Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 134

Thread: Why are the models always ladies?

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Planet Eropagnis
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pollock
    just my two cents...

    most of the people that go for the "photo shoots" are just fags who dont have the guts to go meet girls and just want to relish the time spent with one beautiful "model"......
    I see different states of mind here. And if u're thinking this way, I'm sorry for u. Cos I do know some guys here who are happily married going for model shoots to improve their own shots and not for the sweeping reason u'd mentioned. A very shallow thought I must say.

    pls dont think im discounting everyone here that posts pics.....a couple of u guys are really good......artistic and tasteful..........
    Define ur version of artistic and tasteful plz.

    Its all in a state of mind.

    i feel so sorry for the guys who take up photography just to take pretty girl shots........ur no different from a male gyne who cant afford an internet connection to surf porn...and there are those who arrange photo shoots just to earn a quick buck ....just coz he knows a girl that looks good.........
    So, what's ur point? There are ppl who buy a camera to shoot upskirt or downblouse stuff. Are u lumping us ameuter, enthusiasts and professionals along with these so-called 'photographers'?

    Such lechers are the ones giving us photographers a bad name. Plz dun lump those peeps with us.

    I haven't been to model shoots as my human shots are a hit-or-miss thing. But I'm sure the guys here carry themselves with a certain professional ethic and not behaving like u're generalising them to be.

    Mods, I suggest u close this thread with broad sweeping statements made like dis seemingly to insult.

  2. #62

    Lightbulb

    don't kill the thread, i am expecting..... more!

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Planet Eropagnis
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pollock
    hey knight i have no qualms abt your pics .........


    but for these people whom go to car shows and take pics of girls ..........i can count with one hand how many actually took pics of cars........ofcoz im not saying dont take girls pics at all .....but when they post their album and its only featuring closeups of girls and their chest area.......says allot abt their intentions.............
    Please. Don't lump us with ppl who don't know where to place their focus points on. Those are outright lechers, we are decent ppl here.

    and for most then they look at portrait shots of first thing they say is "wah beautiful girl".....
    Won't u even think THAT in ur mind when u see a portrait shot of a photogenic lady?

    Tell me that u dun even think of that and u are either a saint or a liar.

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Central
    Posts
    181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riva
    I'm wondering if these shoots are really for practise or more for the guys to oogle at a 'pretty' girl.
    I think its pretty (pardon the pun) obvious what the answer is...but let us take a look from a different perspective.

    Strictly speaking, if I want to practice, I don't need to pay for models, i just need to spend on equipment and maybe studio rental. Any of my friends, or any one on the street, can be my one-minute model, if they are agreeable. People on the streets do make good portraits cos we can see personality ( I dislike portrait which the model don't show any character, be it the model's or the photographer's failure to bring it out)

    BUT:

    If I am organising a photo shoot, then I have to be selective. I have to consider whether the photographers would like my arrangement, cos they are the ones who are going to come up with the $$$.

    Of course I could organise a free one, but who's going to pay the model, cos its non-obligatory for the model as well. So there has to be some form of professional relation between the model and the organisers and photographers(I hope we agree on this).

    Then comes the question: Will there be any photographers willing to pay for the model?

    Admit it, most of us like pretty things, especially if we have to pay for it. We guys can be dense at time, but thats our nature (at least for most of us).


    Just my humble opinion.

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Woody Land
    Posts
    1,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jsbn
    Mods, I suggest u close this thread with broad sweeping statements made like dis seemingly to insult.
    I agree.

    why hurt each other?

    there's a lot of nice people here

  6. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, Massachusetts
    Posts
    631

    Default

    I feel that at the end of the day. There's no need to bother about who sits in front of the lens actually. The onus is on the photographer, to use whatever equipment he has in whatever given situation and to bring forth the inner beauty of whoever is front of the moulded glass.

    with regards to portraiture. i believe that different photographers approach it very differently. Some work on the positioning of the face/body/arms/etc. Other prefer plain face shots with emotion. Yet others prefer the abstract form where a leg, a hand, knuckles block the face.

