Does The Subject Make The Photograph?

[Proton Soup]

Well known supermodel, Albert Einstein in the hands of a great photographer:

Same supermodel, lousy photographer:

Einstein didn't make the first photo great and he can't make the second photo not suck. Regardless, someone might pay more than peanuts for the rights to the second photo simply because it is Einstein.

but how do you know which, if either, is the real einstein? the first is a meme, now. but the second (slightly less attractive figure) may be a better representation of the einstein people close to him knew. but maybe fantasy, not reality, is the point of most photography.

as for the original question, i have not technical skills, but my own opinion is that a good photographer has two jobs. the first is to see, or find, beauty in a subject. and the second is to translate that vision into an effective photograph. and as others have noted, sometimes a person has more talent for one than the other.

as for (human) subjects themselves, there is a reason some models make more money than others. it's not simply a matter of being pretty, but being able to act and portray emotional states through body language on command.

 

[zoobyshoe]

but how do you know which, if either, is the real einstein? the first is a meme, now. but the second (slightly less attractive figure) may be a better representation of the einstein people close to him knew. but maybe fantasy, not reality, is the point of most photography.

Actually, neither is Einstein: "This is not a pipe."

as for the original question, i have not technical skills, but my own opinion is that a good photographer has two jobs. the first is to see, or find, beauty in a subject. and the second is to translate that vision into an effective photograph. and as others have noted, sometimes a person has more talent for one than the other.

as for (human) subjects themselves, there is a reason some models make more money than others. it's not simply a matter of being pretty, but being able to act and portray emotional states through body language on command.

This is true and is why professional models are paid for their skills. However, they are paid hourly or daily rates commensurate with their status and this is usually specific to commercial work where the photographer isn't the one paying the model and who, himself, may be getting a set, agreed upon figure for the job at hand.

The kind of situation I'm talking about would be much more amateur. Suppose Statutory Ape was offered $1000 for the rights to the photo he posted by a publisher who wanted to mass produce and sell posters of it. Provided he already had a model release, would the girl be warranted in expecting him to pay her $500? Could she claim to have inspired or influenced him by virtue of her image being what it is, such that she deserves 50% of any revenues?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The kind of situation I'm talking about would be much more amateur. Suppose Statutory Ape was offered $1000 for the rights to the photo he posted by a publisher who wanted to mass produce and sell posters of it. Provided he already had a model release, would the girl be warranted in expecting him to pay her $500? Could she claim to have inspired or influenced him by virtue of her image being what it is, such that she deserves 50% of any revenues?

I think it can go back and forth. We might consider the "uniqueness" of a given model (throwing out any arguements about how we are all unique snow flakes) and determine the value in that sense. To some degree it does work that way. Specialty or niche models I believe are usually paid more for their particular style though they usually find less work. Of course that "uniqueness" must still be set in the proper context by the photographer to become an appealing image. I imagine that there could be a model out there who is so incredibly singular that they may well be said to have "made" the photograph and in that case may be capable of requesting a contract for 50% or greater. But that would be a rare case in my opinion.

There is also the famous model. A famous model may be worth so much that they are capable of requesting 50% or better of any profit. A photographer may easily concede this percentage if only to profit from being known as the person who photographed the particular model or took the particular photographs. I suppose this is similar to the "singular model" scenario except that the model is singular in personality as opposed to image.

I could try harder to be devils advocate for your friend's opinion but have a hard time finding grounds on which to base the arguement.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Of course that "uniqueness" must still be set in the proper context by the photographer to become an appealing image.

As witnessed by the two Einstein shots.

It can be clear from a mediocre photo that a model is unique, but that won't make the photograph a great photograph. Many people might want a copy of the mediocre image for the sake of it being THAT model's image, but only in the absence of better.

I think the question to ask is: would you be upset to find out that an amateur photographer for whom you'd sat, had managed to sell the rights to one of the pictures of you for $1000?

 

[Proton Soup]

This is true and is why professional models are paid for their skills. However, they are paid hourly or daily rates commensurate with their status and this is usually specific to commercial work where the photographer isn't the one paying the model and who, himself, may be getting a set, agreed upon figure for the job at hand.

