wynnesome wrote:
Advice:  Reply to casting calls where your looks and availability actually MEET the needs of the project being described.

+1

wynnesome wrote:
Casting call specifies:
Full nudes
Model release required
Model to receive selected images from the shoot

Model replies with the following:
"...I am hesitant to have my rear end or "package" shot unless it is with my own semi-pro camera, which you could use, putting the responsibility into my own hands as to who sees these, where they end up, etc. (I come from a conservative family)"

Unnamed and un-outed model, you are delusional.  You have a mindset appropriate for shooting with GWC's at very best, which ironically is going to result in exactly the kind of images you DON'T want to be a part of.

Advice:  Reply to casting calls where your looks and availability actually MEET the needs of the project being described.  Don't have the extreme discourtesy of replying to a casting call with demands that are in clear contradiction to the shoot being offered.

The only thing making a strong showing here is your complete lack of professional-minded attitude.

Thank you for coming into the model forum with your negativity.  I would think it takes less time to laugh at the response and move on than it would to post about it, as if all of us need to be taught this lesson. 

Remember, not every person with a model profile here is really a model.

MO Rina wrote:
Remember, not every person with a model profile here is really a model.

well said.

MO Rina wrote:
Thank you for coming into the model forum with your negativity.  I would think it takes less time to laugh at the response and move on than it would to post about it, as if all of us need to be taught this lesson. 

Remember, not every person with a model profile here is really a model.

Actually, this sort of response is surprisingly common.  If I post a casting call for a nude modell I can guarantee I will get at least two replies from models who won't pose nude.  Ok, the OP's experience is extreme, but there are quite a few models out there who don't know what casting calls are.

Remember the OP's experience with models next time a model posts about the behaviour of photographers.

wynnesome wrote:
Casting call specifies:
Full nudes
Model release required
Model to receive selected images from the shoot

Model replies with the following:
"...I am hesitant to have my rear end or "package" shot unless it is with my own semi-pro camera, which you could use, putting the responsibility into my own hands as to who sees these, where they end up, etc. (I come from a conservative family)"

Unnamed and un-outed model, you are delusional.  You have a mindset appropriate for shooting with GWC's at very best, which ironically is going to result in exactly the kind of images you DON'T want to be a part of.

Advice:  Reply to casting calls where your looks and availability actually MEET the needs of the project being described.  Don't have the extreme discourtesy of replying to a casting call with demands that are in clear contradiction to the shoot being offered.

The only thing making a strong showing here is your complete lack of professional-minded attitude.

I've started dropping casting calls or not answering those that do those types of things. Another annoyance, touched on with your statement, is simply not following instructions.

If it asks for you to explain what experience you have, leave contact information, general availability for the dates posted, etc-follow or don't apply.

Yet another is when one does look into those that show interest but don't seem to have that genre in their port-and it's called for-and it turns into a fight.

I a week ago had a model who applied for an erotica shoot which I was commissioned to shoot-and the ad was clear about my wanting experienced-and she then begins to ask me what depth are we going, and I told her-like any other genre, if it's your comfort range these questions don't come up. Theme, pay, publication-yes, but if someone is modeling wedding gowns it won't be followed by an interrogation as to what type and the poses.

When it comes down to it, either it's for you or it isn't-but applying to something you're not comfortable with only annoys me, the photographer-and you, eventually, when ten messages back and forth later I simply say no because it's not your genre.

I was still willing to work with her on something that suited her in the future, then she goes on a rant that I'm mean and cavalier with my decision making.

Sorry to rant-but this is my newest peeve, on top of the rest of them!

MO Rina wrote:
Thank you for coming into the model forum with your negativity.  I would think it takes less time to laugh at the response and move on than it would to post about it, as if all of us need to be taught this lesson. 

Remember, not every person with a model profile here is really a model.

But you have to admit it is still funny!

PPHPhotography wrote:
He didn't ask, "who has a semi pro camera for me to use? lol
did she offer to bring flash lights and lamps?

He is a she.

Sophie Nova wrote:

He is a she.

oh!!! Then it is even more funny and more outlandish of the models response!!

K Editorial Dreams wrote:
I a week ago had a model who applied for an erotica shoot which I was commissioned to shoot-and the ad was clear about my wanting experienced-and she then begins to ask me what depth are we going, and I told her-like any other genre, if it's your comfort range these questions don't come up. Theme, pay, publication-yes, but if someone is modeling wedding gowns it won't be followed by an interrogation as to what type and the poses

Nonesense, when it comes to fetish work I always make sure we're clear on my limits and exactly what will be required for the shoot. Any experienced model will confirm these things, so as to not waste either sides time and to ensure a productive environment where he/she is safe.

Erotica can mean anything from somewhat suggestive glamour work to full on porn, she was totally within her rights to ask for some more information.

