby subsidizng HuffPo's "content"?


TMARK,

 There is a trend now where *in content* you are either at the very top or your life is hell, and I think that when I started in photography the trend was beginning as digital was taking hold. Be it in "events" or in studio editorial, or fashion design, people were expecting me to provide free images to run full page in their magazines or use on their web sites, and shoot whole catalogs for free. Of course from your lofty perch you can say "pay peanuts, get monkeys", but there really is an issue in getting paid for stuff that a few years ago would have been resolutely middle class photography and not floor sweeping.

A similar attitude has closed down a lot of print media that fed journalists, while enshrining the "Huffington Post" as the glowing paragon of contemporary media. I and my colleagues used to be quite well paid, by companies that made a profit. Our erstwhile employers have now been driven out of business by web sites who pay less, or like the Huffington Post not at all.

In photography, I think digital is responsible for a lot of this change. When every editor knew that an image meant film costs and lab fees, it was much easier to justify at least a minimal amount to cover your own time.

Edmund



Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1678



WWW
« Reply #64 on: April 05, 2013, 11:46:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm afraid that many markets are lost for ever to those who are satisfied with a credit or a minimal amount to cover their own time.

Seek better clients or move on.
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5162


« Reply #65 on: April 05, 2013, 06:28:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I think this thread has just about run its straight course and will now meander off Smiley
Given what then happened in the next dozen posts, that was an excellent call!

Maybe we all need to work on our "slow, thoughtful forum posting".
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad