Model limits

[sonix2407]

I was just reading Karmagarda's thread about how to tell models you don't want to shoot that you don't want to in a polite way (here). And I was wondering what are people limits with models?
What I mean is, what physical features (natural or artificial) would put you off a model?

Personally I would never shoot anyone that had cosmetic surgery (unless it was to correct a birth defect or major injury or something like that). So if a model had breast "enhancement" I would instantly say no, if they wore lots of fake tan (or used sunbeds), or starved themselves thin.
I just object to people doing that kind of thing to themselves to satisfy some obscure sense of beauty they have. I am a firm believer in natural beauty and would only shoot models that were natural.

 

[mattyh]

I think it's down to personal preference... I don't overly like the "blonde bimbo" type look, but I have shot some of that type of model in the past, more for experience than anything else.

Anyone that has adult listed as acceptable work is a no no for me, as does anyone who's profile pic is taken at arms length with a camera phone.

Physical features I'm not so fussed about, as long as they fit the theme of what I'm trying to create.

I.E. If I was shooting a soft/delicate type nude, then a tattoo'd goth model wouldn't really fit the scene (IMO, of course )

 

[-Rob-]

I tend to judge the model on the overall portfolio they have on their profile. If other photographers have managed to get some nice shots of them then I assume I'd be able to get some.

If I'm after a lingerie model then I won't book a model who doesn't have lingerie shots in her portfolio and if I'm after a fashion model then I'd want to see examples of the kind of fashion she's turn up in.

Having said that, I've shot friends who have modelled for me just for fun having never modelled before and they have done a great job.

 

[karmagarda]

Limits... don't know. I hate fake tan. Think that's about it really. Somebody that overdoes plastic surgery is a no no too. But it's an interesting subject because where do you draw the line? What if someone had a crooked/wonky nose and got it done? Would you accept that? What if they were flat chested, and I'm talking tripple A, and they just got an implant to go to a B cup, or even just an A cup?

 

[Willenium]

Think for me the only things to put me off a model are tattoos, poor personal hygiene, being overweight or having bad skin. I tend to look out for an attractive figure, nice hair and pretty eyes.

 

[Jelster]

Think for me the only things to put me off a model are tattoos, poor personal hygiene, being overweight or having bad skin. I tend to look out for an attractive figure, nice hair and pretty eyes.

I really dislike tattoo's on women, I don't know why, I just do. Whether that would stop me using a model with a tattoo I don't know, I think it depends on your goal.

Steve

 

[sonix2407]

I think it's down to personal preference... I don't overly like the "blonde bimbo" type look, but I have shot some of that type of model in the past, more for experience than anything else.

Anyone that has adult listed as acceptable work is a no no for me, as does anyone who's profile pic is taken at arms length with a camera phone.

I.E. If I was shooting a soft/delicate type nude, then a tattoo'd goth model wouldn't really fit the scene (IMO, of course )

When you put it that way...

Yeah, the typical myspace picture and adult would be a no-no for me too.

For that kind of scene, a gothic model could work (minus tattoos). Guess it depends on the details of the shot.

Having said that, I've shot friends who have modelled for me just for fun having never modelled before and they have done a great job.

True, my fiancée has done a little for me (for fun and practice for me) and she does it a lot better than a lot of models I've seen shot by professional photographers.

Limits... don't know. I hate fake tan. Think that's about it really. Somebody that overdoes plastic surgery is a no no too. But it's an interesting subject because where do you draw the line? What if someone had a crooked/wonky nose and got it done? Would you accept that? What if they were flat chested, and I'm talking tripple A, and they just got an implant to go to a B cup, or even just an A cup?

The nose thing, depends of how wonky their nose was, if it was just a little and they were just obsessing over it, no. But if it was quite noticeable and threw off everything else then I wouldn't mind if they had it fixed.

Again with the chest, depends. If it was causing their self-esteem to plummet, then I wouldn't mind. But if it was simply just a "I want big boobs so people will stare at me" then hell no.

Think for me the only things to put me off a model are tattoos, poor personal hygiene, being overweight or having bad skin. I tend to look out for an attractive figure, nice hair and pretty eyes.