The kind of situation I'm talking about would be much more amateur. Suppose Statutory Ape was offered $1000 for the rights to the photo he posted by a publisher who wanted to mass produce and sell posters of it. Provided he already had a model release, would the girl be warranted in expecting him to pay her $500? Could she claim to have inspired or influenced him by virtue of her image being what it is, such that she deserves 50% of any revenues?

as 'Ape pointed out, certain models certainly can set their own terms.

and for more amateur situations, i suspect the photographer's skills at rapport have a lot to do with it. the more skilled and experienced ones *cough*Liebowitz*cough* seem to have no trouble at all talking doe-eyed girls into getting naked for them.

 

[zoobyshoe]

and for more amateur situations, i suspect the photographer's skills at rapport have a lot to do with it. the more skilled and experienced ones *cough*Liebowitz*cough* seem to have no trouble at all talking doe-eyed girls into getting naked for them.

Actually there is a large percentage of them that offer themselves for this purpose when they meet that kind of photographer. I know a guy who does this kind of photography, and he doesn't have any persuading to do. This is, apparently, a common fantasy among a lot of girls: to be photographed such that all their assets are visible. Ego trip, kind of thing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think the question to ask is: would you be upset to find out that an amateur photographer for whom you'd sat, had managed to sell the rights to one of the pictures of you for $1000?

I suppose that would depend on whether or not I knew the person was intending to sell the photograph. Assuming that I did know and agreed to what ever arrangement I do not think I would be upset. I may however think differently of the photographer if they did not think to pay me back in any fashion for their windfall. A thousand is pretty hefty I suppose but not a whole lot in the scheme of things. Photography is an expensive endevour.

I think though that my opinion is biased from having been on the other side of the lens.

and for more amateur situations, i suspect the photographer's skills at rapport have a lot to do with it. the more skilled and experienced ones *cough*Liebowitz*cough* seem to have no trouble at all talking doe-eyed girls into getting naked for them.

Zoob is right. You may be rather suprised at the number of females willing to pose partially or fully nude for a photographer. Most women like to feel sexy and if they see that you can take good sexy looking photos they may be inclined to want to pose for you, depending on the woman they may want to do nudes aswell. I took other pictures like the one I posted and in most cases it was not my idea.
I'm a geek. I'm not suave or charming. At best my tendency to be calm, quiet, and polite puts women at ease around me. That may make them more comfortable with the idea but it doesn't pry their panties off... not in most cases any way.

 

[JasonRox]

My position is that the photographer is completely responsible for any photograph. The notion that the subject is 50% contributor comes from this other person I was talking to. I am wondering if anyone has any good arguments in defense of that. This guy really didn't, but insisted he was right. The issue, as I said, revolved around him asserting that the model in a particular photo so "made" the picture that she deserved 50% of any profits there might be.

I agree that's it is 100% photographer. I'm not a pro by any means, but my shots are much better than my ex-gf pictures and I would tell her to take the same shots. I have taken many, and all her friends like them. My ex-gf started feeling guilty because the shots of me weren't that good.

I'm really picky. Sometimes when I take a shot, I will organize the chairs in the background, or move the garbage bin somewhere else because I don't want that in the picture. Be laying on the ground because of the angle. Like who knows.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I may however think differently of the photographer if they did not think to pay me back in any fashion for their windfall.

But why, really? What input did you have other than sitting and looking where told, and or, being yourself for, say 20 minutes?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I agree that's it is 100% photographer. I'm not a pro by any means, but my shots are much better than my ex-gf pictures and I would tell her to take the same shots. I have taken many, and all her friends like them. My ex-gf started feeling guilty because the shots of me weren't that good.

I'm really picky. Sometimes when I take a shot, I will organize the chairs in the background, or move the garbage bin somewhere else because I don't want that in the picture. Be laying on the ground because of the angle. Like who knows.

I get the impression that most people think good photography is effortless: a matter of knowing how to operate the camera. They don't appreciate the multitude of decisions behind any good shot. At the same time, they schizophrenically recognise that some people are vastly better at it than others, and want those people to do their pics.

