Interview with Wayne Johns about his role in the production of the Fuji GFX Camera

In this sit down discussion with Fujifilm ambassador Wayne Johns, we discuss his role in the development of the new Fujifilm GFX camera and his part leading up to the release.
Wayne was the sole UK ambassador to shoot pre-production models of the GFX as it was being developed and he shares his thoughts and reasons for leaving his previous digital medium format Hasselblad and Leica behind.

Check out Wayne's work here http://www.waynejohns.com/

In this sit down discussion with Fujifilm ambassador Wayne Johns, we discuss his role in the development of the new Fujifilm GFX camera and his part leading up to the release. Wayne was the sole UK ambassador to shoot pre-production models of the GFX as it was being developed and he shares his thoughts and reasons for leaving his previous digital medium format Hasselblad and Leica behind.

Fuji GFX Camera - First Impressions

So here it is, my hands-on, first impressions of the new Fuji GFX camera after having it for a week.
In the video I discuss the basic specs and features, review some of its incredible raw files and speak about my personal thoughts regarding Fuji's first foray into medium format mirrorless cameras.

I'll just pre-warn you that it is a long video, so I apologise for that but there was a lot I wanted to say about this seemingly incredible camera. If you want to skip to a specific section then here's the timestamps below.

Camera Details & Specs 1:21
The Raw Files 18:51
Personal Thoughts 28:57

Big thanks to Fujifilm UK's X-Photographer Wayne Johns for letting me borrow and test this camera. Wayne was the only U.K. photographer to work on the prototype of the GFX before launch so if you have any questions at all about this camera that I can't answer then I will certainly ask him for you. If we get enough good questions maybe I'll pester him for a sit down chat/interview where I can get all the answers we need because I get the feeling I only scratched the surface of what this camera can really do.

Hope you find something useful in the video and as always feel free to let me know what you think. Are you one of the people considering getting a GFX? Did this video answer your questions? Will you be getting one now?

My hands-on first impressions after having shot with the new Fuji GFX camera. I discuss the basic specs and features, review some of its incredible raw files and speak about my personal thoughts regarding Fuji's first medium format mirror less camera.

Comparing the Nikon D610 vs Fuji X T-2 vs Sony A7R II

Aside from the aparent random string of letters and numbers in the title this actually proved to be a pretty interesting test. For those that have followed me for a while know, I've shot with Nikon cameras for many years but in recent times I have been less than convinced that Nikon has been at the forefront of camera technology. I wanted to see what else was out there and test some newer and different cameras outside of the Nikon sphere for myself to see if I really was missing out on anything.

This is not a camera review

I'll jump right in by saying that this is not a regular camera review, if you want the mind-numbing sheets of stats and figures on these cameras then there are many other places to get this data. I understand why those stats exist and I think that if you yourself are a camera manufacturer then that would be useful. If however you're a photographer, I feel that those type of camera reviews are ambiguous at best and I liken trying to explain how a camera feels and shoots to trying to explain the taste of a banana to somebody using words alone….you just can't. You're left with saying very few words beyond the obvious 'yellow', and that explains nothing about the actual taste. All you really want to say is 'just try it for yourself. But like trying to explain the taste of a banana without tasting it, you can't explain a camera without actually shooting it for yourself in your own style and with your own needs in mind.

The reasons I decided to shoot with these cameras is explained in more detail below but I'll also add that this wasn't meant as an article either. I had concerns with my current system and I wanted to see from a commercial standpoint if I could improve upon these concerns by shooting in the future with a different camera. The following thoughts and findings are simply my opinion based on my specific needs for the way in which I shoot and the type of things that I shoot day-to-day. I think it's also important to mention that because you may have used some of the cameras I refer to here, you may have found and seen something completely different to me. Neither of us are right or wrong but it highlights how important it is test and shoot a camera with your needs in mind before seriously investing in that system.

Obvious Differences I'm not concerned with at the moment

As previously mentioned, this isn't a camera review and although I'm going to outline some obvious differences in the cameras here, they weren't a concern of mine when I was testing the cameras. Yes mega pixels and sensor size play a part in the cameras resulting images but those differences may not be as significant as you might think and it isn't until you test something for yourself that you realise just how little an impact megapixels and other paper-based stats actually have on a resulting shot.

Above we can see a diagram of the camera chip sizes relative to one another plus a lot of their relevant info. The biggest point of note here is that size doesn't necessarily relate to performance (I know, big shock right), the Fuji has the smallest… — Above we can see a diagram of the camera chip sizes relative to one another plus a lot of their relevant info. The biggest point of note here is that size doesn't necessarily relate to performance (I know, big shock right), the Fuji has the smallest sensor size and megapixel count but the largest actual raw file size. I am hesitant to believe that ridiculously large file size is needed especially when you compare it to the full frame 42.4 mp beast of the Sony coming in considerably smaller. I personally believe they might not be using any compression whatsoever on the raw to look better on paper and this would have been a wise marketing call in this current stat-led marketplace.

Why test the Sony?

I personally shoot a lot of 3/4 length person shots at wide open apertures like f1.8. When shooting this type of shot, which requires the subjects eyes to be in focus, you will have to do a lot of focus-and-recomposing. At this aperture you will get a shift in the plane of focus and as a result a slightly soft and even out-of-focus shots.

The image above shows the viewfinder as you focus and then after you recompose.

This is the reality of what happens when you focus and recompose at very shallow depths of field.

The above images illustrate what I'm referring to and you can read a whole article on how and why this happens here "Stay Focused". In a lot of our DSLR's there are a lot of focal points but they're all clustered in the centre of the frame which means we have to focus and recompose a lot if we require the subjects eyes at the edge of frame. The smaller mirror-less cameras like the Fuji's and Olympus' etc combat this by placing their focal points anywhere in the viewfinder which means no more focus and recomposing. Now that Sony has brought out its cameras with full frame sensors and no mirrors it has meant that they've brought this very useful focus-anywhere feature to the larger chip size. I wanted to test this feature out and see if it would work for my shooting style and hopefully enable me to obtain sharper images at shallower depths of field more consistently.

