Bailey

Jeremy Winterberg · December 14, 2009

This is my friend Bailey. She was my forced model for today. I needed someone so I could train my assistant (my roommate) how to use my flash. We didn't do a whole lot of posing or anything, the main goal was teaching him terminology and how to work everything.

He is going to help me with my engagement shoot that is in aprox. 20 minutes. It has been a while since I've posted pictures, so here are some of my favorites from this practice session.

Enjoy!

1.

2.

3.

4. And of course we are all wearing chucks!

5.

6.

7.

8. And the lovely assistant: Justin

dogwood · December 14, 2009

They look exactly like you describe them-- test shots with people who didn't really want their photo taken.

Just curious, did they know you were going to post these shots on the web? Did you get their permission or just do it?

Jeremy Winterberg · December 14, 2009

dogwood wrote:

They look exactly like you describe them-- test shots with people who didn't really want their photo taken.

Just curious, did they know you were going to post these shots on the web? Did you get their permission or just do it?

The face that Justin is making is a face he always does, he's not upset that I took the picture, he thinks its hilarious.

Um, it doesn't really matter if I get their permission or not. They're my photos, and unless I'm using them for commercial purposes I can post them wherever I want. I'm not sure why you're asking this?

But, yes I told them I was going to post them online and they said it was fine. In fact they said "Awesome, we're on the internet." I'm sorry if you just have a legitimate question, but it sounds like you're trying to say I'm doing something legally/morally wrong here

... which I'm not.

Wil Davis · December 14, 2009

I'm not really into pseudo-colour, so I'm not even going there

1. She has great eyes… …so get her to look at the bloody camera!

2. Ah, that's better, but she still looks a bit uncomfortable… (could brighten up the eyes a bit with some fill-in or a reflector (handkerchief† or white shirt))

3. bin…

4. bin…

5. not her most flattering side…

6. ditto

7. better…

8. er, um, well…

…so, do we get to see how the ones taken 20 mins later turned out?

Thanks for sharing -

- Wil

† clean

Jeremy Winterberg · December 14, 2009

Wil Davis wrote:

…so, do we get to see how the ones taken 20 mins later turned out?

I had a blast during the engagement shoot, and so did the couple. I'm working on the pictures now, and will post them in the Weddings later tonight!

Thanks for your comments. I know most of them suck, I just thought they were cool pics of my friend. And for not having a portrait session in over 3 months, it was a good warm up for me.

l.k.madison · December 14, 2009

Um, unless you have their explicit permission, you are NOT legally allowed to post anything online. It doesn't matter who took it.

Saying "these are going on the web" is TOTALLY different from "do you mind if I put these on the web?" I, too, am trying to build a portfolio but I ALWAYS ask if shots can go up on the web, regardless of if the client paid for their photos or not (I once shot a kid dancing during a concert and the mom approached me asking for the pictures and I, in turn, asked her if he could go online, which she agreed to).

I had a shoot a few weekends ago with a darling little 2 1/2 year old, some of the best photos I've EVER taken, I asked mom for permission to put them online and she said I couldn't, I have them in a private gallery on my website but she'll never be part of the main page or any other page that one can find without knowing how (aside from the few teasers I posted on Facebook).

Unless part of your contract states that you will use pictures for advertising or part of your portfolio, you are not allowed to use any pictures of anyone that is "recognizable". If you can tell who is in the picture, it cannot be online without their consent. Same goes for taking the pictures as well, never do it without consent.

Jeremy Winterberg · December 15, 2009

l.k.madison wrote:

Um, unless you have their explicit permission, you are NOT legally allowed to post anything online. It doesn't matter who took it.

Saying "these are going on the web" is TOTALLY different from "do you mind if I put these on the web?" I, too, am trying to build a portfolio but I ALWAYS ask if shots can go up on the web, regardless of if the client paid for their photos or not (I once shot a kid dancing during a concert and the mom approached me asking for the pictures and I, in turn, asked her if he could go online, which she agreed to).

I had a shoot a few weekends ago with a darling little 2 1/2 year old, some of the best photos I've EVER taken, I asked mom for permission to put them online and she said I couldn't, I have them in a private gallery on my website but she'll never be part of the main page or any other page that one can find without knowing how (aside from the few teasers I posted on Facebook).

