Who do you think you are?
David Bailey?
This hackneyed retort, remains
a popular one, slung at photographers from “witty” passers-by. Very
occasionally in my direction, during location shoots.
Bailey comes across as
shrewd, highly intelligent, complex and challenging.
I could even attempt to imply
commonalities. I’ve lived in those East Ham streets, I could also wax lyrical
about Newham's once derelict delights...
Doing so, would be like
wealthy students dropping h’s and pretending their parents worked on the docks,
or at Ford’s body plant. Fooling no-one. (Back in 1992, I witnessed one mockney Trustafarian
exiting the saloon bar, via a long-established patron’s fist).
Pretending to be someone, or
indeed something else, invariably results in disappointment. Its also a complete
waste of time. I like Bailey’s work, his brusque, thought provoking commentary also
resonates with me. I’d also love to chat with him about the derelict buildings
and streets. However, I am not Bailey, nor do I have any desire to be a
second-rate caricature, a cardboard cut-out.
A run of
unreliable models, has forced me to raise booking fees.
I've a reputation for being warm and professional but not suffering fools gladly. Experience means unreliable, or otherwise resource sapping people are generally spotted within a sentence. Two, tops. It's often what people don’t say, that speaks volumes.
Not that long ago, I’d simply
charge the studio rates for those two hours. Now, I’ve factored time lost,
mileage and other on-costs into the equation.
Yes, I might miss an
opportunity here and there. However, it also roots out timewasters. Many
seasoned models operate on a similar basis, for precisely these reasons.
Returning to my authenticity
narrative, I enjoy working with novice models and building their port-folios.
However, models without direction (or unable to take such) are a complete waste
of energy. Though modelling has become more diverse, professionalism is key.
I’m not simply referring to showing up, and on time. Hobbyist models, like hobbyist photographers should not be sneered at. These may not be their professions, but that's not to say their attitude and conduct is anything less.
Experienced, and consistently
successful models look after themselves, physically and mentally. Dancers are cases in point. Their sense of poise, grace and self- knowledge is
immediately apparent, and the shoots tend to flow smoothly, with beautiful captures.
Model port-folio hosting and
networking sites are fantastic resources.
Not only for aspiring/models,
makeup artists but photographers too. However, research people carefully, to
avoid time wasting, and other nasty surprises. Sometimes, dipping our toes in, is the only
gauge, of whether we like/feel comfortable with something (or not).
I am
selective with who I will work and associate with. Often this is determined by
what they do. For example, there are people
who believe they are going to be “discovered” (An innocent enough delusion. One
that I passively subscribed to, in my late teens an early 20s).
There is no structure, or
indeed variety in their images. The poses and indeed images show little, if
any variation. This can be for several reasons, including (a) Insufficient, or poor
direction (b) An unimaginative model/photographer pairing, achieving
predictable results.
I don’t like readers
wives/page 3 genres of glamour photography, but intelligently posed and lit
boudoir can be fantastic. Soft and playful on the one hand, sensually engaging
(as opposed to stimulating) on the other.
Then of course, there’s the
power of suggestion. Some people there’s little separating fine art and
pornography. I’d argue they’re two completely different genres. Soft porn,
including the “reader’s wives” genres I’ve just referred to, are visceral. Fine
art and implied nude, captured correctly provokes thought and intrigue.