It depends on the tattoo, some are really well done, even ones that are quite big, like covering the whole arm.
Those are exactly what I'd look for as well.


P.S. Sorry for the long post, replies kept coming in as I was typing. D:

 

[Sophotogenic]

What do you mean - "put you off a model"? Let's get this straight because I'm struggling to understand:

If a model approaches you and wants some photos for free and she has had cosmetic surgery, a false tan and is really thin, you would say no because you don't agree with what she has done is that right?

What if a magazine wanted to book you for a shoot with the same model, and was going to pay you good money to do it?

I was just reading Karmagarda's thread about how to tell models you don't want to shoot that you don't want to in a polite way (here). And I was wondering what are people limits with models?
What I mean is, what physical features (natural or artificial) would put you off a model?

Personally I would never shoot anyone that had cosmetic surgery (unless it was to correct a birth defect or major injury or something like that). So if a model had breast "enhancement" I would instantly say no, if they wore lots of fake tan (or used sunbeds), or starved themselves thin.
I just object to people doing that kind of thing to themselves to satisfy some obscure sense of beauty they have. I am a firm believer in natural beauty and would only shoot models that were natural.

 

[-Rob-]

What if a magazine wanted to book you for a shoot with the same model, and was going to pay you good money to do it?

You need to separate the amateur photographers who can pick and choose the models they want to shoot and the professionals who have to shoot what they are paid to shoot.

 

[POAH]

I don't to shoot fatties or ugos

not a fan of fake boobies either but other than that for most things I don't really care. I don't shoot models that specficially ask for lots of PP or have images with lots of PP intheir portfolio.

I was just reading Karmagarda's thread about how to tell models you don't want to shoot that you don't want to in a polite way (here). And I was wondering what are people limits with models?
What I mean is, what physical features (natural or artificial) would put you off a model?

Personally I would never shoot anyone that had cosmetic surgery (unless it was to correct a birth defect or major injury or something like that). So if a model had breast "enhancement" I would instantly say no, if they wore lots of fake tan (or used sunbeds), or starved themselves thin.
I just object to people doing that kind of thing to themselves to satisfy some obscure sense of beauty they have. I am a firm believer in natural beauty and would only shoot models that were natural.

 

[sonix2407]

What do you mean - "put you off a model"? Let's get this straight because I'm struggling to understand:

If a model approaches you and wants some photos for free and she has had cosmetic surgery, a false tan and is really thin, you would say no because you don't agree with what she has done is that right?

What if a magazine wanted to book you for a shoot with the same model, and was going to pay you good money to do it?

What I mean is what would make you say no to a model.

Yep that's right. Depending on the cosmetic surgery, if she lost the fake tan (or at least got it down to a more natural looking level) and put a little weight on (by really thin I mean you can see at least several ribs) then I probably would.

To be perfectly honest, I probably wouldn't. I would hate to feel like I was endorsing that look.

The reason I say this is because of the area I live in. You can't walk out the door without seeing someone with so much fake tan that they're orange. And I'm not just talking about teenagers, it's quite common to see 40+ women like that here.

 

[Sophotogenic]

People with acne, those who are overweight, those who are thin, small, have cosmetic surgery or false tans have come to YOU to have photographs taken and in my eyes it's morally wrong to turn people away because they don't fit in with my ideal of what a person should look like.

What I mean is what would make you say no to a model.

Yep that's right. Depending on the cosmetic surgery, if she lost the fake tan (or at least got it down to a more natural looking level) and put a little weight on (by really thin I mean you can see at least several ribs) then I probably would.

To be perfectly honest, I probably wouldn't. I would hate to feel like I was endorsing that look.

The reason I say this is because of the area I live in. You can't walk out the door without seeing someone with so much fake tan that they're orange. And I'm not just talking about teenagers, it's quite common to see 40+ women like that here.

 

[Willenium]

It depends on the tattoo, some are really well done, even ones that are quite big, like covering the whole arm.
Those are exactly what I'd look for as well.


P.S. Sorry for the long post, replies kept coming in as I was typing. D:

I agree, what I personally find distasteful are tattoos that cover quite a substantial body area. The typical 'wing type' girls normally get on their lower back is alright but arms, upper back, shoulders or legs is a big no no for me. Another thing similar to tattoos is piercings, can't say I like any of them to be honest.

 

[POAH]

your ugly, overwight & with spots aren't you

People with acne, those who are overweight, those who are thin, small, have cosmetic surgery or false tans have come to YOU to have photographs taken and in my eyes it's morally wrong to turn people away because they don't fit in with my ideal of what a person should look like.

 

[Sophotogenic]

hahaha ****** man you got me!

your ugly, overwight & with spots aren't you

 

[Donki]

Hmmm intresting thread, I have never shot with a professional model just friends and family and as of yet havent done anything close to nude or glamour.

The problem I have with some of the opinions on here is that they will only shot what they see as attractive, this confuses me. Why are you shooting models that only you find attractive? In what context is this, for paid work? For a portfolio? For practice? Surely if a model can engage a camera and give a quality image it doesn't matter if they fit "your" own vision of beauty?

This leads on to why you want to shot with models? Is it to produce a product or do you just like taking pictures of girls you find attractive? Surely as a photographer you should be proffessional enough to see a client and try to bring out the best on them by looking past personal preferences , I am sure the models all look at photographers as really trendy non geeky people .

 

[Sophotogenic]

Absolutely 100% spot on on my point EXACTLY. It's just you said it better than me!

Hmmm intresting thread, I have never shot with a professional model just friends and family and as of yet havent done anything close to nude or glamour.

The problem I have with some of the opinions on here is that they will only shot what they see as attractive, this confuses me. Why are you shooting models that only you find attractive? In what context is this, for paid work? For a portfolio? For practice? Surely if a model can engage a camera and give a quality image it doesn't matter if they fit "your" own vision of beauty?

This leads on to why you want to shot with models? Is it to produce a product or do you just like taking pictures of girls you find attractive?

 

[Donki]

Absolutely 100% spot on on my point EXACTLY. It's just you said it better than me!

lol thank you it took me a good few minutes and an edit to get it out.

 

[sonix2407]

Hmmm intresting thread, I have never shot with a professional model just friends and family and as of yet havent done anything close to nude or glamour.

The problem I have with some of the opinions on here is that they will only shot what they see as attractive, this confuses me. Why are you shooting models that only you find attractive? In what context is this, for paid work? For a portfolio? For practice? Surely if a model can engage a camera and give a quality image it doesn't matter if they fit "your" own vision of beauty?

This leads on to why you want to shot with models? Is it to produce a product or do you just like taking pictures of girls you find attractive? Surely as a photographer you should be proffessional enough to see a client and try to bring out the best on them by looking past personal preferences , I am sure the models all look at photographers as really trendy non geeky people .

I'm not personally talking about my personal vision of beauty, I would happily photograph someone I didn't think was beautiful. What I mean is I object to people doing those things to their bodies and calling themselves beautiful because of those changes they have made to themselves.

 

[PsiFox]

I'm not personally talking about my personal vision of beauty, I would happily photograph someone I didn't think was beautiful. What I mean is I object to people doing those things to their bodies and calling themselves beautiful because of those changes they have made to themselves.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and perhaps they own a mirror!

 

[Donki]

..

 

[Donki]

I'm not personally talking about my personal vision of beauty, I would happily photograph someone I didn't think was beautiful. What I mean is I object to people doing those things to their bodies and calling themselves beautiful because of those changes they have made to themselves.

But what does that matter to you? Its a job at the end of the day, what one does to their body is their own concern and nothing to do with you or me. Again it depends what the senario is are you talking about a model coming to you as a job and you are charging a rate or what?

 

[mattyh]

OK so we need to quantify the context in which we're talking about working with models.

I will work with any model that has a decent portfolio and doesn't do adult work AND fits the brief that I'm working to, for personal/commercial type projects (of which I haven't done any, but the point would still remain). No agency would take on a model with a camera phone shot, unless they then paid for her/him to have a shoot with a pro, and as I'm not going to make them a port before working with them, my point stands.

