I think also...photographers expect quite a high standard when shooting a male model...whereas, you can get away with a greater range of shapes, sizes & types, when it comes to female models...controversial, I know.
Got to agree though. A mle model really needs the face and body..and height to get paid work. But when there's someone like Joel, who has all the necessary, then they're just as capable of a successful career, and making beautiful images as a female model.
Any photographer who can't shoot a male model without making them look 'gay'..you're either doing it wrong, or so worried about your sexuality being questioned that you're finding a subtext in your images that isn't there in the first place. Unless you're shooting males, but lighting and posing them in the same way you would with a female glamour model..then you're never gonna be happy with the results. IMHO.
So true! There are a separate set of poses for men, too often you see a model posed like female model *cringe*
Apart from the obvious that many photographers are straight men and - for most people - sexual interest influences aesthetic interest, I think the whole no-demand-for-men thing reinforces itself. People see great photographs of women, and strive to emulate them, using female models, there are more great pictures of women, people try to emulate them with further female models, and so on, and so on.
I personally would like to see more male art nudes out there. People tend to dismiss men for art nude, but when I've occasionally see art nudes of men they work just as well as female ones, and lots of the poses that look good on females also look good on males.
I'm not sure what this "looking gay" thing means. I didn't know it was possible to divine someone's sexuality by looking at them.
Most of us havn't got enough time, or spare cash or both to shoot the things we really want to - why would we start shooting other things.
The things I really like shooting are as my portfolio states [art nude, some glamour and some fashion and some beauty] with female models 20 to 35 size 6 to 12 plus mountain landscapes & scenery. That is a hell of a lot of choice for me and I can achieve a lot more with that. I would probably also say that less than 1% of female models would be considered by me as even a possibility for a shoot, even if they offered to pay me. I also don't shoot newbies any more.
I would also really like to shoot far more wild life and would do that probably before anything else if I had more time.
If I wasn't working flat out 5 days a week, I'd happily shoot far more and then I would be receptive to shooting lots more variety - and that could include males, females who dont meet my criteria above, aircraft, motor racing, sport, etc.
Unfortunately, if I wasn't working flat out - most of my work would have to be TFP.
My circumstances will change as I develop and then my shooting priorities may change - but I am pretty comfortable with my choices to date and don't feel in need of any guidance on that matter or any wrestling with my concience.
In the three and a half years (and countless shoots) my fella and I have been shooting models together, only nine of them were males, purely because they're so hard to come by. There were a few I attempted to book who were awful at communicating to the point where arrangements went nowhere, there were a few more who kinda gave me the creeps (one wanted what he called a 'personal photographer' that had to be female and the same age as him) and then there are the few we shot who were really nice. Some were better than others but we were happy for the opportunity; male model shots are something both my partner and I would really like to do more of but they're just so few and far between, especially ones that aren't just messing about and don't really care about the images/behaving appropriately/showing up at all.
This guy (James) is usually fairly busy:
I worked with him last year and he was bl**dy brilliant to work with - and a really lovely bloke. Very, very highly recommended.
Have to agree with the Orson Carter. James is awesome!
Joel Hicks is exceptionally toned, very attractive, and by the looks of his profile notes a very nice and intelligent man too. I do think that people have higher standrads of what they'll take seriously in a male model. There are plenty of successful female internet models who aren't exceptionally atheletic or classically perfect facially. As modelling is more commonly associated with women, I guess a male model has more work to do to prove he isn't a vain wanabee.
I think Tansy makes her good point in considering that the bulk of inspiration for many photographers will be images of women. If you think of the sterotypical 'artist and muse relationship', the muse would still usually be assumed to be female. I think it is hard for people to break out of this dynamic.