Alkonost wrote:
Is there anyone out there that can help me, whether it is a photographer or model, as I know their style but yet I have no approved sets. I'm not sure what they want, as the quality doesn't seem to be the factor ( I have seen mediocre quality pictures make it) and after several sets, I am stumped..

If the quality of your photographs is at the same level as their other models, then I can only assume:

1) You haven't given them enough time to review.
2) You don't have the look or don't fall in the age bracket they prefer.

Good luck!

CHAD ALAN wrote:
You don't have the look.

+1

Alkonost wrote:
Well what is confusing is that I was accepted as a model, not denied outright..but the sets themselves weren't accepted..is it because they are going now for a more natural look ( no editing or little makeup) or perhaps right now they want a less tattooed girl ( I have seen girls with a lot less tattoos at times)

~Sigh~

Alkonost wrote:
Well what is confusing is that I was accepted as a model, not denied outright..but the sets themselves weren't accepted..is it because they are going now for a more natural look ( no editing or little makeup) or perhaps right now they want a less tattooed girl ( I have seen girls with a lot less tattoos at times)

No, that's not it.

jf

Toto Photo wrote:

~Sigh~

If you are unable or unwilling to answer the OP's question, why bother with this meaningless post? Or is this a part of networking I am unable to comprehend?

G Images wrote:

If you are unable or unwilling to answer the OP's question, why bother with this meaningless post? Or is this a part of networking I am unable to comprehend?

It seems like you have nothing to say to the OP either. Hmmm. But thanks for bashing someone else.

Dear OP

Obviously this has been a dream of yours. I hope you will move this over to the critique section so you can get advise on the actual work.

I will only state that you should hire a strong photographer in the nude pin up style of SG.  That may be your best chance.

Good luck and I hope it works for you

Alkonost wrote:
Update..they said it was the lighting..not consistent lighting..and the did say on another set I sent in it was too graphic??? Is that because I was showing my vagina in parts or my butt? Are they getting weird now about the suggestion? I know I did not make that a focus or did some weird spreading..hmmm..

What did the rules say?

Alkonost wrote:
Update..they said it was the lighting..not consistent lighting..and the did say on another set I sent in it was too graphic??? Is that because I was showing my vagina in parts or my butt? Are they getting weird now about the suggestion? I know I did not make that a focus or did some weird spreading..hmmm..

Yeah SG isn't too fond of the spread shots.It's in the rules.

Alkonost wrote:
Is there anyone out there that can help me, whether it is a photographer or model, as I know their style but yet I have no approved sets. I'm not sure what they want, as the quality doesn't seem to be the factor ( I have seen mediocre quality pictures make it) and after several sets, I am stumped..

Look.  Model Mayhem is a weird place. Because one hand we are judging images and sometimes people aesthetically, and on the other hand trying to be professional and courteous in doing such.  Here's what I think.  You're barking up the wrong tree.  In the time it's taken you to submit multiple times and try to bend to their criticism of how you should appear so that they can make a buck off of you, you could have found a place that loves you just the way you are.  That's a little cheesy, but I think you get the drift.  Go find some new trees!

Fotopia wrote:
If you were to read the unreasonably restrictive SG contract, you might just realize that far worse things could happen than being rejected by them.

+1

G Images wrote:

If you are unable or unwilling to answer the OP's question, why bother with this meaningless post? Or is this a part of networking I am unable to comprehend?

Right you are. Sorry for that post everyone.

Samantha Scarlette wrote:
The average suicide girl is or appears to be about 18 to 25.  They also tend to be a lot more toned than you are and have firmer chests, even the plus sized.   

If you're hellbent on submitting to them again, i'd say spend a month or too toning up your body,  hire a professional makeup artist that can do makeup to make you look a bit younger.. And also hire a better photographer if SG's are complaining about bad lighting. 

Also try doing an out door or natural light photoshoot.  I looked into SG's a few years ago, got accepted as a model, and then decided against ever shooting any sets, because no way in hell was I going to have nudes up without being paid/getting the actual title of suicide girl…But of the example sets I remember from their web site, most of them where shot in natural lighting with a regular HD type focus.  Kind of the opposite on the indoor staged lighting soft lens Playboy style, which seems to be more prevalent in your portfolio (as far as lighting concepts).

This may be a little painful to hear, but she's right.

Suicide girls isn't what they once were, but they know what their audience wants and pays for.  If you're not it, then you're not it.  Being accepted as a model means  what??  It means they'll accept a set or sets from you.  That's pretty much anyone lately.  The set would have to be exceptional in some way for them to accept and use, whether that be the model, the location, your artwork, your mods, the photography, or something else that they can sell.

If you don't have any of these exceptional things, they'll simply move on to the next set that does. 


It really is as simple as that.

Alkonost wrote:
Is there anyone out there that can help me, whether it is a photographer or model, as I know their style but yet I have no approved sets. I'm not sure what they want, as the quality doesn't seem to be the factor ( I have seen mediocre quality pictures make it) and after several sets, I am stumped..

Given their terrible reputation, this makes perfect sense.

studio36uk wrote:
Whatever SG said this is what they actually meant: Don't call us, we'll call you.

