Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

Go you.

I beg to differ on many girls I see in your book but nevertheless I'd never question your authority on said group of girls.
You have found a way to market off the myspace girl and that is awesome. Hell I wish I could.

I still consider this a civil conversation, so I've got no problem listening to your explanation of that statement.

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

There  has been no such talk in this thread about losing jobs?
You must have filled in where you did not read.

Hurting the reputation was about GLAMOUR, not mine.

Silly me.

Chris Keeling wrote:

I still consider this a civil conversation, so I've got no problem listening to your explanation of that statement.

Maria paid you, Terrace paid you, StephyC paid you? For real.. how'd you manage that?

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.

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.

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

Maria paid you, Terrace paid you, StephyC paid you? For real.. how'd you manage that?

You picked out 3 girls, and I can pick out another 10 or 15.  I was speaking in generalities.

And one of those 3 did pay me.

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.

And now it repeats... dunt dunt duuuunt.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
who disagree as morons and fuckwads.

It was fuckhead.

Chris Keeling wrote:

You picked out 3 girls, and I can pick out another 10 or 15.  I was speaking in generalities.

And one of those 3 did pay me.

That would be interesting to know and verify.

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:
That would be interesting to know and verify.

Calling me a liar?

Or is that more silly me reading between the lines again?

Extreme Body Art wrote:
And now it repeats... dunt dunt duuuunt.

Its ok, he hasn't one good commercial shot, which he claims to be a part of... I call bullshit for lack of professional reputability. He wouldn't get hired for shit outside some bullshit project by someone who doesn't know the market nor photoshop.

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

Its ok, he hasn't one good commercial shot, which he claims to be a part of... I call bullshit for lack of professional reputability. He wouldn't get hired for shit outside some bullshit project.

I wish you could've stayed out of the brig, this conversation is fun. 

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:
Replying to that fake would be worth a brig

Well.. Anything that can be said, has been said.. If it goes on much longer, I think I'll go back to the beginning and start quoting myself... and you... and LT... and Original Sin... and a few others... lol

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:

They mock the industry I've devoted myself to with their bullshit. That is why.

Most interesting conversation. I know  NOTHING of your world but it seems to me that  Art prints and Playboy/Maxim aside, the industry of sexy glamor is not really "the" industry.  Who are the clients? 

The industry as I know it, is commercial (which pays a lot), editorial(which pays nothing) and television (which pays a whole lot) over 100 billion a year.  I am amazed at all the models that claim to be making money doing sexy stuff outside of ad agencies and without representation, it must be very hard work, but obviously there is money there, I just do not see a lot of tearsheets. 

I do not understand photographers that pay models to shoot that since they will probably never get paid themselves for shooting it or maybe my stuff just sucks and I never got offers and am bitter.

However, if you are working and ok and the models that upset you are fakers, they are then NOT working, not taking your clients, how are they screwing up the business for you or others.
I am genuinely curious to understand the biz model at work here.

Marcia Wood wrote:
I know plenty of glamour models who don't shoot nude and do fine financially.It seems incredibly immature to hate on them because they are making money not getting nekkid.

+1

I don't agree with the OP at all.

The best MUAs don't do HAIR either! in the real industry photographers hire hair stylist to do hair... you should really get your head of the MM box.

just my 2 cents.

x

Marcia Wood wrote:
I know plenty of glamour models who don't shoot nude and do fine financially.It seems incredibly immature to hate on them because they are making money not getting nekkid.

That's the thing though. They aren't making money. Glamour models do not make a living shooting glamour. Why? Because there is no living to be made. Not even Maxim pays models to appear in their magazine.

The only hope non-nude glamour models have of making money is the occasional paid shoot. It is never enough to sustain them. If they are doing well financially without removing their clothes they either a) have a full-time job aside from modeling or b) are promotional models who call themselves "glamour models".

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

+1

I don't agree with the OP at all.

The best MUAs don't do HAIR either! in the real industry photographers hire hair stylist to do hair... you should really get your head of the MM box.

just my 2 cents.

x

No, even real industry photographers value a MUA who can also do hair over one who cannot.

Danny Does Glamour wrote:

No, even real industry photographers value a MUA who can also do hair over one who cannot.

Value maybe. Discredit MUA because they don't do hair, never.

That would be like discrediting fashion photographers because they don't do glamour or beauty.

x

Glamour Jessica wrote:
I have also heard straight from the photographers mouth that the less attractive a model is, the more likely she is to do nudes. She needs to take her clothes off to get paid because no one will pay to look at her with her clothes on. Some more food for thought lol.

