-----------”

So what was it that turned her against me in such a manner? Why, the thing that has ended many a relationship in this world of ours. In a word: money.

Even though we agreed to arrange a photo session, we had not agreed on how much I’d pay her. As a means of starting off negotiations, I reminded her of how much I paid her previously and that our sessions were essentially full day bookings. That’s when she went ballistic on me.

To be honest, I hate negotiating over fees – especially with someone that I’ve worked with previously and that I like, as it’s more difficult to be impersonal about it. I feel a lot like the general manager of a pro sports team negotiating to re-sign a ball player. “We think you’re a terrific player and we’d love to have you play with us again – but we just can’t afford to pay you the kind of money that you’re asking for. Will you accept what we can give you?” (Or, perhaps, “We think you’re good – but not that good.")

When it comes to money, for me it’s a one way street. The money flows out of my pocket and little or none it flows back. As this is just an avocation for me (an important avocation, to be sure, but an avocation, nonetheless), I need to put limits on what I spend. Model fees are included in that just like things such as airfare and hotels.

As for what a proper model fee should be – well, I guess supply and demand applies here as it does to most other things economic. There are plenty of models I’ve tried to work with who have asked for more than I can pay. Some of them agree to work for less and I am grateful when they do so. Some don’t – and hey, if they can find a job that pays more than I can, more power to them. Even though I’d like the higher priced models to work with me, I always tell them that if they can get more from somebody else, they should go for it. I understand that models have bills to pay – but I have bills to pay, too, and overspending on something that brings no money in return will not improve my rating at the bank.

The one thing that should hold true is that anything that involves money is a business transaction, and that all people involved should act in professional, courteous, business-like manner. Clearly, the message that I received two weeks ago was unprofessional in the extreme – and if she doesn’t want to work with me again, then I have no desire to work with her. It’s unfortunate, though, and I hate to have to lower my opinion of someone for whom I’d had a lot of respect and admiration.

Of course, this message begs this question: were her earlier, happier messages to me genuine and then something just caused her to snap – or were they just a lot of bullshit designed to keep me coming back as a paying customer? Of course, if she thought that I was so awful to work with, why did she encourage me to work with her again? Was she simply so desperate for money that she’d be willing to work with anyone – even an “awful” person and “mediocre” photographer like me?

Regarding our earlier photo sessions, she never complained about what I paid her and the time she worked. Perhaps she really was trying to accommodate me (her “being nice” to me), but if she really felt that she was being underpaid, she could always have said “no.” I don’t hold a gun to a model’s head saying that I’ll pull the trigger if she doesn’t agree to my fee. I’ve been told “no” before and I dare say that I'll be told "no" again. Had she done that, I’d have either made a higher offer or I would have said “Sorry, but I can’t give you any more, so I guess the shoot is off.” I suppose that’s the chance people take when they ask for more.

As for my mediocre photography, today I sent out my two framed prints that were selected for inclusion in the Artful Nude exhibit at the Center for Fine Art Photography in Fort Collins, Colorado. Now I have to decide if I want to pay $500+ for airfare between New York and Denver to attend the reception for the event. I’d love to be there to see my photos on the wall and to meet the juror, Kim Weston. On the other hand, this photography thing is just an avocation – and as such I have only so much to spend.

As I wrote in my last posting, I went up to Woodstock, New York, for a two-day photography workshop this past weekend. The Center for Photography at Woodstock is where I began to photograph art nudes and to take black & white photography seriously, way back in 1995, so it’s nice to go back there and meet other people interested in photography. It also makes a good getaway out of the city and into the fresh air of the country. For a number of years I attended two workshops each summer – one devoted to nudes, the other to something else such as landscape, architectural or aerial photography.

I learned the basics of art nude photography in my early days there, but now I’m at the stage where I can photograph nudes fairly well (or so some people tell me), so I’ve begun to think of how I can do things differently and perhaps more interestingly. This weekend’s workshop, though it had nude models on hand for photographing, was about photographic creativity rather than just nudes. The instructor, Josephine Sacabo from New Orleans, showed us some amazing images that she’d made by combining different negatives and using solarization.

I prefer to do my creativity in camera and not have to do too much in the darkroom, so I continued to work on my multiple exposure series. Josephine noted that a weeklong workshop is much better for giving feedback than a weekend workshop, and as I work with film rather than a digital camera, I wasn’t able to show her any of my images from our day shooting on Sunday. She did say that we could e-mail some of our images from the day to her for short critiques, so perhaps I may try to do that sometime once the film is developed – and take it from me, that won’t be any time soon!

At the urging of one of my fellow participants who I came to call “my agent,” I also showed my portfolio of nudes to the owner of a photo gallery in town. He said that they’re good but not what he’s looking for. Oh, well – you can’t expect success the first time out. I certainly wasn’t surprised, as most of the photos in the gallery were made through alternative printing processes or were in color. Little or no silver prints were to be seen, but that’s what I print.

On the other hand, he did suggest another gallery in town that displays and market the nude images made by its owners – so I guess that’s worth a try the next time I’m up there.
*****************************************************************************
I was saddened yesterday to read about the death of Cyd Charisse, the beautiful dancer and actress who appeared in films primarily in the 1940’s and ‘50’s. I had been a big fan of hers ever since seeing Singin’ in the Rain on television quite a number of years ago. That film is set in Hollywood during the transitional days from silent films to talkies and it got me interested in the films of the silent era.

It also got me interested in the films of Cyd Charisse. In one very colorful and fanciful segment called the “Broadway Melody Ballet,” Gene Kelly slides across the polished floor on his knees – only to be confronted by the long leg of a woman in green wearing a Louise Brooks-style bob of hair. The ensuing dance sequences made my jaw drop – and it wasn’t because of Gene Kelly!

“Wow!!!!!!,” I thought to myself. “Who is that???” I knew it wasn’t one of the major cast members, and I don’t think there were credits at the end to identify the cast members. I did remember that the name of Cyd Charisse was in the credits and I knew that she was a dancer, so I guessed it was her.

I was right. From that moment on, I tried to see more of her films. With the exception of Brigadoon (also with Gene Kelly), I think I’ve seen her in most or all of her major rolls: in the musicals The Band Wagon, Silk Stockings (both with Fred Astaire) and It’s Always Fair Weather (another with Kelly), the comedy Meet Me in Las Vegas (with Dan Dailey) and the noirish crime drama, Party Girl (with Robert Taylor). If you’re interested in dance (and yes – I mean you, DL) or just want to see how great and entertaining a dancer can look on screen, I’d recommend seeing any or all of these films.

I actually had the chance to see her when she was appearing on Broadway in the early 1990’s in Grand Hotel, playing the part of an aging ballerina. I went to see that show with a number of people from my office on a freezing cold night in February, but the play was ruined for me before it even started. The dreaded white slip of paper was found in my playbill, and sure enough, it said that Cyd Charisse would not be appearing that night. I suppose I could have tried to go another night, but I never did. I guess the loss was mine.

In short, Betty Grable may have been the “Girl With the Million Dollar Legs,” but for my money, I’d have gone for Cyd Charisse’s gams any time. The movies would not have been the same without them.