Why test the Fuji?

It's been no secret in recent months that I'm less than impressed by my flagship Nikon lens, the 24-70 f2.8 zoom. In fact I was so unimpressed I actually thought I had a faulty one. It wasn't until I checked it side by side with a couple of other peoples 24-70 lenses on my workshop that I realised all of our lenses were less than impressive. My issue with the thing is the horrendously huge soft flaring centre it has and it's not just when it's shooting wide open that this happens either. The look is a very soft and cloudy centre that generates a flare on anything bright and is especially noticeable on objects with a lot of contrast like jewellery etc. I think this lens is popular with the wedding and portrait shooters as it will produce an 'in-camera' skin smoothing effect but in a high contrast and high colour studio environment it is less than desirable.

Here's a couple of raw files from a recent long exposure workshop of mine. The images were taken on the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 lens and you can clearly see the flaring that is happening on the points of light near the centre of this shot. That flare is … — Here's a couple of raw files from a recent long exposure workshop of mine. The images were taken on the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 lens and you can clearly see the flaring that is happening on the points of light near the centre of this shot. That flare is so huge it's almost hard to believe I didn't add that in post pro.

Here'e another shot from the same workshop again and that flaring effect can clearly be seen here once more. This might seem like a unique problem with these sequins and bright points of light in the centre but this same flaring can be seen on any b… — Here'e another shot from the same workshop again and that flaring effect can clearly be seen here once more. This might seem like a unique problem with these sequins and bright points of light in the centre but this same flaring can be seen on any bright highlights in shiny skin and jewellery towards the centre of a shot when taken with this lens.

Unless you're already shooting Hasselbald glass you should have heard by now that the boffins over at Fuji are bending space and time in the labs with how insanely sharp their lenses are. Although for years these super-sharp Fuji lenses have only been available on a smaller sensor, the Fuji glass has been impressing everybody that has picked it up so I had to see for myself and check if this miracle glass would stand up against the rigours and heavy flaring present in a my slightly unorthodox setups.

Why is there no Canon in this list?

I know I'll get asked this so I'm going to broach it head-on now. Nearly 10 years ago Canon rocked the photographic community with their 5D MKII. I honestly don't think you can underestimate the impact that camera had across the board and it literally changed the game for better or for worse by bringing the high-end quality of full 35mm size sensors to the masses at an insanely affordable price. I shot with that camera for a long time at weddings and location portraits and it really was a workhorse camera. Over time my photographic preference took me to the studio lighting setups more and more and as a result I started to notice things I wasn't happy with. I know there is going to be a lot of Canon shooters out there who will be rolling up their sleeves and getting ready to endure a bought of carpal tunnel pain as they respond to this but the following is based on my personal findings over hundreds of shoots in a specific area. Like I said, I used Canon for a very long time and if I was still shooting a lot environmental work like weddings and portraits of regular people I think I would still be with them, as it happens I'm now in the studio where I believe Nikon copes better under certain conditions. The issue I had was Canon struggling to deal with blank expanses of detail in frame, something that happens a lot in studio work. The Canon excels when it has a lot of detail and something to get its digital teeth stuck into like a wedding but when it encounters a blank wall it seems to want to fill it with information even if there is none.

The above images shows a studio shot from the Canon 5DMK II and how it deals with an absence of detail. There is a lot of noise and rainbow banding in this area of flat grey. Click to enlarge — The above images shows a studio shot from the Canon 5DMK II and how it deals with an absence of detail. There is a lot of noise and rainbow banding in this area of flat grey. *Click to enlarge*

The image above is taken with the Nikon D600 and it shows how the camera deals with these blank areas of grey. There is far less rainbow coloured noise and banding in these areas. *The subtle banding you might see here is from the web-res upload, th… — The image above is taken with the Nikon D600 and it shows how the camera deals with these blank areas of grey. There is far less rainbow coloured noise and banding in these areas. *The subtle banding you might see here is from the web-res upload, there is none whatsoever on the actual raw.

Again, I will reiterate that this is specific to me and I am certainly not saying that Nikon is better than Canon but in this situation it is my belief that Nikon performs better. That being said, I have't seen the newer Canon models and how they perform so times might have changed but I think Canon knows it market and they produce a very solid all-round camera that is geared to the heavy use and workhorse mentality of wedding and portrait shooters.

The cameras involved

Like I said earlier, this isn't a review so I'll just talk about the models I used to introduce them and I'll link you to the DPreview site if you're interested in fining out more about them technically.

Nikon D610

The lenses used in these tests include the 24-70 2.8, the 85mm 1.8 and the 50mm f1.4.

For more details on those then you can read the words from Mr Rockwell, legend himself, giving his thoughts on them below.

Nikon 24-70mm f2.8

Nikon 85mm f1.8

Nikon 50mm f1.4

To see more pictures on and from this camera then either check the homepage of my site as they're pretty much all shot with this or follow this link to the DPReview site Nikon D610 Review

Fuji X-T2

I had the ability to test three lenses alongside the X-T2. The 56mm f1.2, the Fuji 35mm f2 and the Fuji zoom lens the 18-55mm f2.8.

For more details on those then you can read Ken Rockwell's thoughts via the links below.

Fuji 56m f1.2

Fuji 35mm f2

Fuji 18-55mm f2.8

To see more pictures on and from this camera then follow this link to the DPReview site Fuji X-T2

Sony Alpha 7RII

The Sony A7RII I used. There's not a massive lens list available for these yet when you compare it to other camera manufactures so I only had the single lens for it the 24-70 f2.8

I only had a single lens to test on the Sony but it was a direct like-for-like lens compared to my Nikon so it proved to be a useful comparison. The lens was the 24-70 f2.8 GM

You can read more about that lens here via Ken Rockwell

Sony 24-70mm f2.8 GM

If you'd like to learn more about the camera itself then you can certainly do that via the DPReview link provided Sony A7 RII

The Comparison Test

Ok now that we know which cameras are involved, let's take a look at the sort of lighting tests I was going to be putting them through to compare them.

