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

She was conning you. Get you to pay at higher rate and not do what you asked. The old bait and switch. Oh is that that what means!? Oh then no way im sorry....But im already here

...

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?

Most of the real fashion industry shoots I have been a permit monitor on(80+), there is an MUA or two AND hairstylists and wardrobe people AND art directors AND producers AND craft services AND a host of other people. And the whole crew was paid. Every one of them

Too Hot For Snakes wrote:
Most of the real fashion industry shoots I have been a permit monitor on(80+), there is an MUA or two AND hairstylists and wardrobe people AND art directors AND producers AND craft services AND a host of other people. And they were all paid. Every one of them

as they should.

it is about budget and hiring one person that can do all you need so you do not have to have two people.

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.

It is nearly impossible to make a living being as a glamour model without shredding clothes and/or your dignity.

Most models I have encountered (who call themselves glamour models and don't get noodie) make their living off doing promotional work.  They are not making money as a direct result of their glamour modeling.  Indirect, I can buy that.

More than anything else, glamour models do it because they like taking pictures.

They do it because they like looking sexy in said pictures, hence having guys "oooh" and "ahh" at them while other girls get jealous.

For all intents and purposes, they want nice pictures for public networking sites...to call themselves a model and land a rich guy who will carry them off into a sunset of cocaine and promiscuity.

Chris Knight wrote:
More than anything else, glamour models do it because they like taking pictures.

They do it because they like looking sexy in said pictures, hence having guys "oooh" and "ahh" at them while other girls get jealous.

For all intents and purposes, they want nice pictures for public networking sites...to call themselves a model and land a rich guy who will carry them off into a sunset of cocaine and promiscuity.

Exactly. That is lame to me.

Somehow many reading my OP thought I had issue competing with them when that was never said nor even thought...

I just wanted someone to say this is all their intent is for this sort of shooting.

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:
Concept, people! Not saying you have to get naked for it to be glamour nor am I saying they never get paid for non nude work. Think about my post! If they chose to not get topless/nude, it eliminates so many gigs that they will never make it full time as a glamour model. They will have to supplement somehow for the loss income. This is why they will fail as full time glamour models not willing to get naked.

Why does it matter to you?

Too Hot For Snakes wrote:

Why does it matter to you?

Why do most things posted in a forum matter?

Too Hot For Snakes wrote:

Why does it matter to you?

Well, why are you replying? What's it to you?

Just good ol MM conversation!

Chris Knight wrote:

It is nearly impossible to make a living being as a glamour model without shredding clothes and/or your dignity.

Most models I have encountered (who call themselves glamour models and don't get noodie) make their living off doing promotional work.  They are not making money as a direct result of their glamour modeling.  Indirect, I can buy that.

More than anything else, glamour models do it because they like taking pictures.

They do it because they like looking sexy in said pictures, hence having guys "oooh" and "ahh" at them while other girls get jealous.

For all intents and purposes, they want nice pictures for public networking sites...to call themselves a model and land a rich guy who will carry them off into a sunset of cocaine and promiscuity.

And that's why they must pay.

Danny Does Glamour wrote:
And that's why they must pay.

They do not all see the distinction between housewife client and professional model. I guess.

Too Hot For Snakes wrote:
Why does it matter to you?

thank you-kinda sounds whiny.

most girls are never going to be full time models anyways.

I'd like to mention that the online times I've been paid is when I've had my clothes on.

Faith EnFire wrote:

thank you

I'd like to mention that the online times I've been paid is when I've had my clothes on.

I bet you can count all 1-4 times that has happened too- and that is kinda the OPs point ... the PAID market online is nude.  We can all count the one time we went to Vegas and won some money- but that doesnt mean thats what really happens in Vegas.  You go to Vegas- you lose money.  Thats the rule.

Jose Luis wrote:
NON nude models do nudes too- they just do it at the strip club as they gyrate on the lap of some sweaty old man for $20 ... so their friends wont think they are dirty ... ironic, huh?

-Jose

Well you can't turn a ho into a housewife. 

Unless she's on VH1.

Jose Luis wrote:
NON nude models do nudes too- they just do it at the strip club as they gyrate on the lap of some sweaty old man for $20 ... so their friends wont think they are dirty ... ironic, huh?

-Jose

Well said.


Somehow since there is no photographic proof of their deeds they feel safer than taking a topless photo!

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

I'm not sure why your post made it 7 pages because the answer seems quite logical. Maybe not so much for a model with a clear agenda and a hard-on for models that perform glamour work but don't pose nude.

But to answer your question...

Are there groups of glamour models that don't do nude or topless? Yes, they're called glamour models. The models that are posing nude are called nude models, whether it's fine art or glamour or erotic nude or whatever sub-genre you feel comfortable with.

How are glamour models making money? By being hired for glamour work. How are you being hired? For the same reason, right? People are paying you because they're getting something they want.

In your own words, it's because you're willing to go that extra mile and get nude in your glamour shoots. You even claim to be desensitized because neither you nor nobody you interact with has ever had a glamour shoot that didn't involve getting nude. Doesn't that say more about the reason you're hired over another model than it does about the state of the industry or another glamour models' ability to make money (a subset of models that you admittedly have no interaction with or knowledge about).

