|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
About public photos on met-art.com
hi everyone, someone told me it is an honor if u can have a photo on the website met-art.com. He said only very professional and really good photos can be used on this site. is that true?? r these photos seem not so artistic?? maybe i'm not so open minded~~. wanna hear your opinions!! see u~ Mar 20 11 02:18 pm Link Trust your own eyes. Once an image is on the Internet, you can never get it back. Mar 20 11 02:21 pm Link MET (Most Erotic Teens) Art.com is what I would call a softcore porn site. The quality of the photography is excellent. The quality of the art is somewhat more debatable. Whether or not it's an "honor" to be on there is even more debatable. IMHO, as always Mar 20 11 02:24 pm Link Mika888 wrote: MET means Most Erotic Teens....High quality soft core porn in MY opinion...sans the art part. It's been a few years since I saw it. I went to look because of another debate about it here in the forums..another photographer saying how it was high quality art...after looking i completely disagreeded..and PS..it seems that one of the qualities of the model needs to be that they look underage but actually be 18+. Mar 20 11 02:24 pm Link G;Day Mika Have you looked at the site ?? is that the style of modelling you wish to do ?? what money are you being paid ( in the thousands ??? ) for like the other photographer says the photos are there for ever, its a decison you have to make and tick all the boxs from all the different questions you are asking . john k Australia Mar 20 11 02:27 pm Link I like met-art. BUT ultimately it is you who have to decide and live with your decision. Our opinions doesn't matter. Mar 20 11 02:29 pm Link In frame wrote: well... i have 2 say, actually no paid!! just a photographer want to make some photo and upload to this site. in his word, it seems that it is a good chance to be famous~~ but i don't wanna be famous, especially in this way~~it's a bit strange to call them "art" in my opinion~ Mar 20 11 02:35 pm Link Excelsior Photography wrote: yes, u r correct!! it will become a nightmare in life~~ Mar 20 11 02:38 pm Link Metart has some of the most beautiful girls in the world on it's site, to do the shoot for no$$$, I think would not be a good move. Can this photographer produce photos of the quality that they would even put up on their site?? If he doesn't already have sets in the site, IMHO he's just another MM wannabe and is blowing smoke in your direction. Mar 20 11 02:50 pm Link It is what it is, probably the highest quality spread photos of young girls on the web. Nice looking models, good photographers that together turn out good work. If that's your definition of art, then it's art. I just think of it as well done penthouse style work (of course I haven't seen a Penthouse in ten years). Mar 20 11 02:57 pm Link Mika888 wrote: I think famous is really stretching it. I would be really cautious if he really used that word when he talked to you about it. Mar 20 11 02:57 pm Link I would not advise doing met art but I do not think open leg nude modeling is goingto lead anywhere unless you're totally fine doing the porn route. If that is you, then why not go with a recognized mag like met-art? For me, no thanks. Mar 20 11 03:09 pm Link George Ruge wrote: well, this is a photographer i collaborated once, he is really professional and make me different in the photo. but for this site..i really don't want to see my photo on it. maybe some of them r kinda artistic~~ Mar 20 11 03:13 pm Link As far as porn goes, met-art and even more so, x-art, are some of the best quality images out there, the models tend to be nearly perfect, lighting is spot on, retouching is flawless. It's solid really high end work. So if you're gonna do porn, do those if you can, but they're still porn at the end of the day. If you're comfortable with your body, sexuality and a bit of an exhibitionist then this is amazing work to do, if you're just looking to do fashion or commercial modeling then they're not for you. Mar 20 11 03:23 pm Link thank u guys~~ u really help me a lot!! since i am a total beginner in modeling, less than 3 months:P, i don't know much in this area. i just do it for fun and a bit pin money~ that's it. now i think i am surely not doing this~ Mar 20 11 03:43 pm Link Mar 20 11 04:00 pm Link honor..lol.. I've been on Met Art.. lots of butt holes and beavers.. Mar 20 11 04:03 pm Link Met-Art pay quite good money for images but they're also very selective about the photographers they accept work from and the models they choose to commission. It sounds like he wants to use you to submit speculative work in the hope of getting his foot through the door. A few models are happy to work