The fist setup involved a strong backlit look.

First up was a simple one light shot that involves an awful lot of flare from the behind the model as there was a softbox positioned directly behind them pointing straight back into the lens.

For each of the cameras I used the following lenses and settings for the first lighting test.

Fuji

Lens - 35mm f2
Shutter Speed - 1/125
Aperture - f2.8
ISO - 200 (ISO 100 not available on the Fuji)
Focal Length - 35mm (remember this is not a full frame camera so this is roughly a 50mm equivalent)

Nikon

Lens - 50mm f2
Shutter Speed - 1/125
Aperture - 2.8
ISO - 100
Focal Length - 35mm

Sony

Lens - 24-70 f2.8
Shutter Speed - 1/125
Aperture - 2.8
ISO - 200
Focal Length - 45mm

The second setup was a long exposure setup involving mixed light sources and extended shutter speeds.

The second setup was to see not only how the camera dealt with focusing in very low light but also how they dealt with mixed lighting temperatures and long exposures of around 1 to 2 seconds.

For each of the cameras I used the following lenses and settings for the second lighting test.

Fuji

Lens - 18-55mm f2.8
Shutter Speed - 2 seconds
Aperture - f2.8
ISO - 200 (ISO 100 not available on the Fuji)
Focal Length - 47mm (remember this is not a full frame camera so this is roughly a 65 mm equivalent)

Nikon

Lens - 24-70 f2.8
Shutter Speed - 2 seconds
Aperture - 3.2
ISO - 100
Focal Length - 70mm

Sony

Lens - 24-70 f2.8
Shutter Speed - 2 seconds
Aperture - 2.8
ISO - 200
Focal Length - 70mm

The final setup called for some colour and this setup brought together two very contrasting colours that would establish a tricky setup to capture faithfully.

The final setup was of course dealing with highly saturated gelled lighting setups. This last setup was crucial as I needed to see exactly how each of these cameras dealt with extremes in artificial colour for the colour work that I do day-to-day.

For each of the cameras I used the following lenses and settings for the third lighting test.

Fuji

Lens - 56mm f1.2
Shutter Speed - 1/125
Aperture - f2.8
ISO - 250
Focal Length - 56mmm (remember this is not a full frame camera so this is roughly a 80mm equivalent)

Nikon

Lens - 85mm f1.8
Shutter Speed - 1/125
Aperture - 2.8
ISO - 100
Focal Length - 85mm

Sony

Lens - 24-70 f2.8
Shutter Speed - 2 second
Aperture - 2.8
ISO - 100
Focal Length - 46mm

The Results

So now that you know the details of each of the shoots and the cameras, lenses and settings that captured them lets take a look at the individual results before we compare them.

Fuji X-T2

To see the images larger then please click on the thumbnails above.

Nikon D610

To see the images larger then please click on the thumbnails above.

Sony A7 RII

To see the images larger then please click on the thumbnails above.

Conclusions

Before I analyse some of the resulting images, I'll talk a little about my thoughts from the shoot and actually how it felt using each of the cameras.

Nikon

Obviously I've been shooting Nikon for many years and I know my way around the thing in the dark. Nikon is certainly not renowned in recent times for being very innovative and mould breaking in any way whatsoever. They stick to what they know and once seemingly every other camera manufacturer in the known universe has weeded out all the possible bugs in a new technology they might consider, thinking about, possibly maybe, adopting it …..at some point in near distant future….probably. But that hesitance and apparent fear of change does mean that they continue to make cameras for photographers who like to take photographs. They build basic get-me-to-the-photo machines that endure years and years of punishment and you can always pick up one of their cameras and immediately start taking pictures without needing to be Dan Brown with an Enigma machine to work it.

Fuji

Shooting with this camera was incredibly pleasurable, obviously it's a lot smaller in actual size so it's far easier to operate during long shoot days. The Fuji cameras still insist on putting all of the dials and switches on the outside which is very important to me and so found I could get along with shooting quite quickly. In recent years they have dramatically improved the focussing in these cameras meaning that the XT-2 focused very quickly even in low light. Plus, with the focal point towards the edge of frame I wasn't focusing and recomposing. Everything about this system feels robust even though its size dictates otherwise and overall I was certainly very impressed from a usage standpoint.

Sony

I'll let you into a little secret. A little while ago I went around the internet grabbing a lot of images that I loved the look and feel of. I then fired them all through a metadata app to find out what camera they'd all been shot with only to find out that most of the shots I loved the look of had been shot with this Sony A7R II. I was ready to jump-ship into Sony's arms based on that alone. Alas my user experience was less than impressive. Firstly this camera obviously boasts the fact that it's mirror-less and as a result the body is very thin in depth and light in weight. Great right? Wrong. the Sony has such a small distance from lens attachment point to chip that it's simple physics that they have to do something funky with the lenses to focus the shot over such a short distance. It appears that the extra distance you gained by removing the mirror and prisms etc was actually just put back into the lenses. This results in a ridiculously front weighted system and all the bulk and weight is in that lens not the body anymore. If you place the Nikon and Sony side-by-side with their respective 24-70's attached, the Sony is actually longer! This proved to be very uncomfortable, if not painful very quickly. I shoot a lot of my work with one hand on the camera and one hand holding something else in front of it Whether that be ND filters, gels or crystals etc I'm holding, it simply isn't possible to hold the body of this camera alone with one hand for any more than a few frames. Yes I had the 24-70 zoom lens attached and not a 50mm prime but I'm used to only holding my Nikon with one hand and a 24-70 zoom all the time without too much trouble. This camera simply could not be used by me for a full day. I shot it for a couple of hours at most for this test and I was 'shaking out' my hands afterwards like I used to do after a long rock climb. Not good.