    At the end of the day. As long as we love what we do, enjoy the fruits of our money spent on a love for photography and improve in the way satisfactory to us. That's more than good enough. The bonus having more tips from more experienced photographers, or getting to know more friends or even just feeling happy and glad after a good photoshoot.

    Oh well, any one has a lobang for the 85mm f/1.8? I'd love to get into this foray of furthering my skills in portraiture. The beautiful thing being that everyone sees the same scene ever so slightly differently. And that difference is enough to make us keep going back for more... cheers and let's not argue over silly things. Let's all enjoy and take pleasure and pride in our individual love of photography! =)

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Riddle Realms
    Posts
    5,688

    Default

    I reckon this thread will be closed in due time but let me put things into perspective. The worst it can get is we can agree to disagree...

    Now, the truth does hurt. I'm very sure each and every single one of us here would like to think that our works and shots are better, different, more creative than "the others" and of course, it would make sense to feel offended to think that someone else would dare to comment and lump everyone into one broad category.

    Lets face it. It may be a broad sweeping statement but there is an element of truth to it. Just look at the comments.

    "nose bleed"

    "lau nua" (drool)

    "chio"

    I think you get the idea.

    There is alot of snap shots of women in bikinis, in dresses in outfits that neither flatter nor makes sense. Yes, i guess one would need to learn and share and they do have to start from some where but hey, what happened to shooting friends or children to start with?

    Oh yes. The perenial favourite. During the shoot of a beautiful girl, one would need to think abt angles, compositions etc etc but wouldn't that be the case for any other subject? Your intentions may not be to be one of the "sad fags" but it might appear like one.

    Lets propose an experiment. Have 2 models and organise an outdoor shoot. One is lingerie shoot while the other is clothed in a loose formless skirt and a long woolly turtle neck.

    No prizes for who's shooting slots gets reserved faster.

    Now, don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with the appreciation of a female form but i would think it's much better to be honest abt it than try to convince yourself and everyone else that you have noble and academic intentions in "learning" how to take pictures of a beautiful subject.

    Here's a scenario for you. Group shot. Multiple photographers. Many voices calling out to catch the attention of the model. Static background. Every once in awhile, subject moves and the whole bunch of lenses follow. Repeat process. Do we honestly see anything that makes you go "wow" when you at at the pictures at the end of the shoot?
    --
    "High Wired, Dream Sired"

  8. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pollock
    i like what u've been doing..........i was just a little taken aback by some comments that i saw in the shoots....abt guys just asking abt the girls....first comment was how beautiful the girl was.

    .....and i always thought its the person behind the camera is whats supposed to take all the glory!
    Well, I guess humans are visual creatures. We tend to think abt the subject(s) of the picture. I'd think that when we see something beautiful, we'd react first to it than to the creator. Thereafter some of us may think of how we actually get to see something so beautiful.

    Anywayz, the person behind the camera seldom gets the glory. If u're doing it for glory, it's really hard to sustain & come up with good shots, unless u're really talented. Recognition is only amongst those who look past the images, usu it's just the photographic community. We just need to look at all those photos in the newspapers & magazines. Most ppl will probably recognise the stars & the models much more often than they recognise the name of the photog.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Goi
    When there's the demand, there comes the supply!
    Totally argeed with Adam.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang
    I reckon this thread will be closed in due time but let me put things into perspective. The worst it can get is we can agree to disagree...

    Now, the truth does hurt. I'm very sure each and every single one of us here would like to think that our works and shots are better, different, more creative than "the others" and of course, it would make sense to feel offended to think that someone else would dare to comment and lump everyone into one broad category.

    Lets face it. It may be a broad sweeping statement but there is an element of truth to it. Just look at the comments.

    "nose bleed"

    "lau nua" (drool)

    "chio"

    I think you get the idea.

    There is alot of snap shots of women in bikinis, in dresses in outfits that neither flatter nor makes sense. Yes, i guess one would need to learn and share and they do have to start from some where but hey, what happened to shooting friends or children to start with?

    Oh yes. The perenial favourite. During the shoot of a beautiful girl, one would need to think abt angles, compositions etc etc but wouldn't that be the case for any other subject? Your intentions may not be to be one of the "sad fags" but it might appear like one.

