student said:Sean Connery
AhV said:I concur..how can I forget him
one more to the list ...AL PACINO ?
waiaung said::bsmilie:
If all these models in CS have that superior "X-factor", they wont be here for us to shoot... they'd be instead signing autographs, and their faces could be up there on channel5.
Or we might have to pay thousands to shoot them... instead of S$30~100.
Student,student said:You have a point there. I once asked a friend how much it would cost me to engage Christy Turlington for a half day shoot. I can't remember the exact amount he quoted, but it was something like USD 10-20000.00.
So, let us forget this issue call X-factor.
The fact is, with exceptions, most of the models featured here are very good looking. There is nothing wrong with their looks. My feeling is that there is a sense of deja vu every time one looks at them because, with exceptions, they are always taken in the same way. I think the reason why images turned out the way they were is due to the mind-set of the photographers, not a problem of the models.
I will agree and disagree with you. Looking over and over at a picture/a model, is one step towards the X-factor. Looks good and appealing is definately another step. however, to get to the X-factor, it is the ability of the picture or model to draw from the audience an emotional response, talk to the audience, and keep the audience on their toes wanting more. X-factor is not a precise science, I don't believe anyone can accurately define it, and it is a very personal thing.madmacs said:some local models i dont mind look at over and over again. does that mean that they have the x-factor from my point of view? :think:
aiya...who cares x-factor or not. as long as look good and appeals to you can liao. :lovegrin:
student said:Sometimes the lack of "X-factor" may not be the fault of the models, but the fault of photographers who chose to photogrph them that way.
ortega said:wah this topic brings back memories
where is he anyway? the other guy said that he can teach the people here how to get the x-factor, which is very different from what Alias7 said.
anyway the x-factor is a certain look that was captured and is the work of both the photographer and sitter. One day you have it and another it is gone.
as witness said "i tink it means the WOW! factor"
this more or less sums it up
Deadpoet said:I will agree and disagree with you. Looking over and over at a picture/a model, is one step towards the X-factor. Looks good and appealing is definately another step. however, to get to the X-factor, it is the ability of the picture or model to draw from the audience an emotional response, talk to the audience, and keep the audience on their toes wanting more. X-factor is not a precise science, I don't believe anyone can accurately define it, and it is a very personal thing.
Deadpoet said:If we have to forget about X-factor, it would be quite depressing for a photographer to have to give up the search for that one model who has it! Definately, it would be very depressing for me, at least.
student said:The images I have admired and continue to admire are not images of models with the "X-factor", but unknowns photographed with such sensitivity and feelings that they make the images of Turlington, Crawford and Campbell look so passe' and ordinary.
student said:So I do not look for models with "x-factor". In actual fact, I look at myself and who I am. Per chance I meet one with such qualities that transcend the ordinary, I will be grateful. But if not, it doesn't bother me the least bit.
Deadpoet said:To me, this is your X-factor. I agree the common defination of X-factor has a very commercial bend to it, but from those people's perspective, business bottom line rules the world. To photographer like us, our defination and expectation should be much different.
I admire your attitude. I for one, must confess the search for this elusive thing can be maddenning!