You may also remember one of the core reasons for me being excited about this camera was no longer worrying about focus and recomposing. Yes I could place the focus points exactly where I want them but alas the damn thing just would not focus unless it had the power of three suns bearing down on the subject. I shoot a lot of studio images and sometimes the modelling bulbs on the lights aren't that bright, the Sony just struggled hugely with this low light focusing and drifted in and out endlessly. Not a great result.

So apart from that, this thing will practically do everything but cook you toast, it has so many features to help you. Far too many for me to look at but I did like the focus-peaking feature that highlights the areas in focus. Very useful for precise manual focus shots. If you're an IT consultant with an engineering background then I reckon this has some pretty sweet features for you. If you're used to taking great images on an old OM-1 like me then this camera might drive you around the bend.

The Images

The first backlit set

The first set that was very backlit produced interesting results but above all the Fuji stood out. That camera showed no noticeable flaring at all, it's incredible. Now I know that's far more to do with the lens than camera but it just goes to show you how sharp and clear their glass is. Look at the Fuji shots again, every hair is defined because the flare isn't blowing them out. The Sony did a very good job as well and although not quite as clear, the images are still very contrasty despite the strong backlight. The Nikon of course was like shooting through an old pair of tights. Yes it could be that cheaper old lens but let's not forget the issue I have with the new expensive Nikon lens for exactly the same reasons. It is, what it is, you either like this effect or you don't. It kinda works here in an 'arty' way but it illustrates my concerns that these lenses are not clear.

The second long exposure set

This again divided the crowd but this time I'll start with my concerns on the Sony. Whilst shooting this camera I found it incredibly hard to focus in these low-light conditions. Yes you could say 'well what do you expect Jake?' but the other cameras didn't struggle anywhere near as much. In fact the Fuji didn't really show any noticeable difficulty at all. I was definitely very disappointed in the Sony as I really thought this wouldn't be a problem. This frustration is compounded because you can see the image clearly lit via the viewfinders auto-exposed live feed where it looks like there's plenty to focus to on. The resulting images from the Sony on this set were even more concerning, the blacks were very, very muddy in comparison and you should be able to see from the resulting shots that there simply isn't the definition in the blacks compared to the other two cameras.

The Fuji coped incredibly well with the focusing in low light and I had no concerns there but it did produce slightly muddier files at these 1 second exposures. When I say muddy, I'm referring to the colour rendition and contrast and on their own you might not notice anything but I did see a significantly cleaner and crisper file from the Nikon is this setup. The Nikon produced excellent detail in the blacks and even with this limited colour palette the files looked slightly richer than the others.

The third colour set

This is a tough test for any camera, this setup is incredibly unforgiving and I doubt any camera is tested with these extreme colour saturations in mind. The setup involves me using a strong orange and a strong blue colour that would meet on a subjects face. This is a potential nightmare scenario because orange and blue are opposite colours resulting in technology not knowing how to blend them when they meet, this will often result in colour banding that looks like subtle steps of colour. Not a good look. Call me biased if you want to but I honestly feel that the Nikon wins this one again as well. The colours are simply richer and have more depth to them in my opinion. I found the Fuji to 'top-out' in the reds meaning that some of the richer deep orange colours bunched up rather than showing any more saturation. Look at the outside edge of the orange background of the Fuji shots compared to the Nikon ones, the saturation and depth just isn't there. The same goes for the highlights too, they simply just appear flatter in comparison to the Nikon with a discernible lack of saturation. The Sony suffered a similar problem but not to the same degree, the Sony did appear to have a larger orange and blue gamut when compared to the Fuji though. But look again at the blacks. What is going on with the distinct lack of detail in the shadow area of these files? In these smaller files here they might look like they suffer in the blacks as much as the Nikon but trust me, there is a lot more detail in the blacks of the Nikon raw file.

Finally! In-Short

So it turns out, I'm not abandoning the Nikon ship just yet and I'll be shooting with my Nikon camera a little while longer it would seem.

The Sony was certainly a disappointment for what I personally need day-to-day. The weight distribution on that standard zoom lens and body is ridiculously unbalanced and borderline unusable over extended periods. I'm guessing that ironically adding more weight in the form of a battery grip to this camera would help this balance a lot, especially for us portrait orientation shooters, although that negates the marketing campaign for the reduced weight of a mirror-less DSLR. Not only that, but it struggled a lot when it came to auto-focusing in low light, an environment that I work in a lot for my specific work type. Plus I wasn't impressed with it's shadow detail in the long exposure shots. You might not notice it on its own but when compared to the Nikon and Fuji it was very apparent.

Personally I'm actually pretty disappointed, I'm a Sony fan-boy in other markets and I was ready to jump ship until I tried it. It has so much potential but rewind to when Fuji came out with their first mirror-less cameras, they were a joke in certain areas too. Things like focusing speeds and black details were very poor so hopefully in newer models of the Sony they can look at some of these issues.

Using the Fuji was a big surprise for me. I wasn't expecting big things from this little camera but it certainly packs a punch for what it is. I think if I shot more commercial white-light beauty work I'd get one just for that as the quality of the lenses on this little thing is almost unbelievable. But although the lens quality is fantastic and the detail it produces far exceeds the sensor size expectations, it's still a small chip. That means the images simply don't have the visual depth at similar apertures as the bigger sensors. It's just physics I'm afraid and quality certainly isn't everything when you're after a certain look. All this bodes very well indeed for the new medium format Fuji GFX. If they transfer these same qualities across to their new larger sensor camera then this could be a seriously exciting prospect.