speculatively if the photographer has a proven track record but most will want payment up front - especially for that style of work/publisher. I don't suppose there's many models that will do it just for the publicity. Either that or he just wants to see you naked and naughty. Mar 20 11 04:09 pm Link Everything you do has to be with a purpose. That has to be my advice to you. I like Met-Art, but you don't. Some people will and some won't. Welcome to the artistic field. Point is, like chess, is this a step towards something you want-even a lateral one? If so yea and if not nay...no? Mar 20 11 04:09 pm Link Mika888 wrote: ' Mar 20 11 04:10 pm Link All I know is that Met-Art features some of the world's most beautiful and natural uninhibited models. One of my favorite websites as pertains to that category of content on the web. Nikki Magnusson wrote: I'm confused. I can definitely see you on a lot of websites and in publications much the same but not Met-Art. And why are they buttholes? Mar 20 11 04:28 pm Link Nikki Magnusson wrote: Nikki always has a way of putting things into perspective in simple terms... Mar 20 11 04:31 pm Link B R U N O wrote: well, to be honest, i've seen some metart photos, they r really fantastic. but most of the photos are focus on erotic. maybe just a little little thing but make huge difference. Mar 20 11 04:55 pm Link Mika888 wrote: Most definitely not; not everyone is natural in this sense. And "very young girls" is your perception of the kind of models they wish to commission. As for why: it's probably because those are their standards and the photos are what their subscribers expect on a regular basis. Mar 20 11 05:04 pm Link Met-Art indeed features gorgeous, very young models in beautifully photographed, very explicit poses. You can call it porn, softcore or not, but there is nothing on Met-Art that you won't see on Model Mayhem. Actually, Met-Art is pretty tame compared to a lot you can see on MM. Mar 20 11 05:35 pm Link aquarelle wrote: I can't think of anything on MM that wouldn't go on Met Art, in terms of explicitness. MM obviously accommodates a much wider range of types of model. Mar 20 11 06:04 pm Link When they started there was some pretensions of art. Now it is all well shot, same-ol boring pictures of pretty young girls in sexually arousing poses.. Lots of big picture sets that mostly look like they put the camera on auto pilot without much thinking..except for usually very good technical properties. Good for what is designed for...where no one really actually cares about art. That is a smokescreen...but well done for it's genre. The pay is ridiculous...from what I have seen. So who would give them great art? Mar 20 11 06:25 pm Link Nikki Magnusson wrote: You have such a way with words Nikki. LOL Mar 20 11 06:43 pm Link The work on that site is quite beautiful, but in a sense your images will be viewed as more of a soft core porn, instead of what they truly are, pieces of art. Certainly they do good work and it has been done artfully. Consider your audience. My buddy got a offer to be photographed for playgirl. He was excited and told me all these girls were going to see how big his penis was and he would get laid, ect. I laughed as I could see his expression change when I told him the majority of consumers who purchase the magazine are 40 year old gay men...... Basically make a choice and accept any retributions that have come with that. You won't always have a perfect body as you do now forever and maybe it would be nice to have those quality type of images. Consider your audience. Mar 20 11 06:54 pm Link One of the models in my portfolio was on Met-Art. She has clothes on in the photo!  Mar 21 11 04:57 am Link Met-art = penthouse but better I think? Does not pay as well as Penthouse I am pretty sure. Mar 21 11 05:21 am Link George Ruge wrote: X10. I think the photographer just wanted her to pose open leg shot. Mar 21 11 11:16 am Link I think met-art has great technically-excellent photos, but I wouldn't call it art, I'd call it nudie pics for porn snobs. Mar 21 11 04:03 pm Link davesphotography wrote: As I understand it, Met Art doesn't pay models, they pay the photographer. It's not that much either: $2.00 - $5.00 per image for sets of 20 images. Mar 21 11 04:13 pm Link Nephrite_Imagines wrote: Met art typically has anywhere from 50-160 images per set, depending. Mar 21 11 04:29 pm Link If you look beyond the publicly displayed and heavily photoshopped "magazine" covers on their website and see the actual images, they are neither art, nor technically good, nor do they pay (the photographer) well. The images are mostly harmless and unexciting nudie shots with the obligatory open leg / explicit shots at the end. Way overrated. Mar 22 11 03:45 pm Link |