The fact that you can't understand hiring a model who ONLY does bikini/lingerie when you can hire a model who "has so much more to offer" because she will get nude only illustrates your own shortsighted views. It's obvious you have a major chip on your shoulder for glamour models that aren't willing to pose nude since you "can't imagine" how they could make any money. Predictably, when a model disagreed you insulted her age, her knowledge of the industry and her past experience (IF she ever had any).

Is that because you begrudgingly made the choice to add nudity to your menu of services because you thought otherwise you'd be serving wings in tight pair of orange shorts, and you now resent those models that didn't make that choice?

If I need to hire a glamour model for a project, why the hell would I care if she is willing to pose nude? It's irrelevant to my clients needs or, for arguments sake, let's say I'm personally paying because I need a glamour model. I need specific shots of a model in a bikini. I'm hiring the best model for THAT project. Is there a reason I should care that the model is willing to go the extra distance and pose fully nude or topless?

I must say, it's really a good thing that you're an attractive female model. Otherwise, 90% of the people in this thread who are falling over themselves to drink your bath water would have lambasted and/or brigged you 6 pages ago...somewhere between your absurd analogies, clique-ish industry references, unsolicited critiques, and your depiction of those who disagree as morons and fuckwads.

Then again, you're a glamour model willing to show her tits so I guess that trumps logic any day.

+1

Jose Luis wrote:

I bet you can count all 1-4 times that has happened too- and that is kinda the OPs point ... the PAID market online is nude.  We can all count the one time we went to Vegas and won some money- but that doesnt mean thats what really happens in Vegas.  You go to Vegas- you lose money.  Thats the rule.

Yes, that is my point. Not that it doesn't happen, just that it will happen exponentially less than for glamour nude models. Non-Nude glamour is a small market and is overlapped by the models who do nude work elsewhere... girls that do non nude only may show up on the scene from time to time but watch their ports... their images don't change, they rarely grow in their skill, they don't give themselves to their work and they don't make the contacts necessary to be anything other than the occasional photographed hot girl on a Saturday before their shift at the diner.

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

no, just the people who might hire you...now and then... once every...

What the fuck is your deal? They're actually pretty talented and have good taste. And it's more like consistently rather than occasionally

Ms Selina K wrote:

What the fuck is your deal? They're actually pretty talented and have good taste. And it's more like consistently rather than occasionally

Umm maybe that's she's actually worked in the real industry with real industry people

LT Smash wrote:
Umm maybe that's she's actually worked in the real industry with real industry people

LMAO, o.k. Run along now little child.

Ms Selina K wrote:

LMAO, o.k. Run along now little child.

I'm dead serious. A lot of people in this thread arguing the op is right have been in major publications. They work with the best of the best. Can you cite me any major publications or major photographers you've worked with?

Chris Knight wrote:

It is nearly impossible to make a living being as a glamour model without shredding clothes and/or your dignity.

Most models I have encountered (who call themselves glamour models and don't get noodie) make their living off doing promotional work.  They are not making money as a direct result of their glamour modeling.  Indirect, I can buy that.

More than anything else, glamour models do it because they like taking pictures.

They do it because they like looking sexy in said pictures, hence having guys "oooh" and "ahh" at them while other girls get jealous.

For all intents and purposes, they want nice pictures for public networking sites...to call themselves a model and land a rich guy who will carry them off into a sunset of cocaine and promiscuity.

THIS. I know a lot of hobbyist glamour models who won't pose nude (some not even implied) but for those of us doing this full time, it's a whole 'nother story. The most successful full time glamour models I know pose nude. It goes with the territory.

LT Smash wrote:

Umm maybe that's she's actually worked in the real industry with real industry people

Why the only people who'd work with Selina have portfolios that just look like something a cat threw up.

Tom Linkens wrote:

Why the only people who'd work with Selina have portfolios that just look like something a cat threw up.

tell us how you really feel

LT Smash wrote:

I'm dead serious. A lot of people in this thread arguing the op is right have been in major publications. They work with the best of the best. Can you cite me any major publications or major photographers you've worked with?

I believed it was about making a living off it, what does that have to do with anything?

Ms Selina K wrote:

I believed it was about making a living off it, what does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with the fact you can say you're making a living off of it but you're not really until you're being paid to be published. Being paid by gwcs isn't making it in the industry. It's making a living, not making it in the industry

Tom Linkens wrote:

Why the only people who'd work with Selina have portfolios that just look like something a cat threw up.

Really? Did I say that? Good job putting words in my mouth

Tom Linkens wrote:

Why the only people who'd work with Selina have portfolios that just look like something a cat threw up.

I just died laughing. If I haven't mentioned it already, I love your sense of humor

LT Smash wrote:

It has to do with the fact you can say you're making a living off of it but you're not really until you're being paid to be published. Being paid by gwcs isn't making it in the industry. It's making a living, not making it in the industry

Wrong again, like always. Says who? Gee didn't know you made the rules for such things. And btw, I'm sure the legit photogs I work with are far from being GWCs. Nice personal attack.

Ms Selina K wrote:

Wrong again, like always. Says who? Gee didn't know you made the rules for such things. And btw, I'm sure the legit photogs I work with are far from being GWCs. Nice personal attack.

I didn't personally attack anyone in your portfolio. I just stated most people who pay are GWCs if they dont have a project or aren't selling prints. I'm sure ev3eryone else would have understood that