 

[chroot]

What's really strange is that this thread has gone on for three pages without anyone really posting anything concrete about what makes good photographs. Subject, rapport, and people skills are undoubtedly important, but there are some very simple technical qualities that immediately set apart novice and experienced photographers:

- Good photos have both highlights and shadows, with appropriate detail in both. The eye goes to highlights first.
- Good photos have bright, well-saturated colors. The eye goes to colored objects second.
- Good photos have well-defined foreground and background subjects.
- Good photos use depth of field to direct the viewer's attention.
- Good photos have composition that eliminates distractions from the subject, while often not placing the subject at the exact center. (Rule of thirds, etc.)
- Good photos use angles and perspectives that are not often seen.
- Good photos take advantage of unusual shapes, like curves and S shapes.
- Good photos take advantage of compositional elements like lines and curves which direct the eye to the subject.
- Good photos use the directional qualities of light to reveal dimension and depth, and to eliminate unflattering shadows.
- Good photos have dominant (key) light sources which eliminate double-shadows on noses and other facial features.
- Good photos use the correct softness or hardness of light to provide shadow edges that are not distracting.
- Good photos have correct white balance.
- Good photos involve lighting to separate foreground and background subjects, if they are of similar tones.

...and I could go on. Yes, there are some amazing photographs which violate nearly all of these rules of thumb, but, on the whole, most good photographs follow most of them. If you want to take interesting photographs, put your camera in front of interesting things. If you also want to take good photographs, take heed of the above list every time you release the shutter.

These rules are to photography as the "5-paragraph essay format" is to English composition. Only after you master them will you really be able to create anything recognizable as "your own style."

I get the impression that most people think good photography is effortless: a matter of knowing how to operate the camera.

It has been said that the best compliment a photographer can ever hear is, unfortunately, Wow, you must have a really nice camera!

- Warren

 

[zoobyshoe]

If you want to take interesting photographs, put your camera in front of interesting things.

Here is where both the subject and viewer can be completely fooled: if a photograph appears to be of something interesting it is only because the photographer "says" it is. The subject is completely at the mercy of the photographers ability to handle the rules of thumb you posted.

It has been said that the best compliment a photographer can ever hear is, unfortunately, Wow, you must have a really nice camera!

Which raises another point I figured someone would make, but no one has: if the model deserves 50% for a good shot, how much of the remainder does the photographer owe the camera and lens manufacturer? Did Nikon chase after Richard Avedon for their cut of the Nastasia Kinski and the Serpent poster? If the model deserves a percentage of all revenues, why wouldn't the camera maker?

If the photographer can't get a money making shot, could he ask the model for financial reimbursement? Could he sue Nikon because no one's interested in buying his photos?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But why, really? What input did you have other than sitting and looking where told, and or, being yourself for, say 20 minutes?

An image specifically of my person is being used for profit. Why should I not be somehow compensated? The matter of percentage is a different story, but do you believe the model has no right to anything in return for the use of their image? And that it would not be good of a thoughtful photographer to compensate their model on a scale comensurate with the amount of profit obtained?

A photographer may be doing most or nearly all of the work but the model is allowing the photographer to take the photographs of them. They are allowing this person into their life and trusting this person (maybe only in a small way but still). Perhaps not everyone would agree but ones own image tends to be a relatively intimate thing, more so for some than others. To have it sold and profited off of...? Do you see where a person may wish something in return?

I agree that's it is 100% photographer.

Consider: Can you find another model who could replace the one you wish to use? How many are there theoreticly that could replace this model? How easily could you find one? And what sort of compensation do you expect these other potential models may desire?

You have to obtain an agreement from the model to use their image. If you do not uphold your end of the bargain you have no model and no photos. So just how much do you really want to shoot this subject? Its sort of a supply and demand thing.
This is where my "singular model" argument comes from. It doesn't really have anything to do with the skill of the model or the amount of work the model puts in. Its all about the "value" of that particular persons image.

 

[zoobyshoe]

An image specifically of my person is being used for profit. Why should I not be somehow compensated?

You're describing porn. The kind of pictures I'm talking about are photography authentically intended as art. All those rules of thumb Chroot posted about good photographs are also the elements of good art in general. We could, point by point, analyze a Monet with them to see where he followed and where he broke off, and arrive at a conscious understanding of why and how his paintings work.