WOOOOOW!!
That photographer was seriously smoking the whacky tobacci!!!

It's usually the other way around! The more pretty the model, the more people WANT to see her nude. I hate to use Playboy, Perfect10 and so on as validators, but they make pretty strong arguments.

Marcia Wood wrote:
Paul that is very interesting.Maybe the model isn't
presuming that you in particular are going to ask however.Maybe she is tired of being asked to do nudes because she gets an overwhelming amount of requests to do nudes.

I get an overwhelming amount of models who ask me to shoot pinup of them, sometimes asking me to reshoot concepts I've already done with them....  For trade mind you.  I used to say something about it on my profile, but I took it down.  It made no difference; illiteracy is rampant here on MM (never mind selective reading from those who do read profiles).

Moral of the story: it does matter what you say, people will ask you for ABCXYZ just on the off-chance you'll say yes.

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?)

I know of at least a couple MUA who pose nude; not sure about the "does hair" part . . . .

Marcia Wood wrote:
I know plenty of glamour models who don't shoot nude and do fine financially.It seems incredibly immature to hate on them because they are making money not getting nekkid.

back to my OP, they have day jobs.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

+1

I don't agree with the OP at all.

The best MUAs don't do HAIR either! in the real industry photographers hire hair stylist to do hair... you should really get your head of the MM box.

just my 2 cents.

x

and that is about all its worth.

Renard Photography wrote:
I just do not see a lot of tearsheets. 

I do not understand photographers that pay models to shoot that since they will probably never get paid themselves for shooting it or maybe my stuff just sucks and I never got offers and am bitter.

That is because you are not in my world

So... maybe not a topic you can speak on if you admittedly do not have the insight for glamour nude.

cloudnine9 wrote:
why do you feel that a Glamour shoot requires nudity?
I know that alot of glamour shoots do feature nudity but isn't Glamour supposed to be a show case for the model and to high lite her beauty and how sexy and Glamourous she can be pictured.

I am not sating glamour has to require nudity. I am saying glamour girls that do not do nudes will not make the necessary money to be full time. Yes, there are jobs that do not require nudity. You won't see too many of those in any given region, not enough when incorporating competition and the validity of the job posted.

cloudnine9 wrote:
when you look at Glamour shoots for say the wife looking to surprise hubbie, there is rarely nudity involved, it's more the sexiness that can be portraid by the photog for the model/client.
I know thats not the model making money situation but it still the fact that Glamour can be done without the model getting naked.
it just depends on what the client or photog is looking for or trying to portray.
I say good luck to them.

I'm glad you concluded you are not talking about what I am talking about.

Since the "wife" is the client and not a working glamour model like we are talking about.

Ms Selina K wrote:
I do non-nude glamour, and I also book paid work. Guess I must be some kind of freak...

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

Renard Photography wrote:
However, if you are working and ok and the models that upset you are fakers, they are then NOT working, not taking your clients, how are they screwing up the business for you or others.
I am genuinely curious to understand the biz model at work here.

Once again, this thread is not about me complaining about them, just merely asking why they enter a field that the successful have to do nude. Not threatened at all, they are not even dots on a map. Just sayin why would they pick glamour? They have no place here.

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:
They have no place here.

what gives you the right to determine that?

291 wrote:

what gives you the right to determine that?

Lets say a woman wants to be a firefighter. The job requires dragging grown unconscious men from a burning building alone. They cannot do this task which is why they have no place being firefighters.

Glamour models are comfortable with nudity. It is the essence of glamour.

Jessica Vaugn IN MIAMI wrote:
Lets say a woman wants to be a firefighter. The job requires dragging grown unconscious men from a burning building alone. They cannot do this task which is why they have no place being firefighters.

Glamour models are comfortable with nudity. It is the essence of glamour.

a firefighter crew knows the limitations of those fighting the fire or disaster they are faced with.  they know their place and how they fit in for completing the tasks at hand based on an ability to do so.

the analogy you gave is weak.  and also one that shows you really don't understand the genre as well as you think.  that's also been proved by many of the responses you've made, as well as discounting other professionals who disagree with you.

291 wrote:
a firefighter crew knows the limitations of those fighting the fire or disaster they are faced with.  they know their place and how they fit in for completing the tasks at hand based on an ability to do so.

the analogy you gave is weak.  and also one that shows you really don't understand the genre as well as you think.  that's also been proved by many of the responses you've made, as well as discounting other professionals who disagree with you.

lol

ah well, I am not insulted by someone who has never shot glamour saying I do not understand glamour.