One of the reasons I went with a 'stereotypical' answer was that I don't know squat about modeling and models.
I can say this, my take on glamouresque styles of photography/modeling is that it's creative and artistic... as a business it has little viability for most folks. From that perspective, I think versatility and range are better attributes than a niche style.
If I rule out Andy MacFarland, I think the same shots over and over get boring. Andy's different, there's an intangible quality that makes each of his shoots different even though the poses and locations are all similar. He's not the only one, but it's a rare quality.
If I were shooting different models each time (I don't), then I would be seeking something different with each shoot. I'm easily bored and easily distracted so I tend to try lots of different things with photography in general. It's more fun to explore a range of expression than to repeat the same one every time.
It IS expression after all. What are you trying to communicate, what feeling? I suppose you could plan it all out a pick your model based on that... but it's more likely the photographer and model are taking an advantage of an opportunity (TFP). In that situation versatility, particularly on the model's part is a huge creative advantage.
But, I'm an odd duck around here, I shoot one lady and we do it purely for the enjoyment of it. It's one of the ways we play together. She's an Art Director and I'm a product shooter, neither of us have a professional interest in glamour.
I love the retro stuff by the way, I think you're well suited to it.
Chip
|