Famous superphoto from national Geographic:

They made money off her image when it comes down to it, but they are also the ones who "made" her image, on every level. The photographer, along with everything else he did, shined a bright light in her eyes before he took the shot in order to constrict her pupils and give her that look.

The matter of percentage is a different story, but do you believe the model has no right to anything in return for the use of their image? And that it would not be good of a thoughtful photographer to compensate their model on a scale comensurate with the amount of profit obtained?

A photographer may be doing most or nearly all of the work but the model is allowing the photographer to take the photographs of them. They are allowing this person into their life and trusting this person (maybe only in a small way but still). Perhaps not everyone would agree but ones own image tends to be a relatively intimate thing, more so for some than others. To have it sold and profited off of...? Do you see where a person may wish something in return?

The permission to reassign the rights their image are granted by them in the model release form. Your publisher wouldn't buy the image unless you already had that, because if they published without that the model could sue them. The subject has already to be willing to let the photos be published by a third party to sign the form. If they are too protective of their image to sign, then you move on.

If you're an amateur who will be testing the waters of trying to sell you would get all models to sign a release just in case, with no idea whatever of the chances of success.

The convention is to give them a copy of the pics, nowadays on CD, for their personal use. Some say a dollar as well, to make it legal, but I'm not sure that's necessary. Basically what they've gotten, especially with someone of your caliber, is a free bunch of photos from a, in your case, professional grade photographer. They get that, whether or not you get anything. They haven't put out a cent, mind you, but you have $1000.00 to $2000.00 invested in equipment.

You may be able to sell a photo for $10 to some photo archive, or you may be able to sell it for a hundred, or, by remarkable accident, it may be just what someone whose willing to pay a grand is looking for, or it may turn out that none of the shots was really usable.

My personal feeling is that, after having gotten an unexpected windfall, I would, in fact, feel like kicking some back to the model in celebration. I think almost anyone would. But I would simply walk away from anyone who wouldn't sign a release until I agreed to a percentage.

As the model, though, I would feel like a complete a-hole to think my image, in and of itself, is some kind of work of art that merits 50% of profits. It would be like Theo van Gogh wanting half the profit of one of his brother's paintings because he, Theo, bought Vincent's paint.

That reaction comes from direct experience: a professional photographer did, once, ask me to pose for her %$# or so years ago. I was flabbergasted and astonished at the result, which is when I learned the photographer is the artist here. She used my picture for her sample shot for a while, and I have no idea how much business it brought her, but however much it was, I couldn't claim a cent of it: she had a vision of my face I could never have conceived of.

The guy who started this 50% for the subject train of thought was asserting the subject was the "muse" of the photo, implying that the photographer would be artistically incapacitated without her. In fact, a good photographer can turn a face you'd pass on the street without notice into something monumental. The photographer makes the subject.

Consider: Can you find another model who could replace the one you wish to use? How many are there theoreticly that could replace this model? How easily could you find one? And what sort of compensation do you expect these other potential models may desire?

You have to obtain an agreement from the model to use their image. If you do not uphold your end of the bargain you have no model and no photos. So just how much do you really want to shoot this subject? Its sort of a supply and demand thing.
This is where my "singular model" argument comes from. It doesn't really have anything to do with the skill of the model or the amount of work the model puts in. Its all about the "value" of that particular persons image.

You can't call any subject replacible. It's just like love: if you lose one, you are right in thinking you'll never find another like her. Later you realize that doesn't matter because there are gazziliions of other loves with whom you can experience unique, irreplacible bonds.

 

[chroot]

zooby,

I'd argue that photo releases are like political systems -- all of them are imperfect, and all of them screw someone, somehow.

Like political systems, no single set of rules will work for a photographer or model in every circumstance. The world is full of photographers willing to do free work, and others who want varying or ridiculous amounts compensation -- and the same for models. As long as the model and photographer reach a civil agreement about the use of the images, and sign something that prevents them from reneging on their deal, then it's all kosher to me.

- Warren

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Zoob, I agree with you almost completely. I think we are just tackling this from different angles while I play devil's advocate.