    Lets propose an experiment. Have 2 models and organise an outdoor shoot. One is lingerie shoot while the other is clothed in a loose formless skirt and a long woolly turtle neck.

    No prizes for who's shooting slots gets reserved faster.

    Now, don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with the appreciation of a female form but i would think it's much better to be honest abt it than try to convince yourself and everyone else that you have noble and academic intentions in "learning" how to take pictures of a beautiful subject.

    Here's a scenario for you. Group shot. Multiple photographers. Many voices calling out to catch the attention of the model. Static background. Every once in awhile, subject moves and the whole bunch of lenses follow. Repeat process. Do we honestly see anything that makes you go "wow" when you at at the pictures at the end of the shoot?
    haha.. actually I think u will also need to have two equally beautiful (or ugly) models. Anywayz, I dun see anything wrong with admiring the body form, face, etc. Yes, there is a certain limit to things, but being drawn to, & admiring what appeals to us is something natural. If u find that there's a need to hide ur interest, then maybe it's something u need to review. I think for some of us, as casual or hobby photogs, shooting is really about capturing what appeals to us. It is just a way we appreciate beauty or to tell something.

    I guess it's ok to express how we feel about certain things, but I guess we also need to expect that some ppl will hold different views from us. We all see things differently.

    ps: I have to admit I'm one of those who'd rather shoot members of the female gender whom I find beautiful, coz that's one of the things that appeals to me. I also do find my friends & family, cats, cars & sunsets appealing too. Thus those are also usual subjects for my camera. So I think it's perfectly alright to wanna shoot pretty girls, beautiful ladies, etc. Same for hunky guys, children or some uncle or auntie waving an obiang umbrella, if that's what u find appeals to u.
    Last edited by vagabond; 15th December 2004 at 01:40 AM.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pollock
    just my two cents...

    most of the people that go for the "photo shoots" are just fags who dont have the guts to go meet girls and just want to relish the time spent with one beautiful "model"......

    pls dont think im discounting everyone here that posts pics.....a couple of u guys are really good......artistic and tasteful..........

    i feel so sorry for the guys who take up photography just to take pretty girl shots........ur no different from a male gyne who cant afford an internet connection to surf porn...and there are those who arrange photo shoots just to earn a quick buck ....just coz he knows a girl that looks good.........



    riva, i agree with you would rather work with a beautiful and mature woman

    hehe! we havn't had bantha fodder like our dear friend here for a while....and please dun disparage gynes like that, or have u forgotten that one of them probably facilitated your entry into this world? gosh, u make the rest of us seem so mature in comparison. way to go dude! dun forget to duck!

  12. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Cocteau Twins
    Posts
    2,116

    Default

    actually, honestly, i would really like to know what people have learnt from the model shoots. care to share, anyone? perhaps then we can see the relevance of having such shoots around.

    like wolfgang has noted...we don't really gain much from comments like "nose bleed" , "lau nua" (drool), "chio"

  13. #73
    ClubSNAP Idol Adam Goi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    5,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang
    I reckon this thread will be closed in due time but let me put things into perspective. The worst it can get is we can agree to disagree...

    Now, the truth does hurt. I'm very sure each and every single one of us here would like to think that our works and shots are better, different, more creative than "the others" and of course, it would make sense to feel offended to think that someone else would dare to comment and lump everyone into one broad category.

    Lets face it. It may be a broad sweeping statement but there is an element of truth to it. Just look at the comments.

    "nose bleed"

    "lau nua" (drool)

    "chio"

    I think you get the idea.

    There is alot of snap shots of women in bikinis, in dresses in outfits that neither flatter nor makes sense. Yes, i guess one would need to learn and share and they do have to start from some where but hey, what happened to shooting friends or children to start with?

    Oh yes. The perenial favourite. During the shoot of a beautiful girl, one would need to think abt angles, compositions etc etc but wouldn't that be the case for any other subject? Your intentions may not be to be one of the "sad fags" but it might appear like one.

    Lets propose an experiment. Have 2 models and organise an outdoor shoot. One is lingerie shoot while the other is clothed in a loose formless skirt and a long woolly turtle neck.

