Amelia...

I know you like to capture people just as they freaky are...and from several posts, I've gotten the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you resent when people are 'made up' to look like something they're not, or if their way of dress is a product of someone telling them how to look (I'm referring to the thread discussing Evanescence's look was because someone besides the band was responsible for their look)

Here's a facet of the same topic, in another 'dark' light...

Michelle grew up in a small town, she loved dark music, and craved the look and expression goths are known for. She desperately wanted to express herself that way... but no one around her could give her inspiration and knowledge she could learn from. Because we know that the razor sharp eyebrows that are drawn and painted on takes inspiration, skill and the knowledge of the types of make up and hair products she cant find at walmart to complete such looks she longs for....
In a sub culture that she desires to be a part of, she could learn from others what kinds of enhancements look good on various facial structures...
Eventually her look.... or variety of looks would evolve....

On the outside, she looks vanilla, but inside, she's something she's never gotten the chance to discover.

If you could find one of these desperate girls

Would you relish the opportunity to aid in self discovery, and be able to have a blank slate to start with, and photo as the final SYMBIOTIC product?

I've been curious about this for quite some time.

I think people have important qualities besides what they look like. There is too much importance placed on looks and photography.

I agree...
What if this person is someone beautiful on the inside and outside...

Would the prospect of having a blank slate to work with .... using your enhancements and artistic knowledge to bring what was inside, out... and what fun would it be to capture it.

Does this make more direct sense than my first message.
I have a hard time conveying my messages sometimes... so I appreciate you, and your patience. Thanks you for being generous enough to answer in the first place.

Just to join in, i must admit im pretty easy goin in all things and pretty much say and do as i will, several friends of mine have changed since meeting me, some on the inside, others more outwardly, most both lol.
I encourged them to do what they felt was right, not what others said looked good, or even what i said was good, perfect example of this is tat's, best ones mean something to u, if u get them just coz everyone else is or someone says it looks good, its utimately meaningless.
I continue to encourage all i meet to live a little and walk on the wild side, with mixed results, one of my friends said im like the Dr pepper ads, i always say give it a go...whats the worse that could happen? lol

What would be the reason to photograph someone like that? Why wouldn't they express themselves a different way? Why couldn't one value their beautiful qualities which were not physically manifested?

OK - I can see your argument, but I think these days it would only hold water if the reasons were restrictive rather than opportunistic. It's possible to research things in depth no matter where you happen to live (online, offline, etc.) and advice, of varying levels of value, is available from places such as... here. If someone wanted to adopt a style then in terms of information, they can. Limiting factors such as finance, the need to comply with rules at work or from the family will often restrict someone's ability to be visually alternative, but that's a different issue - someone may well know exactly what they'd want to look like if they were allowed to, and not be allowed. Someone who thinks "I want to be goth" but cannot tie down what that means, probably doesn't understand the questions in their own head.

Amelia - not being one to avoid poking a tiger with a stick, I'll ask why your photography isn't doing what OK is asking about. A photoshoot by definition is a staged concept, created by more than one mind. Your model may well already have the pink hair and tats, but without your creative intervention they'd probably never photograph themselves standing on Alcatraz beach with a 30ft fluffy dildo. The grading changes their skin tones in ways, albeit subtle, that don't physically exist. So if the proposal stands and "shaping" someone's raw style is a bad thing, at what point does a photoshoot change from 'enhancing' their inherent substance to 'extending' it with ideas not their own?

Personally, I see identity, both internal and external, as a flux. You change your views on a daily basis each time you encounter something new, and so it's impossible not to be influenced. If someone sees a photo, takes an idea from it and copies it, that's not impositional but aggregatory. The person may not have thought about it before seeing the photo, but it doesn't make adopting it any less 'their idea'.

The thread OK referenced is a little close to home to comment on directly, but I will say that in the music industry we have to change the images of artists. In some cases it becomes entirely fake (I could mention another singer with the same initials, but I'm of course not that bitchy) but the thing people have to remember is that being 'an act' is precisely what it sounds like. It's a job. Someone who wears a McD hat every day doesn't become a slave to their corporate fashion on the weekends, but they wear it because it gets them paid. Appealing to the target demographic of your music is the only way you're going to sell stuff, and if that means wearing something different then I have no problem with it. I used to put on a uniform and go 'to work'. The fact it wasn't a suit or a burger joint coverall isn't the issue.

OK, so people say "but Miss X or Mr Y is pretending that the fashion was their idea, so they're lying to everyone". Sure. Big deal. How far would you get if you hung your head out of the drive-thru window and whispered "Look dude.. I think Burger king's fashion is crap and I'd really prefer to be wearing pink latex... but enjoy your meal."? The media are always fighting for a chance to print a picture of celebrity X or singer Y wearing something 'bad', and we have to play the system in order to be good at our jobs.

These days Gene is probably seen more often as the guy padding about in the background of Shannon's kitchen on Cribs, but a few of us, mentioning no names, will remember the shock when Kiss dropped their makeup. It wasn't their style to begin with, and Kiss ex-Liechner were actually the real people, but it still caused a worldwide panic amongst the fans and label execs. I remember someone saying "Who's gonna pay to see a bunch of ugly guys with perms? They want clowns." In a sense that's true for all of us - we're clowns, made up to entertain others. It's not wrong for that to be different from the person inside.

Actually, Mindgames, I'm kind of not into staged photography. My photographic goal was always to present something real sort of through the eyes of love. Basically to present someone with the vision someone in love with them would have. My goal is not to create something which does not exist.

What I don't understand is why someone having internal beauty would in any way indicate that they should model. I get hundreds of model submissions like this.

If someone has something to recommend them beyond what they look like, then shouldn't they do something besides get in front of the camera?

I mean, I might take a photograph of a poet solely because I respect their art, having nothing to do with what they look like, but they'd have to, ya know, make the art first. I should really write something comprehensive on this because it is really a peeve of mine.

It's all in the EYES

I appreciate what you're saying, but there's always going to be some of 'you' in the photos, as putting it bluntly if there wasn't, BB would be full of the same tilt-ass me-in-the-mirror shots we see on Photobucket. What I'm saying is, is there an imposition (in terms of OK's original premise) if for example you take a model and put them in another model's dress because it works for the image? It's fake in the sense she doesn't actually own the thing, so is only wearing it because of circumstance - but if she likes it, is it still 'her style' you're depicting? At what point does it stop being reportage and start being creative?

Luckily it's all academic for me, as I have a perfect face for radio.

Thank you to everyone Esp Amelia... I was just curious about a few things, and needed clarity of perspective.

I hope I havent ruffled any feathers with this thread. Feel free to let me know if I have.

My whole deal was helping someone pull from the inside and make it match. When you have a brain tumor, you go to the ones who are best in their field.
By going to the best in the capturing the sub culture, the person is going to the best, and wants it captured.

I want to stress that the art is actually within ...in the first place...
so it wouldnt be faking anything.