Photographing models with tattoos can lead to copyright issues, as a tattoo artist may have copyright claims to the design of a tattoo, making photographing it possibly legally risky. (One article I have seen regarding this is titled "Copyright Nightmare: Taking photos of people with tattoos.” This is the main reason that I shouldn't take pictures of models with tattoos. Also, although it isn't the main reason, being tattoo-free is a more timeless look, versus a look that may be “trendy” but subject to going out of date as to style.)

For more detailed information about my thoughts, please feel free to read more below.

----

Joy can bring more of that inner sparkle (or spark), I think. I believe it can make a difference – and it fits in with what I once wrote about the idea that it is the inner light that is looked for when filming an actress/actor. I believe it can somewhat apply to models, too.

----

Thoughts:

A thought that occurred to me for models: I've had the idea of thinking along these lines (for models – and photographers, too, I suppose!): “What would the VIEWER/AUDIENCE for this picture like to see?” I'm especially thinking about facial cues: Is the model saying, “Welcome!”, “I like you,” for example, or “Get away from me,” “You're no good!”, etc.? Obviously, I think the first two will go over better than the latter two I mentioned.

----

Further thoughts:

I'm not a model marketing expert, but it SEEMS to me that:

- If a model has a really great face, there's a market for lipstick, hair-care, etc., product modeling. I imagine New York, Los Angeles, would be the chief geographical areas for this.

- If a model is maybe 5' 8” or taller (though I don't really agree with height limits), then that could allow for runway work, if the face is very good and the figure is at least not, frankly, fat. I assume that New York, Los Angeles, and maybe other big cities are the best markets for that, but feel free to verify. Of course, there's Paris (etc.?), too, I suppose.

- If a model has a really good, or just a pretty good, face but a really boffo body, but isn't especially tall, then “glamour” work is something that's sellable BY photographers, I believe, on some level – thus, payable TO models by photographers. Honestly, I don't think completely non-revealing pictures of non-celebrities (unless part of a news or human-interest story) are generally very sellable, so that mostly leaves, of course, topless and nude shots. Of course, there's the magazine Maxim, which, per my last viewing of it, doesn't show much – but are they mainly featuring celebrities? Well, at least there's SOME market for clothed, if scantily clothed, women.

By the way, some of the widely promulgated “can't do's” regarding modeling success aren't necessarily accurate. To illustrate: I knew a woman who did some runway thing for maybe a charity fashion event – and, though only 5' 1”-to -5' 2” or thereabouts, did some little dance or performance on the runway that got a big, positive audience reaction – so, what are the limitations, really?

As for myself: I DO have love for photography! It doesn't have to entirely be about making money, but I don't want it to be all about SPENDING money, either! :)

---

More thoughts:

Here is some personal philosophy regarding modeling and especially regarding glamour modeling:

I personally prefer a natural look for models, and it seems to me that it is best for those getting started, because it won't usually be limiting, generally speaking, and is, of course, "more real" overall. It also represents, I think, more self-acceptance because it puts forth the "real you" more than with various modifications (some of which are hard, to say the least, to reverse). A "natural look," in my mind, would be someone with:

- No tattoos;

- No visible piercings (i.e., no piercings other than ear piercings, which I also don't want to photograph but understand are sometimes "given" to infant girls without their permission, so I understand if a model has them – and hair can cover them up);

- Natural lips: I don't think fattening/thickening one's lips makes them look better. (Sometimes someone's lips look unnaturally thick, but I'm reluctant to ask someone, “Are your lips naturally that thick?” It could be better to mention this issue here.)

- No tan lines, and in fact no suntans (or artificial tans) at all. Here's where self-acceptance of oneself via acceptance of one's own natural coloring especially comes into play, as with:

- Natural breasts.

- Non-colored hair: Especially regarding changing darker hair to blonde: Think of Cindy Crawford, for one – she's done great with dark hair, so that certainly has the possibility of working out.

Pursuing the philosophy a little further: I think a trend over the past half-century or so has been toward reality, as shown by the fact that, nowadays, people in movies tend to keep their names, versus changing them: "Rock Hudson," for example, wasn't that actor's original name: but now, we have Schwarzenegger and Zellweger, to name a couple of names that, in decades-past "Hollywood" days, might have been shortened or otherwise changed. The point I'm getting at is that I think it's to one's benefit to be as REAL as possible. Yes, we should make the MOST of what we have and who we are, but I think we should also go WITH what we really have and who we really are.

On another level, but consistent with the "real" idea: I learned that redheads need more dental painkillers than do most people. The point is: Even something as seemingly superficial as hair color CAN indicate something about one's non-superficial nature. If one represents oneself as having a different nature from what one's nature actually is (as, for example, via changing one's hair color), then one may be fooling others and possibly, in aiming for their acceptance, getting them to accept, not oneself but some fictitious version of oneself – which isn't a genuinely personal boost or something that leads to their understanding of who the person really is.

However, in spite of all the above philosophy regarding hair color: If a model IS going to dye hair in a way designed to look as if she has another hair color than she actually does (this as opposed to having odd colors like green, blue, and purple -- which are obviously not being represented as being the person's alleged hair color), then I hope that she will avoid showing other-color "roots," so that, by her not showing the "roots," the pictures will look as good (including as realistic) as possible. I am WILLING to take pictures of dyed-hair models, however, in spite of all this – but I'd prefer that, if this is the case, a good hair-dye job be evidenced – no "roots," in other words. But really, it's often hard to do a GREAT hair-dye job, because hair isn't, in my observation, always of the same color, one strand to the next: So, when one's hair has ALL the hairs exactly the same color, one to the other, I sometimes suspect a hair-dye job! Also, dyeing one's hair jet black doesn't make sense, either, because that's unnaturally dark. Anyway, . . .

As mentioned above: for my own photography: In photography, one of my interests is capturing the inner person, so to speak, especially the personality.

A delicate subject: If someone is overweight and knows it, I can say this: You don't have to change that, but I have bypassed some models (haven't even contacted) because of this – and I urge losing the extra fat. I don't want to contact anyone personally to say this, so that's why I'm putting it here. Anyway, it's more healthy to be neither too thin nor too fat, right? -- so what's the harm in being the right weight? I know it can be difficult, but, if someone thinks it's worth the effort, it can lead to more work, I believe.

Yet another sensitive subject, perhaps: a woman's underarms. It generally helps attractiveness to not have any “five-o'clock shadow” here (though I've seen numerous photos where such does exist – to the detriment of the photos' appeal, in my opinion). If it requires more than a once-a-day effort to deal with this, I'd recommend doing that, with all due respect.

(Regarding friend requests: When I do a friend request, it means that I consider that we are already friends on some level, and/or that I want us to be friends. It’s very simple, therefore: If I make a friend request, I want us to be friends, even if we’re living in different states, or different countries and may never see each other face-to-face. By the way, this is a "no obligation" idea: Being a friend of mine doesn't "force" anyone to be or do anything they otherwise wouldn't want to be or do. By the way, I've gotten friend requests from retouchers, but I don't need retouching services. If a retoucher wants to be my friend, I should be “touched,” I suppose – but if such a “friend” request is only a business effort, I think it's a wasted effort, with all due respect.)

Tags

See All Tags (21)