Unless part of your contract states that you will use pictures for advertising or part of your portfolio, you are not allowed to use any pictures of anyone that is "recognizable". If you can tell who is in the picture, it cannot be online without their consent. Same goes for taking the pictures as well, never do it without consent.

First off, when on public property pictures are fair game. Otherwise paparazzi would be screwed. These are also considered editorial use. I'm telling the story of me teaching my roommate how to use the flash, and I'm also giving an intro to my engagement shoot I did tonight. Editorial use does not require a model release.

When not using pictures to gain any profit at all you can use them however you wish to.

Secondly, these are not real model shots. There was no contract, there was no exchange of money, I called my friend five minutes beforehand and she agreed to help out. If anything she should be called a test subject.

You have every single right to include those pictures you took in your portfolio. However if the legal guardian of that minor says you cannot use them, you cannot use them. Completely different scenario, and I think you should catch up on your photographer's rights.

If we weren't allowed to post anything we shot without a model release, this entire website would be 100% text, no pictures. With the exception of the weddings and true professional model shoots.

I'm not going to talk about the legal aspects of posting pictures anymore, if anyone replies with that I hope moderators remove the posts, this is a waste of time, and completely off topic. For anyone that wishes to comment on my pictures, feel free to do so.

Joe Dukovac · December 15, 2009

This is a debate that goes on all too often. The fact that you took the picture is not enough to say that you can use them whenever or where ever you choose to. There are exceptions to the rules, and you need to make sure that you are not treading on one of those exceptions. You can follow the link below and read it for yourself (there are plenty of sites which can explain the rules, this one happens to cover a broader global view). The best thing is to find out about your local state and federal laws and adjust accordingly.

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm

First off, when on public property pictures are fair game. Otherwise paparazzi would be screwed.

Paparazzi are well within their legal rights to take pictures of celebraties. "However, in most countries, the right of privacy does not protect against disclosure of matters of legitimate public concern such as newsworthy events. This means that politicians, celebrities and other newsworthy persons may lose their right to privacy to the extent that their private facts are relevant to legitimate news."

As you can see, most people do not fall into this category. When you become a celebrity, you pretty much inherently lose your right to privacy. Do you think that Britney Spears would authorize someone to have a picture of herself in ragged pyjamas smoking looking all dishevelled on a porch published?

It is always a smart decision to ask permission of anyone of whom you intend to publish their photo online, preferably a signed release unless they are celebrities or newsworthy people (ie. the Prime Minister or President). People do have their rights to privacy just as much as we as photographers have a right to free expression be it through photographs or the written word. I for one have a file at home with all of my release waivers in them, and in the waiver it specifically says that I can use the photos for displaying in my portfolio whether in print or online, and I express this to my clients. If they refuse, then they don't get displayed. Simple.

Like the old saying goes "cover your butt"

Take Care,
Joe

dogwood · December 15, 2009

Jeremy Winterberg wrote:

Um, it doesn't really matter if I get their permission or not. They're my photos, and unless I'm using them for commercial purposes I can post them wherever I want. I'm not sure why you're asking this?

I was trying to be polite and hoping you could read between the lines.

So let me get right to the point.

I don't care at all about the legal aspect of whether or not you can post these. They're not flattering photos in my opinion and I'm surprised your subjects are excited you posted them on the web.

In general, you'll get more work and earn a better reputation and you'll be able to more easily find models if you get written permission to post photos of subjects AND you only post your very best work. Many people find photographers using google. If they're looking for one in your area and run across these pics and your resulting arguments that you have a legal right to post them, well, put yourself in their shoes. Would you want to work with a photographer like that?

dogwood · December 15, 2009

Jeremy Winterberg wrote:

If we weren't allowed to post anything we shot without a model release, this entire website would be 100% text, no pictures. With the exception of the weddings and true professional model shoots.

This is completely untrue. I get a signed model release from every single person I photograph and you should too. Maybe one out of twenty people don't want to sign the release, so I don't post or use their photos.

We're not trying to attack you here. Just letting you know how professional photographers work in the real world. If you want to get serious about photography, you really should get signed releases for every single person you photograph.