I would be very concerned if a photographer refused to discuss the exact requirements of a shoot of that nature.

MO Rina wrote:
Remember, not every person with a model profile here is really a model.

It evens out. Not every person with a photographer profile is really a photographer.

wynnesome wrote:
The only thing making a strong showing here is your complete lack of professional-minded attitude.

i tend to think these types of rants are on par with the general non-professional aspect of the 'net aspect of modeling and photography.

what does one really expect here?  if it causes such heartburn get off the 'net and only deal with those on the agency level.  at least then you would have someone to bitch to that might have some power to ensure it won't happen again. 

here with no professional point-of-entry standard you get what you get and just deal with it accordingly...without making such looking down on community member(s) foolish public statements that reduces you to their level.  equally unprofessional is public disclosure of private messaging. 

if you preach professional-minded at least abide by it.

next topic.

MO Rina wrote:

Thank you for coming into the model forum with your negativity.  I would think it takes less time to laugh at the response and move on than it would to post about it, as if all of us need to be taught this lesson. 

Remember, not every person with a model profile here is really a model.

I can understand your frustration with these posts (Personally, I'm up to HERE with the GWC threads) but at the same time I think that these threads do serve a valuable purpose, whether or not that was the intention of the OP.  As you say, not every person with a model profile is really a model (and the same is true for photographers) but I would add the word yet. 
     I can't tell you the number of times I've decided not to shoot with a particular model because of something, often pretty innocuous, that she said or did.  And I can guarantee that I have said and done some pretty stupid things myself.  Sometimes, though, I see things here that make me more aware and therefore less likely to make a fool of myself, having seen someone else make a fool of himself.  Much better, IMHO, to have everyone laughing at someone else than to have them laughing at me.
     If they read them and learn from them, these threads can be beneficial to the newbies, which is one of the very important purposes of all the fora.
     Then too, they can be pretty entertaining.

All IMHO, as always.

Rays Fine Art wrote:

I can understand your frustration with these posts (Personally, I'm up to HERE with the GWC threads) but at the same time I think that these threads do serve a valuable purpose, whether or not that was the intention of the OP.  As you say, not every person with a model profile is really a model (and the same is true for photographers) but I would add the word yet. 
     I can't tell you the number of times I've decided not to shoot with a particular model because of something, often pretty innocuous, that she said or did.  And I can guarantee that I have said and done some pretty stupid things myself.  Sometimes, though, I see things here that make me more aware and therefore less likely to make a fool of myself, having seen someone else make a fool of himself.  Much better, IMHO, to have everyone laughing at someone else than to have them laughing at me.
     If they read them and learn from them, these threads can be beneficial to the newbies, which is one of the very important purposes of all the fora.
     Then too, they can be pretty entertaining.

All IMHO, as always.

I am not frustrated with these types of posts.  They don't belong in the Model forum.  Thankfully, a mod saw fit to move it to off-topic. 

I don't think these threads are productive though.  Some people have common sense and some don't.  Those without it aren't going to learn it from a post on MM.

MO Rina wrote:

Thank you for coming into the model forum with your negativity.  I would think it takes less time to laugh at the response and move on than it would to post about it, as if all of us need to be taught this lesson. 

Remember, not every person with a model profile here is really a model.

This site is called model mayhem, last I checked.

And why is the OP's post less needed than the numerous posts about sexual escapades that pop up on here countlessly?

Just sayin'... at least the OP's post is a personal account / talking shop / industry related.

Jeffrey Engel wrote:

This site is called model mayhem, last I checked.

And why is the OP's post less needed than the numerous posts about sexual escapades that pop up on here countlessly?

Just sayin'... at least the OP's post is a personal account / talking shop / industry related.

This rant was originally posted in the Model forum, an industry forum.  Hence the reason for my post.  Please feel free to post whatever rants or craziness you want to.  I have no problem with it!!!!

Elizabeth Claret wrote:
"Interested"

Good gawd these replies to casting calls are a slight pet peeve of mine. To me it says:

"I'm interested but I need you to do all the work and interview me because I have no idea what to tell you."

I usually just ignore them.

Visual Echoes wrote:

Good gawd these replies to casting calls are a slight pet peeve of mine. To me it says:

"I'm interested but I need you to do all the work and interview me because I have no idea what to tell you."

I usually just ignore them.

Fixed

Elizabeth Claret wrote:
"Interested"

Hey!
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=737707 

wynnesome wrote:
Advice:  Reply to casting calls where your looks and availability actually MEET the needs of the project being described.

I'll only respond to this part of the OP, and that is to say: Abso-fkn-lutely. I never understand when people will respond to a gig that they will absolutely be rejected for given the stats desired, though I'll admit a long time ago, I occasionally pushed my luck. With age I've a bit more realistic in some areas.