Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:
...really?

I was told about this group of glamour models who don't do nudes or even topless.

I asked how they make any money, my informant in this conversation said they do not make money.

So why are they doing it...and what sort of group is shooting them?


If I can hire a glamour model who does bikini/lingerie, implied, topless, nude, why would I hire a glamour model who does only lingerie/bikini?

Maybe I'm desensitized because almost all my glamour shoots have called for some sort of nudity as do all my glamour model friends and contacts.

The difference between what makes sense and what doesn't make sense is best illustrated by the fact that there are real models who take their craft seriously, and there are also model wannabes who spend their time wishing and hoping to become a famous model, but do little to even understand what it requires.

GNapp Studios wrote:
You have the beauty and talent that you could make money even if you did not do nude photo shoots.

Oh bother... I only got those great images for shooting lame nakie ones in trade... LOL!!

But thank you

Sophistocles wrote:
Hobbyists.

Oh.

Where they at so they can shoot me with clothes on and still pay????

KillerShotz Photography wrote:
I don't know, I know of some who do implied and still make money.

I guess implied is just positioning of nakedness...

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

I guess implied is just positioning of nakedness...

Yeah pretty much

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:

The difference between what makes sense and what doesn't make sense is best illustrated by the fact that there are real models who take their craft seriously, and there are also model wannabes who spend their time wishing and hoping to become a famous model, but do little to even understand what it requires.

Oh yes, baffling to try and live in two worlds. Women who go the farthest in this business is defiantly devote their lives to it.

KillerShotz Photography wrote:

Yeah pretty much

Back to not knowing why that matters... LOL

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
for half price.  :-)

Psssssshhhhh


I have a sense of humor so I'll play along

ARTFORMS wrote:
I paid a model to do bikini images. Well ok it was the advertising agency that paid but she wasn't naked. Neither was I.

That was not the realm of what I am talking about. 



This is parallel (yet different enough) like hiring an MUA who does not do hair, why in the heck would I do that when I can get one MUA who does hair and makeup?

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:
That was not the realm of what I am talking about. 



This is parallel (yet different enough) like hiring an MUA who does not do hair, why in the heck would I do that when I can get one MUA who does hair and makeup?

Easily think about it this way you don't do spreads why should they hire you instead of someone who does plus does everything you mentioned plus much more.

The answer is easy because you have something that particular client needs or wants.

I just used that as an example

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

That was not the realm of what I am talking about. 



This is parallel (yet different enough) like hiring an MUA who does not do hair, why in the heck would I do that when I can get one MUA who does hair and makeup?

Jessica - I'm still looking for the MUA that does hair, makeup AND poses nude...



(you're likin' Miami TOO much aren't you, Jes?)

KillerShotz Photography wrote:

Easily think about it this way you don't do spreads why should they hire you instead of someone who does everything you mentioned plus more.

The answer is easy because you have something the client wants.

I just used that as an example

Maybe they should hire someone who does spreads over someone like me who does Playboy style nudes... AND they do, often, I turn down a lot of requests to shoot and miss a lot of shoots because of that fact.

My point was, glamour in its essence is stylized nudity in sexy ways. How and why do they become glamour models to do it on their own terms?

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:
...really?

I was told about this group of glamour models who don't do nudes or even topless.

I asked how they make any money, my informant in this conversation said they do not make money.

So why are they doing it...and what sort of group is shooting them?


If I can hire a glamour model who does bikini/lingerie, implied, topless, nude, why would I hire a glamour model who does only lingerie/bikini?

Maybe I'm desensitized because almost all my glamour shoots have called for some sort of nudity as do all my glamour model friends and contacts.

They get their money not from modeling, but from the attention the exposure gets them.
You know... promoting yourself by doing promotional work.

this is what my informant told me (he was hinting at something that was unspoken).

Then also, there are those models who claim they will do nude, but do not have their rates posted. They say to 'ask for rates', but don't give them out when asked. Are they seriously looking for work when they have 10 photos of themselves wearing the same thing and making the same face?

Then there's the models that want to do these glamoury kind of photos only if they will be published, and shot by an already published photographer. Somebody told them that was a good idea (maybe?). Only to work with professionals, and not with ...people who may be at a medium to advanced level of beginnerism who are trying to take steps to get to a professional level... the ones who would be willing to actually PAY.

