Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Just shot pretty ladies in slow-mo for a one-shot model agency commercial =)

Matt Ryan said:
wow, pretty harsh words. You have no idea of the client, the requirements, the budget, etc. I've seen plenty of big budget, mainstream modeling commercials that looked like shit. What makes you an expert?
Click to expand...


Ive seen worse Motley Crue videos ;)

Good job love the one take style.
 
Last edited:
had to watch it again and have to say very well done with the one shot moves.

now the question, how many takes, how many practices with AC, lenses, steadicam, etc...

ignore the soapbox crap, just be proud your working.

we are not all blessed with work from the Gap and Abercrombie & Fitch :P
 
Timothy Eaton said:
Now there's a high standard. How could I have forgotten? :-)
Click to expand...


well Im old and have seen enough videos and some make me cringe.

this one doesnt.

I can look at it from a cultural perspective.

whats the difference between this project and some Vogue flash a nipple piece?

maybe bigger budget means classier women?

uggh now I got sucked into it :P
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
....if these are supposed to be fashion models it's, I must say, not exactly elegant or the right tone for that market, where the clients tend to women and homosexuals, very sophisticated and genteel, not "Red Blooded all American Males"....
Click to expand...

For sure this is not the fashion industry of Gucci..Klein..Ralph Lauren...or Michael Kors.
But there is another sort of Alternative..Suicide Girls..Biker Babes..Playboy Pin-Up...fashion market and that
is what that video is. Now how big and how money that market is another story but it certainly exists.

Eric Santiago said:
...Ive seen worse Motley Crue videos ;)....
Click to expand...

Girls..Girls..Girls....infamous video basically designed to be banned for publicity.
But MTV aired it...after which MTV announced some "new" standards.
Actually these girls move with assurance and confidence of professional performers so it's
totally different feel than the fashion video where they are all just mostly standing and posing.
Bad sound and image quality from the VHS copy....but guess it fits this was like 1987 afterall.

 
Leo Burton said:
I'm curious, is it expensive to feed your High Horse? Or can it survive on Humble Pie?
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know, Leo, whether it is the content of what Rob said, or simply the fact that he said it, that bothers you. You, and many others on this thread so far, didn't really respond to the substance of his posts, you just sought to demean Rob. I'm not singling you out, just jumping in at this point.

Rob started by offering a complement, followed by questioning whether the video was aimed at the right market, whether this kind of fare is demeaning to women, and finally a criticism of styling and makeup. These all seem worthy of discussion to me.

Why the vitriol from responders? I would be very interested to know what it is about the video or Rob's observations that trigger going after him instead of what he said.
 
Timothy Eaton said:
I'm curious to know, Leo, whether it is the content of what Rob said, or simply the fact that he said it, that bothers you. You, and many others on this thread so far, didn't really respond to the substance of his posts, you just sought to demean Rob. I'm not singling you out, just jumping in at this point.

Rob started by offering a complement, followed by questioning whether the video was aimed at the right market, whether this kind of fare is demeaning to women, and finally a criticism of styling and makeup. These all seem worthy of discussion to me.

Why the vitriol from responders? I would be very interested to know what it is about the video or Rob's observations that trigger going after him instead of what he said.
Click to expand...


Hi Tim, I'm all for constructive criticism, if its 'maybe next time try lighting it this way, or keep an eye on focusing in this situation etc..'

People work in different circles and industries, not everyone gets to work with Christian Dior or Gucci.

But to spout unconstructive personal views like that, using words like 'repugnant' is just rude in my opinion.
 
Leo Burton said:
Hi Tim, I'm all for constructive criticism, if its 'maybe next time try lighting it this way, or keep an eye on focusing in this situation etc..'

People work in different circles and industries, not everyone gets to work with Christian Dior or Gucci.

But to spout unconstructive personal views like that, using words like 'repugnant' is just rude in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think I get what you're saying, except that virtually all of the views expressed in this thread are by definition, personal - they come from a person, not a group. If Rob's view is that women in videos like these are being exploited, and he finds it repugnant, why is that personal view rude or out of bounds, as opposed to any other personal view expressed here? If there is a chance that the women in these videos are being exploited, isn't that worthy of discussion, in the same way that your "personal" critique of Rob is worthy of discussion?
 