The Nikon is a tried and tested workhorse camera. It's easy to use and it's certainly a no 'bells and whistles' product. The lens flaring issue will continue to haunt me and I will continue to search for at least ONE lens in their line up that doesn't have a Tupperware coating! For me though, the Nikon won hands-down in the colour range though. It was significantly noticeable to me how much more saturated the colour this D610 could capture compared to the others.

For now I will stick to my Nikon and watch the Fuji GFX very carefully :) In fact by the time this article comes out I hope to have tested it for myself and I will certainly keep you posted on what I find.

I thank you for reading all the way down this far, I know it was a long article but it was really just my way of sharing my thoughts to anybody that was interested. If you have any of these cameras yourself and would like to offer you feedback and thoughts on them then I'd love to hear your opinions as well. Feel free to do so in the comments below :)

:WARNING: Sales opportunities ahoy!

If you're interested in any of my work and would like to know more about how I created some of my shots then why not check out my workshops. Here you can find out everything there is to know about Gelled Lighting, Long Exposure Flash Photography and my entire Post-Pro Workflow. Jake Hicks Photography - Workshops

I've also just released a brand new 22 hour complete Gelled Lighting Tutorial video. I go over everything from studio lighting setups with gels to being on location with gels plus I also go through my complete retouching and post pro workflow. For more details and complete breakdown of everything that's include check out my Coloured Gel Portraits Tutorial

I also offer comprehensive coloured gel packs. These collections of gels are what I use day to day to create some of the most highly saturated colours around. If you're looking at getting into gelled lighting or need to get stronger and richer colours in your coloured gel work why not check out my Jake Hicks Photography Gel Packs

Should I be Hiring Independent or Agency Represented Models?

Thanks to the rise in digital photography and its incredibly low barrier to entry in recent years, there are now more photographers out there than ever before, and more and more of us are keen to use our shiny new cameras to photograph models. As a result, the basic laws of supply-and-demand mean that there are also now more models available to be photographed than ever before too. But should you be photographing independent models or agency represented models?

A couple of weeks ago I posted the first article in this mini-series on working with models and I described the break down of the model industry and what we as photographers need to know regarding it. If you missed it then here's the link 'The Modelling Industry - What Photographers Need to Know'. In the article I describe the basic structure of the modelling industry and although there are many genres within these, the key differences between the models that you'll be working with right now are whether they are represented by a modelling agency or if they are independently represented.

What are the key differences between agency represented models & independently represented models?

First off, let's break down some of the factors and take a closer look at what's involved with being an agency model or being independent. Explained simply; agency models have an agent that finds them work and then takes a cut of the fee for finding them that job. Independent models work for themselves as freelancers and they are responsible for finding all their own jobs, but they get to keep all of the money from it.

You may not feel that this information is relevant to you as a photographer at this stage but I believe it highlights certain characteristics that motivates and drives each of the two model demographics we're referring too.

Agency Models

If they're good, reliable, and catch a break with the right client they can earn a awful lot of money.
They have to go where they're sent - no questions asked. They've given the agency their levels (fashion/lingerie/swimwear etc) and their restrictions are in a contract, outside of that the agency will send them where they need them. 'Be at this location, at this time, on this day, period'. This can lead to a fantastic lifestyle for some and that includes travelling the world at a moments notice for some.
They have a comp-card (mini-portfolio) at the agency that is potentially being seen by some of the top art directors and fashion houses in the land. If they want the chance of landing the next Balenciaga campaign then being with a respected modelling agency is their best bet.
Although agency models generally have to do what they're told by the agency they don't have to worry about the paperwork. If they don't want the hassle or headache of chasing down client invoices then being agency represented is a big plus.
Of course the biggest plus of being agency represented is that they let somebody else worry about finding the work. If the models on the agencies books don't get paid then they don't get paid so they're hustling for you. This is unfortunately not as easy it sounds, because being with an agency involves a lot castings that inevitably bear very little fruit. There are some models who are really good at 'modelling' and their 'look' is 'on-trend' so they are always busy and as a result make a lot of money from it. For others, being with an agency can be a constant waiting game where they have several part-time jobs where you just sit by the phone hoping to catch a break whist somebody else manages your career. This is not modelling so maybe getting out there and hustling for yourself would be more fruitful.

Independent Models

They keep their own schedule - They choose which days they work.
They keep all of the money from their shoots - No agency cut.
They choose their clients and who they work with.
They don't have to be sent to and attend five castings a day all over the city.
They dictate how much they're worth.
Independent models are unlikely to be involved in any 'big name' campaigns.
They have to manage all of their own paperwork and timekeeping.
They are responsible if they let somebody down - Their face is their brand, nobody else can take the blame but them.
They gotta hustle! Nobody else is going to get them modelling jobs but them, they have to be the master of their own business and that includes countless model profiles around the web, a constant social media presence and a perpetually spotless work ethic.

That should give you a brief overview of what the models in each of those demographics are up against. Again, if you're wondering how that information relates to you as a photographer, I would say that it speaks volumes to understand what motivates them as individuals and if that aligns with your specific goals and projects as well. Like anything, it's about managing expectations so don't be surprised if an agency model is less than enthused about your black and white lighting test (apparently that happens) if she's got a Prada campaign shoot the next day. I know that's a sweeping statement but I am being realistic and I want you to be too.

Half of the models above are agency represented and half are independently represented by themselves. The myth that agency represented models are 'better' simply isn't true, there is merely the right model for the right job based on what you and you… — Half of the models above are agency represented and half are independently represented by themselves. The myth that agency represented models are 'better' simply isn't true, there is merely the right model for the right job based on what you and your project is looking for.

As a Photographer, Should I use an Agency Model or an Independent Model?

This is an almost impossible question to answer but I will try and break down some of the key factors I've seen from each side of the coin and try to help explain which might be best for your particular needs. Above I mentioned what the two types of models are up against in their industry, there certainly isn't in my opinion a clear-cut solution for them in whether to be agency represented or to be independent, just as there isn't a clear-cut answer to which type of models we should be using either.