Some, most, are really not trying too hard. Not hitting it hard; what they think they are trying to do.

There's nothing wrong with the bikini-onlys, but sure, who wouldn't pick someone who'd pose topless, over them?

Wait, I changed my mind. There's something seriously wrong with the bikini-onlys.

Through Garys Eyes wrote:

Jessica - I'm still looking for the MUA that does hair, makeup AND poses nude...



(you're likin' Miami TOO much aren't you, Jes?)

What's up Gary?
Duh, that's ME!! www.modelmayhem/710711

You miss me in Dallas?

AaronPawlak wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the bikini-onlys, but sure, who wouldn't pick someone who'd pose topless, over them?

Wait, I changed my mind. There's something seriously wrong with the bikini-onlys.

Exactly.

Bah ha ha ha!

Hope all is well with you Aaron!

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:
What's up Gary?
Duh, that's ME!! www.modelmayhem.com/710711

You miss me in Dallas?

I'm missin' ya Big time in the Big "D"...

Sophistocles wrote:
Your getting fixated on semantics as a gating function. That's a problem. Think simply in terms of need, supply and demand.

Then it's obvious. Everyone offers what they want and are hired or not. Genre is irrelevant.

I didn't know there was a need for bikini models... Just take a model and put her in a bikini (yet she still does other stuff in the meantime).

Its like, there is no need for pregnant models...(ba ha ha)... because an agency model can wear that bag thing and do the catalog segment and she is still good for normal clothes 5 minutes later.

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

That was not the realm of what I am talking about. 



This is parallel (yet different enough) like hiring an MUA who does not do hair, why in the heck would I do that when I can get one MUA who does hair and makeup?

Awww shucks Jess, why not? What if the model already has her hair done then the MUA person wouldn't need to do her hair, just her face.

The advertising agency hired me to hire a model to do bikini images so it didn't matter if she did nudes or not. She didn't need to be a multi task model.

ARTFORMS wrote:

Awww shucks Jess, why not? What if the model already has her hair done then the MUA person wouldn't need to do her hair, just her face.

The advertising agency hired me to hire a model to do bikini images so it didn't matter if she did nudes or not. She didn't need to be a multi task model.

But for HER... what does she do to make money elsewhere. Its pretty delusional to think a girl can make a living being an unrepresented non-nude glamour non glamour model.

Jay Farrell wrote:
They are pretty much useless to me. Strange how they are a dime a dozen.

hell yes they are. And they have to have jobs to supplement their income as they get hired once a month for a 4 hour bikini shoot.

Boston Artist Model wrote:
Yeah, that's just weird

Weird and lame.

Weird and lame to call yourself a glamour model and do no glamour.

Garry k wrote:
hmmm, there are probably some "art " models out there who dont do nudes ..

Ba ha ha ha ha!! No joke. How do you promote yourself as an art model with clothes? Nice

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

Ba ha ha ha ha!! No joke. How do you promote yourself as an art model with clothes? Nice

I've heard rumors that they are NAKED underneath their clothes!!!

Nine Women wrote:

I've heard rumors that they are NAKED underneath their clothes!!!

Lies Gary... non nude models even shower with clothes on.

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

Oh.

Where they at so they can shoot me with clothes on and still pay????

Bite your tongue-that'd be a tragedy!!

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

Ba ha ha ha ha!! No joke. How do you promote yourself as an art model with clothes? Nice

Well I did once shoot a Chinese model who thought implied meant unbuttoning the top button of her shirt ..maybe they are friends of hers

Ko Part 2 wrote:

Bite your tongue-that'd be a tragedy!!

I have met sick individuals who have hired me at a nude rate for non nude! They do exist.

Sophistocles wrote:
Hobbyists.

Really? Most hobbyists I know don't pay. And I've reached the point of not wanting to work with models who "won't do nude," even if the shoot doesn't call for nudes. I've found that for many, it's a red flag that they'll balk at the simplest requests, even.

Garry k wrote:

Well I did once shoot a Chinese model who thought implied meant unbuttoning the top button of her shirt ..maybe they are friends of hers

"I'm Plowed" nudes are more fun than implied...'just sayin'...