Being nude isn't what it use to be

I didn’t ask for this. I didn’t wake up and decide I wanted to do this. Nor did I sit quietly as a child and gaze dreamily into nothingness fantasizing about life as a glamour photographer. I’m still not a glamour photographer by trade. However, I’ve always said that you have to give the people what they want and right now that’s glamour. But what has me mystified as of late are varying definitions of what constitutes “nudity.” While it might be argued that society has reveled in a flagrant glorification of sexuality as of late, it still perplexes me how something so obvious can be so ambiguous. 

As more and more clients, models and just curiosity seekers began pursuing my photographic services, there has been increase in the amount of people wanting glamour and boudoir photography sessions. Don’t get me wrong, I find nothing more glorious than a well defined human body or any body for that matter. the human form is a work of art. Yet, I can’t help thinking that art is taking a back seat to an over glorification of sex and sexuality in general. Most of what we see isn’t even art. It’s just plain and simple flagrant sexualization for no reason at all. There is a vast difference in people that shoot glamour well vs those that just shoot naked and scantily clad people. It’s a matter of taste and style. I’ve found my style and place within the genre. I steer clear of those shoots that don’t reflect my level of taste and style.

But all of the aforementioned things belong in a posts all their own. What really has me baffled are the different definitions of nude I run in to. Of course everyone is familiar with “implied” nudity. These are cases where no unmentionables are visible; unmentionables like genitalia or breasts. Yet, there are other situations where full breasts are visible but a model or client says it’s implied because it covers genitalia. Then there are situations where a model is totally nude but her back is to the viewer. This is often considered implied because no breasts or genitalia are visible even though it is “implied” the subject is totally naked despite how obvious it may be. It's just a matter of visibility. Or is it? My mother or father wouldn’t say that was implied. They would be offended as would I had I not been learned in the nuances of art and what the industry has become.

How you define "nude" as a glamour or boudoir photographer or a client seeking these services will determine your publishing rights and your ability to comfortably interact with agencies, licensing stock companies, model releases and ultimately working with your subject or photographer. I recently had a model who sought out my services for her own reasons (who knows what they were). I agreed to shoot lingerie and other articles with an understanding that my pursuits were more fashion oriented. In other words... clothed with a magazine ad vibe and stye. Why? Because no matter how beautiful she is, I prefer images for myself that has a marketable commercial appeal for sake of attracting a broader client base. Being a pro glamour model, it wasn’t long before she resorted to old habits. I didn’t mind. I’m a professional after all. I’m shooting tasteful boudoir and glamour shots all session long. Besides we pre-agreed that a few shots of such a nature were fine as long as it didn’t go too far as determined by her own level of comfort and my creative style.

Aside from some obvious ego eccentricities she manifested, the results were okay and along the lines of what I expected from her. She was stunning but somewhere along the line a person’s personality colors how you view them. Whether that is good or bad has yet to be determined. I’m still confused over this shoot. I can’t even determine if it was productive or not.

When the time approached for us to both go over the model release, she wanted a special notation that she didn't want any nude images published. I immediately said, “why did you shoot nude if I can’t publish you?” What good do these images really do me? That is the point of this session. I mean, I didn’t even care to see you naked...ever.  Nothing trumps my necessity to publish and advertise short of monetary compensation for the session. Furthermore, I didn’t ask her for anything nude. She volunteered herself for it. She asked if I thought it was okay to pull certain articles off. I said, only if she felt comfortable. They were of her own choosing. She asked me after all. Maybe she was in the moment and didn’t care until the end. Then I knew how ambiguous the term “nude” had become so I asked, “what do you consider nude?” She replied, “I don’t want my breasts to show.” I asked, “why did you show them then?” I reminded her that other images of her that I’d seen taken by other photographers were nude. She said that she didn’t shoot nude with just any ole’ photographer and that there were only a few nude pictures of her in her portfolio. I’m thinking that ‘you just did a nude photo shoot; at least in part. I was here... remember.’ But in her model profile she wrote that she would shoot nude if it’s for a big magazine like Playboy or something. So, I think Oh... this is a vanity thing not a matter of personal decency or comfort level or anything like that. 

I got complimented and condescended to in one sentence. Wow! She is good with the word play. Either that or she’s super dumb. I don’t know. To paraphrase, “I’ll be naked and published for Playboy but you’re nothing and yet I choose to be naked with you. But you can’t show anybody cause I don’t want anyone to know I was this way for a mundane but equally qualified professional photographer.” What????!!!!! Is this a just 'keep this between us' moment cause if so, it was not as good for me as her ego told her it was. Let me re-iterate. She is probably considered by most to be beautiful. It just wasn’t enough to offset her unusual level of vanity and inflated ego. 

But this post isn’t really about beauty. It’s about what is nude and defining it clearly for yourself and your prospective subjects. It went back and forth to the point of my frustration and it came down to nipple coverage. So, I’m thinking what in the hell just happened? I mean, really? So she’s wearing nothing but her skin in front of a stranger and went thru every possible glamour pose of her own choosing and she’s worried about... nipples? Really? Are you using that pen you're signing the release with to sign over a fat check for what started out as a barter session?

Maybe I’m just too socially conservative to handle this kind of back and forth. Nude is nude. I know my grandmother would say that a panty/bra set is butt naked and burn her own eyeballs out if she saw a Victoria’s Secret ad on television. But times are changing and what we call “implied” will eventually become full nude and the current nude may become adult photography. Just like fashion photography is now borderline avant garde and regular portraits are more like fashion photography. Unless you’re the CEO of a financial institution, a basic portrait just won’t cut it. If you don’t agree then you’re not doing it right. 