If they came to me and wanted to pay me, I would work with them as long as I felt that I could create a decent standard of images that would neither upset the customer, nor look poorly on me.

 

[dunk]

why would anyone not work with someone who's done adult work?
if i was being paid i'd take shots of anyone and if they wanted to choose the type of shots so be it. If i was looking for volunteers i have to be honest, i'd go for "good looking" ones, preferably as natural as possible body and feature wise. i'm not keen on the "jordan" look where they look like they've taken a bicycle pump to their chest and lips, even though it seems to sell mens interest publications

 

[Shine On]

I totally understand a model with certain aesthetic qualities not being suitable for a particular project, or look you're trying to achieve, but some of this reads rather uncomfortably like the judgement of a person purely on their looks. I hope I've got the wrong end of the stick with this, but prejudice is a destructive thing.

 

[Kerioak]

I think the original question should be made clear as to the reason for a shoot - whether it is a paying client, the photographer paying the model or TFP/CD, for the latter two I think the photographer should be totally able to choose who they shoot, if it is a paying client and provided they don't want anything the photographer is uncomfortable with I don't see why anyone should be refused ?

 

[mattyh]

I'm not prejudice in the slightest, i hate everybody the same

WRT the not working with models that do adult, just a personal preference, no real reason to speak of

 

[PsiFox]

I totally understand a model with certain aesthetic qualities not being suitable for a particular project, or look you're trying to achieve, but some of this reads rather uncomfortably like the judgement of a person purely on their looks. I hope I've got the wrong end of the stick with this, but prejudice is a destructive thing.

Does happen, someone posted last year about a wedding tog that turned down a overweight bride because it would not look good in their portfolio.

 

[POAH]

getting paid to shoot someone and doing it for your own enjoyment are two totally different things. If the guy is just wanting to photography as a hobby and make nice pics then why would he want to shoot some large ugly fat heffer with tattoos and a nose ring? It is photography, you are judging the subject on their looks. if someone wants to pay me money to shoot them I probably will although I would draw the line and male-male gay porn but I'm not going to use a picture of an ugly person in my port (hence why I'm not in it)

I totally understand a model with certain aesthetic qualities not being suitable for a particular project, or look you're trying to achieve, but some of this reads rather uncomfortably like the judgement of a person purely on their looks. I hope I've got the wrong end of the stick with this, but prejudice is a destructive thing.

 

[Donki]

I think the original question should be made clear as to the reason for a shoot - whether it is a paying client, the photographer paying the model or TFP/CD, for the latter two I think the photographer should be totally able to choose who they shoot, if it is a paying client and provided they don't want anything the photographer is uncomfortable with I don't see why anyone should be refused ?

That pretty much somes up my feelings and why I said it depends on the reason for the shot. I see no reason why a paying client should be turned away simply because in the photographers eyes they are not attractive, have a tattoo or are overweight. IMO it is both arrogant and rude, if you own a studio and someone comes into have some head shots done surely it is your job to bring out the best in them.

 

[Shine On]

The OP, and indeed anyone, has the right to choose to shoot whomever they wish, I'd not dispute that. It's the apparent pre-judgement by some that I have a problem with, and the lack of respect.

 

[POAH]

The OP, and indeed anyone, has the right to choose to shoot whomever they wish, I'd not dispute that. It's the apparent pre-judgement by some that I have a problem with, and the lack of respect.

what prejudgement or lack of respect :shrug:

 

[tiler65]

For those who won't shoot 'adult' models, are you embarrassed or scared of the model or is it that your better half won't let you.

All 3 in most cases I suspect.

 

[Te Amo]

IME attitude is far more of turn off than physical appearance. Granted some "models" just don't fit the physical profile as such, but they tend to get sorted out of the herd quickly. But if she's just a self centered diva, then we definitely will not be working together.

Oh and anyone who thinks they're getting all of the RAW images from our session is certainly pi**ing in the wind.