    No prizes for who's shooting slots gets reserved faster.

    Now, don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with the appreciation of a female form but i would think it's much better to be honest abt it than try to convince yourself and everyone else that you have noble and academic intentions in "learning" how to take pictures of a beautiful subject.

    Here's a scenario for you. Group shot. Multiple photographers. Many voices calling out to catch the attention of the model. Static background. Every once in awhile, subject moves and the whole bunch of lenses follow. Repeat process. Do we honestly see anything that makes you go "wow" when you at at the pictures at the end of the shoot?

    Well said! I couldn't have said it any better ...

  14. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riva
    I have joined such photo shots before (not with this group) and I've been a model myself when there was a lack.

    You don't have to be staring to be considered as oogling. What I mean is most of the guys on such shoots oogle through their lens. Capturing only pretty smiles but not much in way of substance.

    I won't mind coming along on a shoot someday if the model is worth my time and money.
    So, you will only join if the model is worthy of your time? Please define worthy? Pretty, beautiful, masculine, strong, dainty, powerful, full of characters ... etc etc. We all have some qualities we look for in our models, and why is it so "politically incorrect" that some of us photogtraphers perfer female models that we found to be beautiful.

    For myself, and for many other photographers I met in shoots, we are there to enjoy the shoot, to enjoy meeting like minded people, to shoot and hopefully make some beautiful arts. The last thing we want to see is someone full of prejudices and baggages.

    Please do not come and join any of our shoots. I just want to enjoy mine.
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

  15. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reachme2003
    having ran through the threads and its postings, i am wondering why are some parties asking to see 'some skills' of the thread starter, besides having perused her photo equipment? where is/are the connections? is having certain equipment a pre-qualification for one to make known one's observations? or possessing 'some skills' is also a pre-qualification? i am puzzled.
    If one's equipment is an indication of how engrossed is she into photography, yes. If one's observation is done with a view of a photographer, yes. If one's comment is based on her own level of expertise, yes.

    If one's statement is just a sweeping statement, no. If one's statement is just to instill embarressment, no. If one's cannot see with a view of a photographer, no.

    For example, infront of a nude picture, what do you see? Pornography or art? Depending on the person's level of training and the person's state of mind when he or she view the nude picture.

    Thus in personal view, if she is so engrossed into photography to be owning top end lenses and cameras, I am wanting to know where did her observation stamp from, in the view of a photographer or a view of a troll. "Some Skills", in personal view, a pre-qualification as it will show how her level of expertise can be crucial in the degree seriousness about her comment. If Julia Margaret Cameron (If she is still alive) said the same words as Riva had said, it will mean certain degree of seriousness on a falling standard of photographers and Singapore photography. If it is said by a photographer whose best pictures is that to the level of a 7 yr old holiday pictures, then the words she said should be taken with a a pinch of salt, or rather with sour grapes.

  16. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blurblock
    If Julia Margaret Cameron (If she is still alive) said the same words as Riva had said, it will mean certain degree of seriousness on a falling standard of photographers and Singapore photography. If it is said by a photographer whose best pictures is that to the level of a 7 yr old holiday pictures, then the words she said should be taken with a a pinch of salt, or rather with sour grapes.
    These statements left me with mixed feelings. There is no doubt that the same statement from a "mature/experienced" person will have a different "implication" (for want of a better word) than a 7 year old.

    But sometimes the "unbiased and untainted" eyes can be very refreshing. Remember the story about the "Emperor with no clothes?"

    Personally I do not bother whether Riva is an accomplished photog or not. Her "simple" observation is still correct. There is absolutely no doubt that most photoshoots have young pretty models. The question was asked. And I think photoshoots will continue to be so. I do not think photoshoots will change because of this thread. But for the "serious minded", it is a question for us to ponder why we do what we do.

  17. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Planet Eropagnis
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stereobox
    actually, honestly, i would really like to know what people have learnt from the model shoots. care to share, anyone? perhaps then we can see the relevance of having such shoots around.

    like wolfgang has noted...we don't really gain much from comments like "nose bleed" , "lau nua" (drool), "chio"
    Some of us take wedding portraits for a living, some of us work for photography labs, some of us take pictures out of pure interest, a hobby, etc.