Leo Burton said:
...People work in different circles and industries, not everyone gets to work with Christian Dior or Gucci...
Click to expand...

I bet if any of the above came out with the same style piece (which I have actually seen, just don't have proof to back it up) no one would comment negatively.

It seems that adding a high brow name tag on a piece absolves it from crucifixion :P
 
Last edited:
Timothy Eaton said:
I think I get what you're saying, except that virtually all of the views expressed in this thread are by definition, personal - they come from a person, not a group. If Rob's view is that women in videos like these are being exploited, and he finds it repugnant, why is that personal view rude or out of bounds, as opposed to any other personal view expressed here? If there is a chance that the women in these videos are being exploited, isn't that worthy of discussion, in the same way that your "personal" critique of Rob is worthy of discussion?
Click to expand...

I see both sides of everyone's argument, however once we start talking about "taste" and "appropriateness" it's always going to get muddy - opinions vary on these matters so much, it's almost impossible to find consensus. It's like asking people if they found a work "funny": it's so subjective it's hard to find an empirical answer.

In terms of the "exploitation", that's a complicated question too. If the women felt their personal boundaries/morals weren't crossed, and they were well compensated for their time, they THEMSELVES may not feel exploited. Again, they may have a different concept on what is acceptable or not, and that is understandable as well.

In terms of whether its ok to get "personal" or not, this forum is primarily a technical one, so personal critiques of each others work is not as common, but certainly happen frequently enough they are part of the dialogue. Like with anything, its probably safer to comment as thoughtfully and respectfully as possible, so that a professional and technical tone pervades.
 
Nick Morrison said:
I see both sides of everyone's argument, however once we start talking about "taste" and "appropriateness" it's always going to get muddy - opinions vary on these matters so much, it's almost impossible to find consensus. It's like asking people if they found a work "funny": it's so subjective it's hard to find an empirical answer.

In terms of the "exploitation", that's a complicated question too. If the women felt their personal boundaries/morals weren't crossed, and they were well compensated for their time, they THEMSELVES may not feel exploited. Again, they may have a different concept on what is acceptable or not, and that is understandable as well.

In terms of whether its ok to get "personal" or not, this forum is primarily a technical one, so personal critiques of each others work is not as common, but certainly happen frequently enough they are part of the dialogue. Like with anything, its probably safer to comment as thoughtfully and respectfully as possible, so that a professional and technical tone pervades.
Click to expand...

Good post Nick, but it's worth noting that positive personal critiques and opinions about taste with respect to the video seem to be fine so far on this thead. However, those critiques that are negative have often been ridiculed by demeaning the poster instead of responding to his critique. Big difference. Also, empirical answers aren't the only ones worth looking for.

I hope our only standards for whether people are being exploited are not just whether they have been paid and / or whether the subjects feel they have been exploited. Exploitative systems and institutions often function precisely because they convince the exploited that compensation is adequate recompense for degrading or abusing them, thereby persuading the victims that the diminishment of their persons is somehow warranted.

There are plenty of personal critiques and opinions in this thread, but the posters haven't been ridiculed like Rob. An important difference I think.

Sandro Klopfstein said:
aw, you lucky bastard ;) nice job![/QUOTE

Joel J. Feigenbaum said:
Tough job but someone has to do it. I bet it broke your heart that you had to go again and again and again...
Click to expand...

Chris Gurtlinger said:
Well seeing this just made my day;-) awesome job on it! I would take 15 takes of that anyday! :-D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
There is an army of pretty girls prowling Beverly Hills looking to be exploited as we read this thread. For a price. Right or wrong this is the reality.
and some of them make cover of people magazine, TMZ and such....a popularity contest facebook style.
Money rules the 95% - the "have nots" Now more than ever with the social media popularity at their finger tips.
This piece looks great and it's a slam dunk for the pop culture. I'm not saying it's right- just stating the facts...
I know Rob, he's a hipster that will never accept that. Kudos to him...
 
Whoa it got out of control while I wasnt here!
First, thanks for all the feedback =)
Second, it's not even an agency yet, it's like a startup, with not-so-typical models, so yeah, its not exactly high class fashion stuff. It's more like for music videos, punk-style, idk.
Third, the agency wanted it to look a bit more like porn, which could be fun to do and to watch, but its a little too much for me, while this video had some room for creativity, and I'm pretty happy with how it came out =)
 
Nice job, but have to agree with Robert that if it's intended for a "fashion model agency" it doesn't work. This is more "glamour models" style. I figured considering where it's from, it's for "glamour" - but I think that Robert's intention were good - trying to say that if it's truly intended for fashion it's barking up the wrong tree.
 
While I'm inclined to agree with Rob's perspective, as that is how it *should* be... The reality of it is that it's all about what the client wants at the end of the day. Personally, aside from a few pacing and consistency issues, and a bit of rough post stabilizing, I thought it looked great. If I were running an agency with these girls, I wouldn't mind having a piece like this in the portfolio. And it's no less classy or more campy and exploitative than several other ads or campaigns from the larger fashion labels. But somehow I think we're supposed to believe that it's suddenly high class or better once a big label sticks their name on it or spends a fortune to make it look just a bit better in some way. The Agent Provacateur "strip-tease" ads of late spring to mind... Or a few iterations of Guess campaigns over the years. Seriously, this was pretty tame and plays right into visuals that many of these girls are often hired to portray. Like I said, this could be a desirable, even valuable portfolio addition here, but playing off of Rob's assessment, I don't think I would want it to be my front-running portfolio video or the only ad for the agency if I were doing it.

I do think this shoot could have benefited from some increased "production value". The staging was great, but I think an identifiable location of sorts could have really helped here. Nothing specific as in famously identifiable, but something like an evolving location that accommodated each interaction. I could explain it better, but it would be pretty lengthy. The girls in the mud -- I would have put them in bikinis and gave them real mud to play in. What was that stuff? Chocolate milk? And the boxing choreography made me cringe. I thought the pacing was a bit inconsistent and so were some of the focus pulls. The one that stood out at me most was the camera pausing on the "nurse". And that's difficult for me to admit because I'm a red blooded American male who appreciates all the imagery here, especially a bombshell in a skimpy nurses outfit on her hands and knees... ;)

All in all, I think it's a great effort and probably was fun as hell to shoot. I think it looked great overall with pleasant skin tones and good color. The little things I pointed out above are things that most people are not going to notice or care about... Well, maybe that mud thing. Oh, and I would've given the girl at the end a normal sized baseball bat. -- An obviously used one with perhaps some questionable blood staining. haha. Maybe there's a reason I don't get hired to shoot this sort of stuff...
 
man it would be an honor to have my work critiqued and abused by you guys ;)

I learn a lot just reading the opinions here.
 
i am a sucker for well done one shot....and have to say that this one is...and for what it is, it is obviously perfect..
this is in no way fashion, maybe not even glamor....and it does not surprise me that the client asked for something a little "harder"...
as for people taking about fashion and how this is similar to a nipple in vogue....first of all american ads don't ever show nipple....and neither does vogue...this is corporate america after all...
the difference between this agency (the girls from this agency) and a fashion agency is that the consumer of the content these girls provide are men....fashion models work for clients that sell to women.....simple but big difference.....the guess ads or fashion spreads are made for women/girls who can see themselves in these outfits or situations (which is why so many ads have models draped with half naked male models who NEVER look in the camera).....these girls obviously are for situations that men want to see themselves in (with these girls)....
IF you like that kind of thing (strip clubs, porn,....)
but i agree that technically, i think it is great....i would love to take it a step further, make the outfits classier (a lot), light it a bit cleaner, make it almost like a satire....but i am sure budget was an issue and some of the girls shown are a little rough....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top