I’m still perplexed and mystified over this particular photo shoot. I’m not quite sure what to make of it. This is all the more reason that I’ve limited my barter work. There are almost always issues. 

What do you call nude?

What is a Professional Photographer and Why are They Starving?

A few weeks ago I attended a workshop where someone brought up the question, what does it mean to be a “professional photographer?” Even amid a large diverse group of photographers opinions varied greatly from someone who has ever received payment from providing photographic services to someone who earns all of their income from providing photographic services. The exponential increase in the availability and affordability of DSLRs and other photographic equipment has everyone believing themselves to be a photographer. But the definition of what constitutes a “professional” and the relevancy of that definition may be more abstract than you think. 

The greatest oversight in this debate is that the opinions presented overlook the qualitative aspects of the art of photography and focuses more on the quantitative. Even respected photography associations at one time had defined it as income based, saying that more than half of your income must come from photography. It doesn’t mean you’re any good or not. Even now these associations cloud the debate even more by offering you a “Certified Professional Photography” status with a fee of course. While their attempt to un-cloud the issue might be arguably a measure toward clearing the ambiguity, all it does is make people now ask “Oh, you’re a professional photographer but are you certified?” What does that mean and who makes that decision when everyone is still ignoring the qualitative aspects of what we do? So now that you’ve paid a fee and cleared a couple of basic test and visual inspections by some unknown person or group you’re certified now?

Relative to industry norms, are you consistently taking high quality imagery and being recognized either monetarily or even visibly credited with  your work? Shouldn’t that be enough? Years ago, a prospective client learned that I was a photographer. They eventually approached me and inquired about types of photography I’d done. Then they asked, “but are you a professional photographer?” So even then and there, without ever seeing a single thing I’d done, without ever even looking at a single picture of mine they were blinded by phraseology and meaningless semantics. But they were uninformed, and like most people they were caught up in the glorification of status. Now I suppose they’re asking people if they’re certified professional photographers.

By some definitions, I’ve been a professional photographer for years; as a sole proprietor as well as during employ as a product photographer and graphic designer for an employer. But the onslaught of wannabes makes making informed decisions as a consumer looking for photographic services difficult; or that is what you’re telling yourself. Photographic services might be the easiest thing you will ever choose. Like most creative professions, the work is the resume. You can’t hide behind finances, numbers, or shady tax returns to hide how good you are or aren’t. The proof is in the pictures. Additionally, you should be treating it like any other service you seek; you look at the most current work, you determine if they are licensed, if applicable you determine if they are insured, you call a reference or two if you need to, you settle on a price and terms and you make a commitment. 

If having earned money on photography, having a license, paying for permits, hiring assistants whenever needed, designing sets, writing and modifying licensing use fees and contracts, maintaining equipment, editing and processing files, managing email marketing campaigns and some, all makes me a professional then of course I am and have been for as long as I remember. But I implore you not to get too caught up in the words. I have a fantastic product and/or service to offer. It’s readily available and you get to see past work at any and all times. I’m legally entitled to sell it. I’m damn good at it. I have a great list of references. I’m affordable and you need me. Shouldn’t that be enough? Most other professions can’t even make that claim so why are we getting so caught up in phraseology?

The reason for all the smoke and mirror games is because of the abundance of service providers. Unfortunately, most of them are new and shady and not likely to make it past tomorrow; and consumers are only marginally aware of the conundrum in the industry. The more seasoned professionals have been searching for more and more ways to separate themselves from the lesser experienced masses. Prices have dipped and most seasoned photographers have closed up shop because every Joe is an alleged photographer now because he has a camera. An over abundance of suppliers make prices drop and a once elitist field dominated by only a few is up for grabs by anyone with enough talent and staying power to last thru this over supply. 

Photographers with decades of experience have a tough time sustaining their businesses because every kid with a camera is undervaluing the service due to an ignorance of not understanding the work and expense involved; a mistake realized all too late to counter. Yet, they wonder why they have thousands of dollars of equipment and still can’t make it as a photographer. Even the so-called pros are now teaching photography and lighting workshops under the guise of helping others. Why? because photography alone doesn’t pay anymore; not without a hook or a niche. You have to be damn good and have a totally underserved market to make it. Those guys that are making six digits or more a year taking pictures aren’t doing it by taking pictures alone. NO! They’re selling DVDs and doing workshops in multiple cities. Heck, I'm organizing a workshop or two myself. But I’m not gonna say it’s only because I want to share my knowledge; that too. It’s because there are thousands of people out there who could use what I know and there is money to be had by my doing it. Like anything else, it’s a business opportunity that happens to involve something I love doing. 

Aside from the qualitative ignorance and degradation the industry has suffered in recent years, there is the persistent notion that anyone can do it. While improvements in technology has made taking a picture without thinking easier, it has done little to improve overall quality. There is still a matter of composition, color, symbology, line and form, light and shadow; only a true photographer can adapt to changing environments and produce great results consistently throughout different and often unexpected scenarios. I can teach you how to use a camera but that will never make you an artist if you don’t have it in you.

Anyone who has done this for awhile will also tell you being a photographer is about 20% photography and 80% business. You will spend more time marketing, selling, processing, editing, permitting, copyrighting, registering, insuring, scheduling, paying taxes, renewing business licenses and permits, casting and booking than you will actually photographing. If you disagree then you’re clearly not a photographer, professional, certified or otherwise. You’re just a Joe with a camera. You’re a poser (pun intended).

I encourage you to get informed about photography as a consumer and a potentially practicing photographer. You will at some point in your life have your picture taken or take someone else’s picture for fun or business. But more to the point, this is a free enterprise system we live in. Photography is more transparent than most industries. Keep putting out your best work, find someone who will pay you for it and stop being so caught up in the status and the symbolism of title. Let your work speak to your competence.