But seeing as the title of this article suggests that there is an answer I will aim to provide some things to think about to help aid you in your decision. The following statements are going to be based purely on my personal experiences over the years of working with possibly hundreds of models from both agencies and independent sites. I do not by any means suggest that these sentiments fully represent each type of model and some photographers may completely disagree with what I am about to say and that's perfectly okay too.

'If they aren't agency represented, they are't a 'real' model'

For me, choosing an independent or agency model comes down to 'what's most important to you and your project?' I've worked with both exceptional models and terrible models from both agencies as well as independents but

I'd like to start by dismissing a common myth that 'if a model isn't agency signed then they're not a real model'. In my experience this simply isn't true.

What's most important to me is great images regardless of how we get there or whether the model is independent or not so like so many other things in life, there is no best model simply the right model for the right job.

Why should I work with Independent models?

A lot of independent models can give you a huge range of poses in a very short space of time. If you're after variety of poses in your shoot then reaching out to an independent model might be a great place to start.

I have personally worked with many independent models that are incredibly focused and driven on achieving the goals of your project, but with agency models this can tend to be a little hit-and-miss. An independent model is her own brand, if she turns up late, is hung-over, ill prepared and so on, that ONLY looks bad on her. There is literally nobody else she can blame and that will negatively affect her reputation in our industry very quickly. If an agency model turns up late, moody as-all-hell, bitching and whining, that unfortunately looks bad on the agency, it's the agency that gets their heads torn off down the phone not the model. I get the impression that agency models know this too and sometimes this I-could-care-less attitude shows. They'll move onto the next job tomorrow and they can sometimes give the impression that they have no personal investment in your project or the outcome of it whatsoever. But let's be honest, should they? Modelling is a job just like any other, once you've finished one job, you move onto the next. So although you shouldn't be offended by this apathetic approach, it is certainly worth bearing in mind if your project requires a little more engagement. Conversely, it's been my experience that independent models tend to be far more engaged and keen on getting fantastic images and it seems like they are more invested in the outcome.

The other factor that I've personally found with a lot of experienced independent models is their range of poses. I know I'm generalising here but a lot of agency models can rely too heavily on their looks alone and simply not have the skills to pose with any real dynamism. I appreciate this will be a controversial statement for some but again I'm merely speaking from my experiences. A lot of the high-end fashion imagery you may be used to seeing doesn't rely on engaging posing, the beautiful model simply looks amazing and effortless and that's often enough. A lot of major fashion ads will show agency models looking effortlessly beautiful because that doesn't detract from the product they are selling. You don't look at a Gucci handbag advert and immediately concentrate on the model (this link will take you to a Google Image search page illustrating my point Gucci Handbag Advert), you're engaged with the product not the models pose and expression.

So even though all of these models are stunningly beautiful, their posing repertoire often doesn't have a lot of range. How many ways can you really look like a blank canvas and disinterested, how many shots can you get of that look. Even one of the most famous and expressive fashion models of our time Coca Rocha is often simply used for this very demure look. Take a look at what she can do in this Coca Rocha - 50 Poses in 30 Seconds video and then take a look at one of her more recent fashion editorials in Harper's Bazzar Coca Rocha in Dreamy Dresses. Granted, I'm sure there are plenty of people who use Coca for her outstanding posing ability appropriately but the point I'm eluding to here is that it's seemingly not required for a lot of agency models to know how to pose expressively and as a result they don't get asked for it as much in their fashion and advertising shoots.

When I'm at a model casting day, I might see a hundred girls. Not only do I get to meet these agency models in person but I also get to see their comp-cards (mini single sheet portfolios displaying 4-6 images). I'll make a lot of shorthand notes abo… — When I'm at a model casting day, I might see a hundred girls. Not only do I get to meet these agency models in person but I also get to see their comp-cards (mini single sheet portfolios displaying 4-6 images). I'll make a lot of shorthand notes about each of them but for my work, I'm specifically looking for a model with a variety of poses and facial expressions within those 4-6 shots and I'll often note this as 'strong poses' or 'fun poses' to give me an idea of who to call back later on.

So if my project requires effortlessly beautiful and timeless looks that don't dominate the clients brief, agency models are my first port-of-call. Independent models on the other hand have to cover a broader range of photographic clients and will often have a lot more experience with posing the absolute hell out of shoot. This is something that I personally love, so until I get the budget for a call to Ms Rocha, if I want consistently awesome poses, experienced independent models are a pretty safe bet.

Why should I work with an agency model?

Agency models can tend to have quite a specific look. If you're after that more commercial and effortless beauty look then a modelling agency is a great place to begin your search.

So apart from the beautifully demure and effortless posing we've previously discussed, why use an agency model over a independent model? It comes down to a couple of things, firstly a modelling agency will have done all the hard work for you. They've found a stunningly beautiful person and they can provide a service that means I don't have to spend weeks, firstly finding the perfect model but I also don't have to waste my time on 20 messages ensuring she's going to be there. An agency takes care of a lot of this and it simply facilitates a smoother more reliable service when your time could be better spent doing other things.

The other major plus point for modelling agencies is how they deal with model 'no-shows' (when a model simply doesn't turn up to the shoot). You're a fool if you think you're going to eliminate no-shows and it happens at even the highest advertising campaign level of modelling. There is a million and one reasons for this and I have zero interest in hearing any of them, you're either here or you're not here. That might sound cold, but remember this is a job and I am responsible for delivering a result to a deadline not a series of other peoples excuses. When shooting on a very tight deadline I would look at getting a missing team member replaced like any other fundamental piece of equipment on the shoot. Quickly. Like I say you're never going to eliminate these no-shows when you predominantly work with young people (yes, you can put your pitchforks down, I know any age person can no-show but young people seem to have more reasons than most to not be there).