    Now if u'd like to know the relevance of model shoots, I'd like to invite u on an open-minded trip. Now sit down, meditate and ask urself, how many times do u have to take pictures of human beings?

    Not flaming, but juz standing up to defend us proper photographers frm those lechers who always get splashed all over the newspaper front page or in cyberspace with their compromising shots of ladies in the 'other' photo forums like Sammyboy or sggirls. Those are the guys dat give all of us the bad name.

    My take on this entire 'beo model' thing before it gets closed. Peace

  18. #78

    Lightbulb

    i agree with student. in my view, riva's observations are honest and many of them are valid. or it is something which some male photographers here are not ready to accept. it is demand-driven by predominantly male photographers. no shame.

  19. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by student
    These statements left me with mixed feelings. There is no doubt that the same statement from a "mature/experienced" person will have a different "implication" (for want of a better word) than a 7 year old.

    But sometimes the "unbiased and untainted" eyes can be very refreshing. Remember the story about the "Emperor with no clothes?"

    Personally I do not bother whether Riva is an accomplished photog or not. Her "simple" observation is still correct. There is absolutely no doubt that most photoshoots have young pretty models. The question was asked. And I think photoshoots will continue to be so. I do not think photoshoots will change because of this thread. But for the "serious minded", it is a question for us to ponder why we do what we do.
    I am not saying the view comes from a 7 year old, but a "trained" photographer with the photography level of a 7 yr old. Trust me, I had seen photographer with camera body that is worth everything equipment I had got but with pictures taken like a kid, and puts the blame on the equipment and the subject too. I had seen some photographer commenting "Wah, this place is difficult to shoot, why such a place", upon hearing this, I borrowed his digital camera, and turn myself a bit and just snap the picture, then I show the photographer, who goes "wah, how did you do it?" my answer, "don't blame the place or the equipment, blame yourself if the pictures is not taken properly". That is the type of people I am trying to say, with Riva's equipment, she can either be one good photographer or one good collector.

    I understand where does her simple observation comes from, what I am not happy about is the sweeping statement made of photographers who take young, pretty models are hormone supercharged closet gays / sex manic (look at Pollock's comment).

    Now, let just put it this way, where could you find a matured lady to do photoshoots like the young girls who has youth and energy with them. Other than trained models, of course. Those are the type I would not want to take for leisure and training, trained models. I want to appreciate beautiful things, an old lady with lines of ages and experience is beautiful from inside, but to me a trained model is beautiful only at the surface. I can take enough surface beauty from commerical shoots, but inner beauty is something I want to take during leisure. A young pretty model is an untinted beauty from inner.

    Yes, the emperor's new clothes. The little boy did see the Emperor is without clothes, but in this case, this does not apply, it looks more like a tinted piece of glass trying to look crystal clear. It is only the state of mind where one goes into a photoshoot with photography in mind or with others. But the sweeping statement by Pollock and Riva makes it seems like that is the only thing in the mind of photographers. It even makes me wonder if Pollock and Riva are the same person, or at least from the same place, whenever Riva said something, Pollock will agrees in a few minutes time. Looks like the one person say, the other person agree tactics to make things looks more convincing.

    I am sure as an experienced portrait photographer like yourself you do not go into a shoot thinking of bedding the model. I had seen some of your works and I am quite impressed with some of them. You had not seen mine though, as I seldom (or never) put portrait pictures online, fearing leeching, which is unfair to the models.
    Last edited by blurblock; 15th December 2004 at 12:27 PM.

  20. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reachme2003
    i agree with student. in my view, riva's observations are honest and many of them are valid. or it is something which some male photographers here are not ready to accept. it is demand-driven by predominantly male photographers. no shame.

    I am not saying riva's observation are not valid, but for pollock and riva to make a sweeping statement out of the photographers is rather rude.

    Anyway, I seldom, if not never (at least I can't remember doing so) join shoots organised by CS until today. I find it rather weird to take other people's pose.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •