Even Some of the Most Prominent Male Photographers Still Don't Know How to Treat Women

Even Some of the Most Prominent Male Photographers Still Don't Know How to Treat Women

It's 2021. Why are seasoned male photographers still treating female models like sex objects under the guise of education?

This all started when someone brought up a product page for a nude photography course with a focus on fetishes and BDSM. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but obviously, given the subject matter, a high degree of professionalism and respect should be established and followed by the photographer in regards to their interaction with the model, especially considering this is an educational course that will set the tone for other aspiring photographers. 

And so, it was especially bothersome when I saw that product page, and it was enough to make me physically cringe. I clicked around to other tutorials on the site and was even more disgusted. Here's a sampling of the headlines for some of the products, always shown in large, bold fonts on the respective pages:

  • "[Model name redacted] as you've never seen her!"
  • "Small Hotel Photoshoot Uncensored 18+"

  • "[Model name] is back!"

It was not until well down some of these pages that it was even clear who was actually teaching this course.

Pretend I haven't told you this was a photography tutorial site. If you just read that list of headlines, where would you think they came from? They sound like pornographic advertisements to me. Have you ever seen a photographic education course lead its sales pitch by naming the model? What a strange way to convince customers that your photographic and teaching skills are strong enough that they should buy your tutorial — unless that is not what you're trying to convince them of.

Clicking on the preview shows a video that opens with the sound of a heartbeat while a model's corset is laced and she draws her hand over fishnet tights. The same heartbeat sound effect returns throughout the video whenever nudity is shown, interrupted by talking head segments often preaching about professionalism. We only see evidence that this is an educational photoshoot during the multiple nudity segments for a few brief seconds; the rest of the time, the camera mostly pans over the model's body while that same heartbeat drones on. The two sides of the preview feel weirdly contradictory, with the way the nude segments are shot and edited making the appeals to professionalism feel disingenuous, as if to provide plausible deniability of the fact that the video is leading with sex, not photographic education.

The thing is, the photographer here is not some unknown who just picked up a camera. This is someone with follower/subscriber counts in the hundreds of thousands, with many years of experience. This is someone to whom people look to not just for education, but for how to behave around a model. 

And to be clear, I am not accusing this photographer of being a predator or of doing anything improper while on set. However, the simple fact is that there are other people out there who are predators, and some of them carry cameras. And when we normalize this kind of treatment and representation of women, we enable those predators by creating an environment where warning signs of their behavior are less likely to be seen as crossing a boundary.

And then there are those who are not outright predators, but who are new to the trade and who look to those who are more experienced for guidance on how to behave. They know that a nude model is in a highly vulnerable position and that there are certainly boundaries that must be respected, but maybe they are unsure of what exactly those boundaries are. Can you ever touch the model just to fix their hair? Can you use words like "sexy"? 

Vulnerability and trust extend beyond the set.

Vulnerability does not end when the shoot does, though; in fact, it is only just beginning. Because now, the photographer takes those images and presents them to an audience. And some take it one step further, becoming educators who teach others how to take similar images. And all the time, the way they show the model, the way they talk about the process, and the way they advertise their education all demand further respect of the model's vulnerability in both process and representation.

When an advertisement for education leads with a message that appeals to sexual thought instead of photographic creation, it attracts both the wrong kind of person and gives people the wrong motivation to study the genre. Because no one should ever be in a room with a nude model and a camera because of sexual desire under the pretenses of artistic photography.

There is true fine art nude photography out there, and it has its rightful place in the photography world and deserves as much respect as any other genre. This is not it, though. And yet, this is not something overtly inappropriate. It's more insidious, and in a sense, more dangerous. Because when something is overtly inappropriate, most of us will recognize that and reject it as an example of what's acceptable. Sure, there will always be predators, but this is about a different group of people.

But when something is subtler, more insidious, people are less likely to outright reject it, particularly if they are untrained and perhaps unsure of exactly what is acceptable — even if they have good intentions. And so, if people in positions of power continue to normalize behavior that is just a bit over the line or that cloaks inappropriateness in a veil of plausible deniability, up-and-comers will see that behavior and assume it is acceptable, and eventually, it is accepted by broader society. And then the boundary gets pushed just a little further, and the cycle repeats. 

What saddens me is that I keep hearing the same refrain over and over: "it's [year]! Why is this still happening?" Only the year keeps changing: 

"It's 2008! Why is this still happening?"

"It's 2016! Why is this still happening?" 

"It's 2021! Why is this still happening?"

There are many reasons it keeps happening, unfortunately. But if those in high positions lead by example, perhaps it (and I leave the pronoun ambiguous to encompass all its ambiguity captures) will happen a bit less. 

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments
129 Comments
Previous comments

No, the article is written from a point of view that using soft porn to sell products is 1) manipulative, 2) a lazy appeal to base instincts, and 3) degrading to all women. Whether the model is being abused is an entirely separate matter.

Spot on. That’s the distinction here.

I call BS.

If that's your position, you didn't need to go outside of FStoppers for source material. You host more NSFW content than Playboy.

What, it's ok because "you" didn't shoot it? Do you really think that content doesn't generate a lot of traffic for this site? A site that markets to, and profits from, photographers? That pays you?

If you were on such a moral high ground, you'd have written this for a site that doesn't host the very type of content you're condemning.

Clickbait, plain and simple. Funny you agree so whole-heartedly with a comment that includes the word "lazy", because that's exactly what this article is. Whatever genuinely valid points you had were lost in a sea of thinly-veiled character assassination.

If you're going to write on a subject like this, you need to have the chops to do it properly. This doesn't read like an exposé (which it should, given the serious nature of the accusations), it reads like a rant that's better suited for a reddit thread or something.

"If that's your position, you didn't need to go outside of FStoppers for source material."
I gotta agree here. I've been calling out cheesecake on this site for a long time.
And yet, not a peep from you about the topic under discussion.

In this instance, the simplest answer to "It's 2021! Why is this still happening?" is that multiple consenting adults are engaging freely in a business venture, and sex, whether literal or implied, artistic or obscene, sells.

You're free to speculate about the photographer's motives, his models' subjective experiences, and the potentially nefarious cultural externalities of boudoir photography and titillating advertising. Perhaps he does, wittingly or not, encourage a particularly sleazy kind of photographic aspirations. But we're left with little more here than accusatory conjecture about a photographer and unfounded assumptions about various models' agency in every aspect of their mutual enterprise.

One thing is clear: there was no reason to include the specifics you did in this piece except to court controversy and clicks. Mission accomplished in that regard.

I don't really see what the issue is with this particular "prominent male photographer" and his website. Some of the content might be a bit tacky, but where exactly is the mistreatment of women in this instance? You might find it cringe inducing but that doesn't make him unprofessional. I mean what's so derogatory about the headline "[Model name] is back!"?

This comes across as another outrage merchant. Maybe you should ask the models in the course if they feel like they have been mistreated or objectified.

Unfortunately, the fact that someone is prominent as the professional in their sphere doesn't make them prominent as people. Some people are entitled to think they are somewhat superior and may treat others whatever they feel like, so nothing new here. You were right when saying the refrain never changes, it's only the year that differs.

I have worked with nude models for a few years, and I have learned the most outrageous stories; one of them told me she was recruited from a local modeling site, payed the trip to the location in advance, but when she got there, the photographer waited for her with two other male friends, whom he introduced as "assistants". She got undressed and in a matter of minutes, the three men were all over her, trying to - well, rape her. She literally ran out in the street, with nothing but the coat she managed to grab on the way to the door. I must add the said photographer is still working in Romania, the girl never pressed charges, because, I quote - nobody would believe me, since I willingly went there and took off my clothes. Another situation which I saw on Facebook the other day, was a rather popular photographer's post in a group - where he discussed the "attitude" of a model, who refused to pose in some BDSM sexual positions after she agreed to a "art nude photography" shoot. The photographer's comment: Whatever, stupid b**ch, your loss. Thank you, Alex Cooke, for bringing this subject to attention.

Such a misleading title....

"Even Some of the Most Prominent Male Photographers Still Don't Know How to Treat Women".

1. The article only talks about one photographer ("some" is understood to mean "more than one")
2. Brings no evidence that the photographer mistreats women (admits as much in the article)

Can you at least make the title of the article accurately reflect the nature of the content.

Two examples (free of charge)....

"I explored this well known photographers website, and I worry that it sends the wrong message"

or

"I explored this well known photographers website, and I believe it reinforces a negative stereotype of boudoir / nude photographers and their motivations"

You are welcome.

Well, I am one of those photographers that photograph women in sexy fashions thou I don't do full nudes. I also make money by being an expert in the subject. This article does not mention that most of the women being photographed want to do these types of photographs. I have never, even as a beginner, "begged," "tricked," or "demanded" for a woman to get half-naked in front of the camera. My photog friends have women flying across the US for them to photograph in the nude or sexy fashions or peek-a-boo bikinis, and they are not the greatest photogs. I even had to turn down women because their concepts were too extreme for my taste.

Are there male and female pervs out there? (wow, yes, it's not just males) Yes. I do not deny that fact. Is a camera used as a prop to get interact with beautiful women? Yes. Lots of male photographers do use it to meet women, but let's be honest here. You can see their work and see if they are a serious photographer or a prev with a lens. I'm sorry, but we can't control a person (model) if they want to work with a talentless person. The truth is there will always be a group that will take advantage of the media for their perversions. With that said, there's a billion-plus dollar market out there for that type of subject matter. So why not. If the photographer and model are on the same page, then who cares. Who am I to judge how a person makes a living.

The only problem is that this article is too one-sided, in my opinion, and is a bit misinformed because they are not in that market to understand. Women are more in control of how their sexual adult content is used in these past five years than ever before in history, thanks to Instagram, YouTube, and onlyfans. Women are the ones that are posting this content mostly and seeking photographers to produce this content for them. So photographers are using these opportunities to increase their followers. I don't see the harm in that. The truth, SEX SELLS. Period. That will never change, and if you want it to change. Tell a 20 something woman in the UK that sold-out her bath water for 30 dollars a bottle and without trying to place new content in the past six months is still averaging 1MIL in American earnings a day that she needs to stop. Yeah, I don't think these women give three rat turds what anyone thinks about what they do.

My last point is if people take a boudoir session and believe it is a way to harm or take advantage of the opposite sex. That isn't the photographer's fault. That person was mess up in the head before they even saw that content.

There is nothing wrong if you run a professional bonafide business. Models want pix, photographers act with dignity

The issue is 95% of this sort of photography isnt like that, its done for the wrong reasons, and women are simply exploited and/or objectified

95%? How did you come up with that number? It's 2021 and some men are still acting like women are incapable of making their own decisions.

Richard, I agree with Black Z Eddie. What is your "95%" base on? Because in my experience and I do not want to say I'm an authority, but I am very knowable about the market. Most of these "models," especially the traveling models, have their price and are very open to sharing it with a photographer. I have hundreds of emails, FB, and text messages of traveling models providing their rates for photos and bonuses. I hate that these models are also very free to throw their photographer under the bus when they are not happy with their deal results. I see it all the time. They claim to be the victim when a deal goes south.

Now I am not saying that there are no victims. But in my experience, it's not the majority as you are claiming. I am sorry, but a photographer has a port full of raunchy nudes, and a model still decides to work with them. They know what they are walking into. Model Mayhem proves that point. But to the photographer in this article in question, he is not objectifying or using women if the women go to him to produce that type of sexual content and even pay him for it. He does it because it brings views and followers.

Photographers that are rude and pervs show their true colors before they even start working with a model. But this isn't because they just are disrespectful. It's because they already worked with many models that taught them it's okay to behave that way. The sad part is this is like the chicken and the egg. Who truly knows who started it all. But the model is always in control in the end. They are the ones that make the final choice to work with that photog or not.

I apologize for being so vocal about this. I am tired of people with no experience in the adult industry making claims without knowing how everything goes down. I promise you that many of the complaints and bad experiences you read about from models are primarily about compensation issues and have nothing to do with nudes or sex.

." in the past six months is still averaging 1MIL in American earnings a day" internet models making $180,000,000 in 6 months? WTF?

it is Delfin or what ever her character name is. There's an interview of her disclosing her analytics. The woman has a lot of businesses registered in the UK on top of her media channels and that number must be all of her combined earnings from all of her media outlets. She even owns a payout loan business.

The highest paid American Onlyfans model gets 800k a month I believe, which is still no Delfin, but no chump change either. These women who are showing off their bodies online for money while pervs wank themselves are looking down on these so call "champions of women" and laughing straight to the bank.

Again, for the readers. I am not saying there are no horror stories. But when I hear the terms taken advantage of and objectified in this market. I always ask who is the true victim. The person making the cash or the person blindly giving it away?

There is a deep irony in the contrast between what I feel is the author's correct identification of misogyny in the marketing and photo industries and the actual use of sexual images as click-bait for articles on this site.

When I read these articles I am amazed at how many photographers are ignorant of their own art history as represented by works collected and shown in MOMA, The Met, The National Gallery, Guggenheim and ICP. Many fine artists have worked with explicitly erotic subject matter and they have far more technique talent and critical acclaim than those clutching their pearls in the comments.
Nan Golden, Marilyn Minter, Mapllethorpe, Akari, Larry Clark, Picasso, Raphael, Klimt.
It was all art.

Photographers NOT shooting erotic art or nudes treat women poorly all the time by berating them, treating them like cattle, calling them fat and treating them like prostitutes. The genre is not the problem, it is misogynist men. Nothing in the description of the class suggests anything other than the model specialized in nude/ erotic or fetish modeling and she was fully consenting to model for the class. This we should applaud as this is NOT abuse. When someone wants to shoot nudes or fetish find a model who wants to do that rather than pressuring a model during the shoot who did not discuss doing nudes in advance. If anything the article shows the author does not get what #metoo was actually about and his shaming a genre many women choose to do fetish modeling is what is actually sexist in 2021.

"It was all art."
Sorry, but cheesecake used to sell products is almost NEVER the "art" of which you speak. It's cheap titilation that objectifies women and damages girls.

Wow... if I was Matt Granger... I would be flattered and pissed at the same time! I am a grown man and believe if a man has a problem with someone they should say it clearly and directly with conviction or keep quiet. Rumors and drama is not the way of integrity and strength. The premise that adult women are not capable of making decisions and need a white knight to protect them from their choices is a scary slope that targets all men. Please start creating your own content... or call out real illegal stuff that exists you are a skilled writer. This is simply just comes across as a hater hit piece with a boy who cried wolfe clickbait title. Disappointed. Do better!

"The premise that adult women are not capable of making decisions and need a white knight to protect them from their choices is a scary slope that targets all men."

It's not about the model. It's about the stereotype.

"It's not about the model. It's about the stereotype."

Explain

Watch, read, think. I'm not your tutor. Alex has already given you some material.
Better yet, if you have a daughter, ask her how cheesecake marketing makes her feel and think about her role in society.

agree

Even Some of the Most Prominent Male Photographers Still Don't Know How to Treat Women...

The models seems to like it.

Are they coerced or complicit?

Dude, it's been said a hundred times already - It's not about consenting models. It's about not fostering disempowering stereotypes.

Jaques,

You use the pronoun contraction "it's" at the beginning of each sentence. I have read your comments, and struggled to understand what you are talking about. I think it is difficult for me to know what you are trying to say because I do not know what the pronoun "it" is referring to.

WHAT is not about consenting models?

WHAT is about not empowering disempowering stereotypes?

The article.

Thank you for this clarification. Pronouns are best used when they refer to a noun that has been aforementioned.