No-shows happen from both independent models and agency models so I'm not insinuating that either is more reliable than the other but when an agency model lets you down you don't waste your breath calling the model, you call the agency. I've had these no-shows happen a few times in the past and I've had to call the agency to get it fixed. Like I said, I'm not interested in why somebody isn't here, I'm interested in making sure somebody is here. I honestly don't want to know how the agency do it, but they often get a replacement model of a suitable standard out to me, on set, usually within a couple of hours. Like I say I don't wanna know how they, threatened, bribed or bought this result but before you know it, they've loaded up the 'model-cannon' and fired across a fresh model to stand in as a replacement.

It's a service like this that you're happy to pay for. We all know it's going to happen so when a no-show does occur that agency moves heaven and earth to fix it. If you've got a 40k shoot in progress you're not gonna call it off on account that 'Susan' was out until 4am "snapchatting" her 149,000 followers of her dancing on the bar! *facepalm* 'Big shock she no-showed this morning!' The show must go on and an agency will definitely do everything in their power to facilitate this.

Whilst we're on this subject, I'll just say that personally, on a big commercial job I will nearly only ever work with agency models. Not because I believe they're better models but because I know their agency has a good reputation for 'putting out fires' that their girls start. If the job really counts, I just won't take the chance on an independent model I don't know. Again that's nothing personal to them, they genuinely may have come down with cholera overnight but they don't have the agency behind them to sort out a replacement. If I've worked with an independent model before during a test shoot and I have a good relationship with them then yes, I'll certainly work with them on a commercial job but that trust has to be built first.

What's most important to you and your project?

Again I'll ask you 'what's most important to you and your project?' I'll be honest, I'm a professional photographer and my goal is to get the best possible image I can regardless of how we get there (granted, not a great mission statement). If an agency model turns up and demands chamomile tea in a china cup, complains about the room temperature being too cold even though 20 other people are fine with it and rolls her eyes at everything I ask her do, I'm frankly fine with it. If she's giving me the full-diva, that's fine just as long as she's giving me KILLER images.

Would it make my life easier if she was acting like a civil human being? Yes of course it would, but I'd take her tantrums and outstanding poses over a model who wants to be my best friend but looks like a limp fish in my photos any day.

You have to ask yourself what's more important to you. If you're chilling out at the weekends and want to have a bit of fun shooting some photo projects on your days off then no, you don't want or have the time for rude and insolent people no matter how good the poses are. If on the other hand you've got a major photoshoot with client expectations on the line then suck-it-up, get the best possible pictures you can regardless of the ignorance you have to put up with to get them.

My personal choice

For me and my work, I love working with models who are very expressive with their posing. If the lighting is dynamic and engaging then I like the models pose to reflect that over a simple demure look.

Posing is a big thing for me and my images, I pride myself on creating engaging lighting that triggers a viewers response immediately. I find it hard to sell that vision to a viewer if the model within that image looks bored, stagnant and staged. That really doesn't match the lighting around them. But that's just me. Remember that the fashion world is crying out for the next big 'resting-bitch-face' shot in black and white plonked in front of a daylight window. So many agency models excel at this look whereas others fall short and although I joke (kinda), that look is a skill but it's often not accompanied by many other looks in my experience. For a lot of my work I will after the hungry, engaged and often more experienced independent models to give me the image I want. Often these crazy expressions and poses come from more experienced, confident and often a little older models. Many models don't make it in an agency past their mid twenties so again finding what I'm looking for at an agency isn't always as straight forward as it might seem.

But again this is just me, you might be focused hard on the pure fashion route where the agency models are the industry standard. This is what the industry expects and you really can't take a bad picture of them when the more classic and effortless posing is required. Sometimes you may even come across situations where the client or magazine insists on an agency model being used. This again is that industry fear and misbelief that agency models are always better but I've certainly used independent models on those projects where I'm not supposed to because I believed otherwise. The magazines and clients have always loved the results and that's what counts (although they should have spotted my slightly unbelievable make-believe agency in the shoot credits called 'South End Unicorns'). If you think you have the right look for South End Unicorns let me know ;)

In conclusion

I will reiterate once again, I am generalising here when I speak about posing ability and no-shows but this is based on my own experiences. Most agency models are fine and do what's being asked of them without incident. It just seems that the hit-rate of keen, enthused and passionate models comes from the ones who are out there hustling for themselves and are relying on their own hard work to get fed.

If you have the time to look and do the research then there are plenty of outstanding models out there who aren't represented by agencies. They will often work their damnedest to help you achieve your vision as they know their reputation is invaluable to them. If you're pressed for time, have a major shoot booked and an expensive location already paid for, with gowns freshly hired, you are going to NEED a model to be there. An agency can often ensure the shoot goes ahead by making sure you have a model to work with even if the original model doesn't show up.

I certainly wish you luck with all of the models you decide to work with on your future shoots whether they be independent or agency represented :)

Thank you very much indeed for reading this far, I know this was a VERY text-heavy post but I felt it was a worthwhile article to put together because I hear so many stories about agency models vs. independent models and I just wanted to share my experiences of dealing with the modelling industry so far. As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts and if you agree or disagree with what I'm saying then please feel free to let me know your own personal experiences with independent and agency represented models. Also if you have any questions, please feel free to fire away :)

The final article of this three part mini-series on working with models will be out in a few weeks. This last article will focus on 'How to initiate contact with a model and book them'. I'm currently in the process of asking a huge range of models on their advice for us as photographers rather than me passing on any bad habits. It's shaping up to be an interesting piece so if you'd like to be informed when that's out then simply sign up to my mailing list via my Free Tips page.

:WARNING: If you've read down this far, you've earned yourself some retail therapy below!

I have also just released a brand new 22 hour complete Gelled Lighting Tutorial video. I go over everything from studio lighting setups with gels to being on location with gels plus I also go through my complete retouching and post pro workflow. For more details and complete breakdown of everything that's include check out my Coloured Gel Portraits Tutorial

Finally - A Good News Copyright Infringement Story!

