Trying to leave my brief sojourn into commenting on politicking aside I’d like to use this post to try and get into words my issues with a lot of current amateur fashion / physique / model photography.

This is an area I’ve taken up in the last 18 months or so and really enjoy it — without there are distinct benefits of trying to make really good imagery with someone who has, if nothing else, an interest in being photographed and a willingness to engage with what the photographer is trying to achieve.

However, one of the things I’m realising quite rapidly is just how vaccuous and unengaging many of these types of photos are.

I’m beautiful, look at me. No, just look and stare at my perfect face or ample boobs or my perfect pecs.

Yeah, yawn.

This isn’t great photography — it may be technically — the lighting might be brilliant, the composition precise and the clothes and expression might be just spot on. But it’s devoid of life, excitement or spark. Like german-engineered cars — technically brilliant and a thing of beauty — but lacking in personality and lifeless.

If I were to make one call out to those shooting models these days — and there are more and more of them with the rise of the model/photographer social website  — is this: can we have some imagination? Please, can we try to tell a story?

Can we try to move past technically proficient photos — and see photos where you can read a story in them?

I’ll try if you will!

Some modelling websites I use…

• www.purestorm.com
• www.modelmayhem.com
• www.net-model.com

Call me mischevious if you want — but I’m a little annoyed that the best the Daily Mail’s PR office could do was to claim the Twitter and Facebook responses to the hideous article by Ms Moir was part of an organised campaign to target the former food writer.

I mean — the amount of effort to go to in an attempt to convince a large audience to react negatively without making the decision for themselves. Well, it’s insane.

It would be far easier to spread a story about a small boy taken away by a balloon… or something similar.

Can they not, for one moment, realise a conclusion that a very large number of individuals were made aware of an article. They read it. And then came to their own conclusion they disliked the tone, inference and content of that article.

And then they got vocal about it.

Worringly of all — some of these people who got vocal and were offended and realised just how hideous the article was weren’t even gay. Even worse some may not have had best friends and relatives who were gay. Some were even just good, everyday folk.

Stephen Fry and his celebrity twittering friends do have a wide reach — but they don’t have an ability to mobilise people without fair reason.

Or do they?

Well, wasn’t it just — and by public life I really mean the bit where the twitterverse and the real world collide.

If you go to the home page of TheGuardian.co.uk today (pictured) there are two stories that probably wouldn’t be there if not for Twitter — and the power the ‘gossiping masses’ now have.

I imagine most of us were blissfully ignorant of Trafigura until earlier this week; when their slightly mis-judging lawyers attempted to stop a newspaper reporting on the goings-on of our government. Maybe sometime back in the 20th century there was a point where this may have covered something up or contained it for a while.

But really — had they not heard of Twitter? Or Facebook? Or… email? Did they really think a big corporate attempting to hush up free press in such a public way wouldn’t cause one or two problems? Whatever they did or didn’t do — I think it was time to PR your way out of it.

And then came yesterday. The lovely Ms Moir of the Daily Mail and her (ill) considered piece on the demise of Stephen Gately. The woman is either very very blind to the modern world. Or she’s got a book coming out.

I’m not going to comment on the article as plenty of other people have done so. But really, Jan, do you expect us to believe, even for a second that you weren’t aware of the strength of feeling when diatribes are published seemingly against any minority? And did you miss the Trafigura tweetfest? REALLY? And — Daily Mail editors — if you’re to promote a food writer to moral overseer can you please at least have the stomach to stand by material already published or retract it. Changing headlines and pulling advertising just reeks of the lowest behaviour.

The world is changing — the people don’t need to resort to arranged protest or a media campaign to make themselves heard. If you are in the public eye it would do you well to learn this and not to misuse your position by trying to suppress or subvert these views.

And for sanity’s sake — please don’t for one second imagine those of us out here in the real world are so lacking in things to do that we’re sat planning campaigns to bring about the demise of fairly low ranking journos.

We’ve better things to tweet about, Jan

Maybe I’m a victim of too much political correctness, or maybe it’s just a virtue of having taken part in online chat for 16 years or so — but I am constantly amazed by just how uncaring some people can appear to be when taking part in online communication.

After a day or so of chatting online you will be aware that can indicate someone being a little jokey. But, when this is omitted, is it always the senders fault if the receiver doesn’t get that the comment was a joke?

Another example is — when the writer has an obvious inability to empathise with the other users of that space; no measure of how a blunt comment or specific action will almost certainly cause annoyance — why do we feel bad for getting annoyed at them?

Thru millennia we have established effective body language to assist us to communicate face to face.

Over recent centuries we have worked out ways to use written language to achieve the right reaction when producing considered, written material such as newspaper reports or letters.

So why is it that, in under two decades, we have not yet managed to solve the problem of effectively dealing with people who don’t understand how importance of effective communication?

Oh, we have — blind ignorance!

Isn’t it weird how there are so many people who still feel that it is acceptable to parachute into a web conversation; tell people about their great product/service/idea and then leave again?

What a horrible practice — and how annoying it seems to those who spend time building relations with those who regularly take part in the discussions within that area! But… it’s an easy trap to fall into; the cynical might just think ‘if I blanket advertise it; I’ll get buy in’ — a slightly more targeted version of viagra spam emails. But I’m aware that I’ve done this from time to time — re-joining Flickr groups I was once (or never) a member of and promoting an event I thought they would really like to know about.

What I’ve since realised is — even though you would do this with every best intention — why not take your time and introduce yourself into the conversation first or at very least contact an administrator/moderator and ask them about your concept.

Discussions aren’t the place to blankly promote a service — just imagine how annoying you’d find it if, in a lull in a conversation at a party, that guy that’s just walked in the front door walks over and tries to sell you his used car/ insurance/ personal services? Even if he stood around long enough to ensure it was on topic — you’d still be a little less than excited by his arrival!

So… parachutists; learn to explore the terrain a little before erecting your billboard and getting airlifted out!