I think we would both agree that no model necessarily deserves 50%. Personally I would be unlikely to ever agree to such a thing. Perhaps I am being romantic considering the possibility of a model that I would agree to almost anything for the chance to shoot. The possibility of an image so remarkable that simply being the photographer to have shot it is more valuable than any money it may make. A sort of Dorian Grey. I imagine that there are photographers who have stumbled upon models and opportunities like this. I would rate them only as extraordinary exceptions and otherwise agree with you.

 

[zoobyshoe]

zooby,

I'd argue that photo releases are like political systems -- all of them are imperfect, and all of them screw someone, somehow.

Like political systems, no single set of rules will work for a photographer or model in every circumstance. The world is full of photographers willing to do free work, and others who want varying or ridiculous amounts compensation -- and the same for models. As long as the model and photographer reach a civil agreement about the use of the images, and sign something that prevents them from reneging on their deal, then it's all kosher to me.

- Warren

Yeah, that's true, but as one site pointed out that merely presenting an amateur model with a release to sign suddenly puts them in alert mode they would never have considered. I have been working on writing a "soft" release, free of legalese and alarming concepts, for the regular kind of people I photograph and draw.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zoob, I agree with you almost completely. I think we are just tackling this from different angles while I play devil's advocate.

I think we would both agree that no model necessarily deserves 50%. Personally I would be unlikely to ever agree to such a thing. Perhaps I am being romantic considering the possibility of a model that I would agree to almost anything for the chance to shoot. The possibility of an image so remarkable that simply being the photographer to have shot it is more valuable than any money it may make. A sort of Dorian Grey. I imagine that there are photographers who have stumbled upon models and opportunities like this. I would rate them only as extraordinary exceptions and otherwise agree with you.

In the event I knew before hand an image would be that remarkable, I'd agree to 50% if that were the only way to secure the model, but there's no realistically predicting that kind of outcome.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yeah, that's true, but as one site pointed out that merely presenting an amateur model with a release to sign suddenly puts them in alert mode they would never have considered. I have been working on writing a "soft" release, free of legalese and alarming concepts, for the regular kind of people I photograph and draw.

Be careful with that to make sure that it is still legally binding.
You mentioned earlier giving a disk of the photographs and a dollar to a model and not sure that it was legally necessary to give the dollar. A contract requires that both parties receive something from the other for it to be legal. If a court decides that a model has a right to a copy of the photos regardless of any contract or payment then giving something else will be necessary to make the contract legally binding. Since a person technically/legally "owns" their own image a copy of the photos and the right to use those photos in any way they wish outside the rights given over in a legally binding contract may be considered automatic under copyright law.

I just looked up model release forms and they seem to work on the same principle as a contract by California law. So the model will still require a "consideration" (some form of compensation) for it to be legally binding.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Be careful with that to make sure that it is still legally binding.
You mentioned earlier giving a disk of the photographs and a dollar to a model and not sure that it was legally necessary to give the dollar. A contract requires that both parties receive something from the other for it to be legal. If a court decides that a model has a right to a copy of the photos regardless of any contract or payment then giving something else will be necessary to make the contract legally binding. Since a person technically/legally "owns" their own image a copy of the photos and the right to use those photos in any way they wish outside the rights given over in a legally binding contract may be considered automatic under copyright law.

I just looked up model release forms and they seem to work on the same principle as a contract by California law. So the model will still require a "consideration" (some form of compensation) for it to be legally binding.

People own the rights to their image, not copies of it. "Rights" covers the selling for profit part. That's what the release form grants to the photographer. I am pretty sure the person who told me about the dollar got it garbled up: the dollar makes it legal in the event you don't also give them a CD of the pics, I think. People pay photographers to shoot their picture, so a CD of pics constitutes something of value exchanged to fullfill that part.

Courts are, in fact, very spirit of the law oriented when sorting things out: they look at intent and are especially sensitive to any situation where someone has said or implied something in order to deceive the other. The "soft" release has to be clear and straightforward is all, and evidence that the parties actually came to an agreement.

(Also, the CD of photos is for "personal" use: the model can't sell rights to republish them without the photographer's permission. A photographer owns the rights to their work in matters of sale for profit. The model can use them for a portfolio, give copies away free, whatever, but not sell them or sell the rights to them.)