It's rare that I get the opportunity to combine the words 'good news' and 'copyright infringement' in the same article but I thought today I'd take the opportunity to do so.

Stolen image taken by myself a few years ago of the model Amber Tutton.

At the weekend Instagram user @darrenna_photo tagged me on a New York 'Commercial Retoucher and Image Editor' profile on Instagram calling himself @double_dodge. I headed over to check the image I'd been tagged in only to find a very popular image of mine being used in this double_dodge's retouching portfolio.

At first I just assumed somebody had shared my shot on one of those many image farms with no credits. Obviously this isn't ideal and although it happens a lot, it is still an illegal use of my image but unfortunately these many minor infractions still are't worth my time to report every single one of them. So although at this stage I thought it might have been a simple re-share without credit I decided to scroll through the image comments to see what was being said of the shot.

Getting caught in an outright lie like this is slam-dunk case!

I scrolled through the usual comments of 'this is cool', 'great' etc but then I came across a guy called @gifted_mindset who asked double_dodge the question,

'You did this retouch?'

I think you'll agree that's hardly a very ambiguous question and should quite clearly get a straight answer, stupidly though, double_dodge responded with,

'@gifted_mindset Yes it's all my work. If you are interested in me, you can write to me at Direct. We will discuss the conditions.'

I'll just point out at this stage that I subsequently spoke to @gifted_mindset afterwards who, understandably then assumed from double_dodge that he had retouched my file for me. This is certainly not uncommon and although I never use an external retoucher myself it's totally understandable for gifted_mindset to not peruse his suspicions of image theft any further based on what double_dodge replied with.

So coming back to this image clearly not simply being a re-share; bot factories randomly re-sharing images from Pinterest is one thing but an actual human using my image to promote themselves directly and touting for work directly off of it is something quite different entirely.

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I've had work stolen and used in this way on Instagram and in the past I've taken the official route of 'reporting' an image under the terms of 'Intellectual Property Violation'. This is a 'simple' ten step process that seems to accuse you of wasting their time more than assist you in getting your image removed.

Your 'quick and simple' 10 step guide to reporting 'Intellectual Property Violation' on Instagram.

Once you've signed your life away via that program stating your phone number, your home address and you signed saying that you understand you could loose access to your account and threatened with liable for damages should you be found to be the fraudulent one, you'll receive an email from Mr Instagram stating everything again and giving you a handy reference number. Mine was 'Intellectual Property Report #1677600095879382'

I seriously hope that's a randomly generated number! Please tell me there hasn't been that many Intellectual Property Reports cases filed! PLEASE!

Anybody remember that scene at the end of the Beetlejuice where he takes a number!

Unfortunately this process ultimately results in a bit and back and forth and then maybe the image gets taken down but it can take weeks.

My post on my Instagram page as soon as I found out he'd stolen the shot.

Frankly I couldn't be bothered to go through all that again so I decided to take matters into my own hands. One way to go is to send the guy a message asking him to remove the image. This has resulted in no joy in the past and usually you simply get an immediate ban from the page if you're lucky. In other cases I've had night clubs steal my shots to promote club nights and then when asked to remove the shot they proceed to openly take the pi** in the comments section of the shot stating that there is nothing I can do and to go away and 'get a life!'

Ain't copyright infringement fun?!

No, this time I decided to take it into my own hands by outwardly posting his thieving actions on my Instagram profile and asking you guys to go to work on berating his thieving actions on his own profile.

The results of your actions was nothing short of outstanding! :D

In less than eight hours you guys managed to get him to remove the shot which is amazing considering how long the official channels take. I managed to grab a few screen shots of the comments you all left on the image before he removed it and some of them are frankly hilarious (if not a little scary - you know who you are ;) ).

Be warned, strong language is a staple in the following images. Just to set the tone I think @dan_shortt wins the award for keeping it simple with the comment that gets straight to the point, 'Eat a d*ck scumbag'!

*Clicking on the images below will enlarge them...

You guys freaking rock!

Thank you so much for your support in this and I hope that if enough people get on his case he'll have to remove his account because to my knowledge a lot of those images on his profile are definitely NOT his.

As of Tuesday April 25th 2017, double_dodge's account is still active and operating under the guise of being a New York retoucher with a profile that could potentially be comprised of all stolen images. I am throwing that accusation around lightly, I know for a fact that there are at least five other photographers work on there that I know of so if you'd like to check to see if yours is among them then please do so at https://www.instagram.com/double_dodge/

So once again, thank you guys, it really was quite humbling to see so many of you step up like that when needed and it really does show you that we can make a difference when we need to expose these idiots who think they can not only steal our work but profit from it as well.

Lastly, I'll just add that it's a shame that this slightly uncouth and heavy handed approach is so much more effective than the official one especially when you consider how quick companies like Instagram and Facebook our when it comes to removing pictures that even hint at the sight of a nipple. I wouldn't have had to resort to this public beasting had the official route of getting stolen images removed proved itself even slightly effective in the past. Let's hope this can be improved in the future although I did love reading all of your comments ;)

If you'd like to check out my Instagram profile for yourself then please take a look via following link https://www.instagram.com/jakehicksphotography/ on there I post some of the ideas and projects I'm working more than the finished images I share on here and on Facebook.

:WARNING: Sales stuffs below...

Jake Hicks Photography Workshops

If you're interested in learning more about my professional workflow then why not check out my Post-Production Workflow Workshop. On this full day of hands-on learning I walk you through everything from Lightroom to Photoshop including correct import and export, an in-depth look at the powerful colour correction tools of Lightroom, fast and effective studio proofing tools as well as an extensive step-by-step walkthrough of my editorial retouching techniques in Photoshop. Plus everybody on the day will walk away with an in-depth PDF of everything taught on the day PLUS over 15 of my Photoshop Actions and 30 of my Lightroom presets! Find out more here Jake Hicks Photography - Post Production Workflow Workshop