And this does have to do with your photos. When you get a signed release, you tend to be a little more careful about what you post because you don't want to tarnish your reputation. I don't know about you, but I feel an obligation as a photographer to only post photos I know my clients will like. This means test shots don't get posted. Ever.

But since you seem insistent that we stick to critiquing the photos, here you go.

1. I'm not sure why she's looking off camera. It looks like a random snap. And you've done nothing to help her have a stronger chin (a slight mouth opening would help)

2. Again, looks like a snap. There's no catch light in her eyes, and you have that weak chin again

3. It's out of focus and looks like an accidental snap as you were picking up the camera. I have no idea what the subject is or what the photo is about.

4. Looks like a snap with no thought of the composition. Why not move the shoes closer together to fill the frame? Your frame is mostly dead grass.

5. The pose is terrible (it's rarely flattering to have shoulders square to the camera) and you've got that weak chin again (easily fixed by getting her to open her mouth slightly and shoot from slightly higher than eye level) and there's just no connection with the camera. There's too much space on the top of the frame putting her eyes almost dead center.

6. Background is terribly distracting with that blue phone and the pose and angle are once again unflattering

7. She looks confused and her eyes look dead (a catchlight would help with this). Looks like you snapped this when she wasn't ready.

8. Distracting background, unflattering expression, and not quite sure at all what you're trying to do here. Again, looks like you snapped a photo when your subject wasn't expecting it.

Jeremy Winterberg · December 16, 2009

dogwood wrote:

This is completely untrue. I get a signed model release from every single person I photograph and you should too. Maybe one out of twenty people don't want to sign the release, so I don't post or use their photos.

We're not trying to attack you here. Just letting you know how professional photographers work in the real world. If you want to get serious about photography, you really should get signed releases for every single person you photograph.

And this does have to do with your photos. When you get a signed release, you tend to be a little more careful about what you post because you don't want to tarnish your reputation. I don't know about you, but I feel an obligation as a photographer to only post photos I know my clients will like. This means test shots don't get posted. Ever.

But since you seem insistent that we stick to critiquing the photos, here you go.

1. I'm not sure why she's looking off camera. It looks like a random snap. And you've done nothing to help her have a stronger chin (a slight mouth opening would help)

2. Again, looks like a snap. There's no catch light in her eyes, and you have that weak chin again

3. It's out of focus and looks like an accidental snap as you were picking up the camera. I have no idea what the subject is or what the photo is about.

4. Looks like a snap with no thought of the composition. Why not move the shoes closer together to fill the frame? Your frame is mostly dead grass.

5. The pose is terrible (it's rarely flattering to have shoulders square to the camera) and you've got that weak chin again (easily fixed by getting her to open her mouth slightly and shoot from slightly higher than eye level) and there's just no connection with the camera. There's too much space on the top of the frame putting her eyes almost dead center.

6. Background is terribly distracting with that blue phone and the pose and angle are once again unflattering

7. She looks confused and her eyes look dead (a catchlight would help with this). Looks like you snapped this when she wasn't ready.

8. Distracting background, unflattering expression, and not quite sure at all what you're trying to do here. Again, looks like you snapped a photo when your subject wasn't expecting it.

Thank you for your critique. I will apply the suggestions in my photography from now on.

The one thing I have to say about you always getting releases. You're a professional fashion photographer. A good one at that, I love your work. And because you do it all the time, it comes second nature for you to get one signed because you legally need one for professional models.

I have been working on a model release, however I have not had to use it yet so I have not finished it. In my wedding contract it states I can use their images for essentially whatever I want, other than commercial use. I figured I did not need a model release for a hang out session with two of my best friends.

because I don't plan on using it for anything.

Regardless, I can be a PITA sometimes when people say I'm doing something wrong, when up till this point I thought I was correct.

I watched a video series on Kelby Training about model releases. One of the guys is a lawyer from NY that specializes in photographers rights and similar cases. He said you should always have a signed model release, if you're ever going to use the picture commercially. They never said you needed one for portfolio content or just to post on a forum.

I am sorry for my attitude if it seemed like I snapped at you, I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I agree with only posting you best. I guess I just suck so much my best looks like crap.

Bailey

Comments