 

[Te Amo]

The OP, and indeed anyone, has the right to choose to shoot whomever they wish, I'd not dispute that. It's the apparent pre-judgement by some that I have a problem with, and the lack of respect.

I think youre looking at it wrong.
It's not a matter of judgement, rather a professional difference of opinion.
As an artist, every image you create is a reflection of you. This is the reason for individual portfolios. So people can see your "style". If my "style" follows a specific pattern, or preference, then i have every right as an artist to turn away a shoot that does not reflect the message i am trying to convey through my portfolio. If I don't agree with breast augmentation or full sleeve tattoos and piercings, then I have every right to respectfully decline a model with these things. That doesnt mean I'm being biased, it just means that our styles do not work together. She has every right to represent herself in that manner, just as I have every right to chose not to represent myself in that manner.
Anytime there's a collaboration. Be it model/photographer, model/MUA, photographer/retoucher, etc. The styles must be cohesive, because the finished product represents the combined efforts of all parties involved, and is a direct reflection of their "style"

With that said, you also have to weigh your convictions against the job. Sometimes you have to bite your tongue and do the job or you may lose future work.

Oh and for the record, I love a model with tattoos. And I have nothing against breast implants.
i think plastic surgery is a modern miracle and offers the unique opportunity for your outer appearance to match your inner apperance.

...fake

 

[AliB]

Interesting question

Personally it depends what I want to shoot an individual for. I find all sorts of people amazing when it comes to photographing them. I don't care if they are coloured, caucasian, male, female, young, old, tattoo'd or au naturel. So long as I can find a connection I'm happy.

Ok I would not choose to shoot the gorgeous coloured chap that I get my lunch from in Pret for something that required a young lissom girle type, equally I would not be shooting Amy Winehouse for a shoot that really called for angelic. Horses for courses as they say and it's got more to do with finding that person's style and keying into it.

If you only want to shoot young lissom angelic types, don't book Amy simples

 

[littlemonster]

Does happen, someone posted last year about a wedding tog that turned down a overweight bride because it would not look good in their portfolio.

Is it just be who thinks that bride had a lucky escape? For modelling is one thing, for a wedding though


As for prejudging... people are biologically made in such a way they do judge others on looks, there's actually nothing wrong with that - if the photographer doesn't feel comfortable shooting a certain model, he's not going to get the best from her at a guess anyway. If the photographer is preoccupied with trying to make the shots look flattering for a larger woman, he may struggle to capture the fact she has beautiful eyes or whatever.

The upside of humans is that tall, short, fat, think, natural or 50% plastic, some people will find them attractive - and likewise, some people will be happy to shoot them as well And while calling out slurs on the street or such it's obviously bad, but for something like photography it's that person's choice, simple as that!


As practise (my only need for now at any rate!) I'll shoot anyone who's willing to sit still for 5 minutes Though obviously I won't be doing model shots!

 

[mattyh]

For those who won't shoot 'adult' models, are you embarrassed or scared of the model or is it that your better half won't let you.

All 3 in most cases I suspect.

None, the wife's fine with me shooting any model, I'm not embarrassed, and I'm certainly not scared. It's just not for me is all.

 

[Joshua James]

This is an interesting debate and it really depends what the tog and the model are getting out of the deal. If I'm shooting TFCD or paying for a model (Particularly the latter) then I will be shooting someone with the look I'm after. If that's glamour then I'll be looking for boob size / shape, good skin etc. If its alternate then I'm pretty easy going.

If I'm shooting with a view to portfolio images then same again.

Reference the wedding thing - I can understand that, even if it isn't PC. I've arranged to shoot several weddings 'gratis' in return for the experience and the ability to use the images in my portfolio. I will admit to having selected one of the brides based entirely on the fact she's a hottie and will look fantastic in my portfolio. All the others have been selected based on the fact they have something to offer me in terms of my portfolio, whether its an awesome venue or a quirky wedding. Nothing wrong with getting what you want out of the deal when no one if paying

 

[mustanir]

I'm under the general impression that a lot of amateurs enjoy shooting models precisely because they enjoy shooting girls who they think are attractive. Leching under guise of "hobby"