Studio36

Now you've got that old Sugarloaf tune going through me head

Alkonost wrote:
Well what is confusing is that I was accepted as a model, not denied outright..but the sets themselves weren't accepted..is it because they are going now for a more natural look ( no editing or little makeup) or perhaps right now they want a less tattooed girl ( I have seen girls with a lot less tattoos at times)

You don't have the look they want.

rp_photo wrote:

Given their terrible reputation, this makes perfect sense.

Just curious, why is their reputation terrible?

rp_photo wrote:

Now you've got that old Sugarloaf tune going through me head

So not Green Eyed Lady, I guess...not familiar with other tunes.

Cervezax wrote:

rp_photo wrote:
Given their terrible reputation, this makes perfect sense.

Just curious, why is their reputation terrible?

As for models

1) Oppressive contracts, and it took the California courts to do away with those. They are now history.

BUT

2) After the court had their say SG also altered the way they do business with models such that they now do pretty much everything they can to avoid actually paying them. Models go to the trouble of shooting for them; send them the pictures; they use them for free until and unless a set of images is voted on [?] sufficiently to earn some particular status [set of the week, or month, or whatever] and if they never reach that status SG just uses them forever without paying for them.

Aside from how they treat models ^^^ their contracts with the photographer's are still shit. They basically demand full ownership of the copyright and additionally impose a lot of really restrictive conditions, bizarre and anti-competitive in some parts, on photographers in addition to that. Oh, yes, they also do not pay the photographers except in some situations similar to the criteria under which they pay the models. If a set fails to reach the required "status" the photographer gets paid effectively nothing either.

That's SG in a nutshell.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
As for models

1) Oppressive contracts, and it took the California courts to do away with those. They are now history.

BUT

2) After the court had their say SG also altered the way they do business with models such that they now do pretty much everything they can to avoid actually paying them. Models go to the trouble of shooting for them; send them the pictures; they use them for free until and unless a set of images is voted on [?] sufficiently to earn some particular status [set of the week, or month, or whatever] and if they never reach that status SG just uses them forever without paying for them.

Aside from how they treat models ^^^ their contracts with the photographer's are still shit. They basically demand full ownership of the copyright and additionally impose a lot of really restrictive conditions, bizarre and anti-competitive in some parts, on photographers in addition to that. Oh, yes, they also do not pay the photographers except in some situations similar to the criteria under which they pay the models. If a set fails to reach the required "status" the photographer gets paid effectively nothing either.

That's SG in a nutshell.

Studio36

So we have no misunderstandings, Studio36 doesn't like SG.  I can't say that I blame him.   I just don't want misunderstandings on his true feelings.  He doesn't like them.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
As for models

1) Oppressive contracts, and it took the California courts to do away with those. They are now history.

BUT

2) After the court had their say SG also altered the way they do business with models such that they now do pretty much everything they can to avoid actually paying them. Models go to the trouble of shooting for them; send them the pictures; they use them for free until and unless a set of images is voted on [?] sufficiently to earn some particular status [set of the week, or month, or whatever] and if they never reach that status SG just uses them forever without paying for them.

Aside from how they treat models ^^^ their contracts with the photographer's are still shit. They basically demand full ownership of the copyright and additionally impose a lot of really restrictive conditions, bizarre and anti-competitive in some parts, on photographers in addition to that. Oh, yes, they also do not pay the photographers except in some situations similar to the criteria under which they pay the models. If a set fails to reach the required "status" the photographer gets paid effectively nothing either.

That's SG in a nutshell.

Studio36

So we have no misunderstandings, Studio36 doesn't like SG.  I can't say that I blame him.   I just don't want misunderstandings on his true feelings.  He doesn't like them.

No I do not, but nothing said above is misstating the position either.

As a business their business practices leave me cold. But I can also name other businesses that I would argue equally that someone should not get involved with as well.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Cervezax wrote:

rp_photo wrote:
Given their terrible reputation, this makes perfect sense.

Just curious, why is their reputation terrible?

As for models

1) Oppressive contracts, and it took the California courts to do away with those. They are now history.

BUT

2) After the court had their say SG also altered the way they do business with models such that they now do pretty much everything they can to avoid actually paying them. Models go to the trouble of shooting for them; send them the pictures; they use them for free until and unless a set of images is voted on [?] sufficiently to earn some particular status [set of the week, or month, or whatever] and if they never reach that status SG just uses them forever without paying for them.

Aside from how they treat models ^^^ their contracts with the photographer's are still shit. They basically demand full ownership of the copyright and additionally impose a lot of really restrictive conditions, bizarre and anti-competitive in some parts, on photographers in addition to that. Oh, yes, they also do not pay the photographers except in some situations similar to the criteria under which they pay the models. If a set fails to reach the required "status" the photographer gets paid effectively nothing either.

That's SG in a nutshell.

edit: quote button not working.

Studio36

Thank you. You just reminded me why I quit on suicide girls years ago

OP: Like they said, don't sweat the suicide girl submissions, better off going on to bigger and better anyway!