|
Forums >
General Industry >
What to call hobby models
Scarlett Candee wrote: No - it's that the primary motivation is vanity, not money. But it's meant to be a joke really, as this thread is. May 15 12 01:41 pm Link Jo Warner Photography wrote: Hobby models are vain May 15 12 02:08 pm Link Jo Warner Photography wrote: Scarlett Candee wrote: And this is one of the reasons models who work part time or are in to develop art are not always going to be taken seriously. May 15 12 02:10 pm Link Jo Warner Photography wrote: So the only motivations for models are vanity and money-never art...Guess artistic models will have to find other names then... May 15 12 02:11 pm Link Scarlett Candee wrote: So a pro-am model would be vain and greedy. May 15 12 02:19 pm Link Fotographahaulic wrote: LOL May 15 12 02:21 pm Link marknmanna wrote: +1 May 15 12 02:44 pm Link Mike Collins wrote: Eostre Renewed wrote: I'm sure that's a ho-ho-ho-tographer. May 15 12 02:45 pm Link Scarlett Candee wrote: Check my post - there was a joke in there. May 15 12 02:47 pm Link Jo Warner Photography wrote: I know... It's just getting tiresome, ya know? With all the negative replies in the thread, it's just annoying. May 15 12 02:49 pm Link Farenell Photography wrote: lol, true May 15 12 02:53 pm Link Hobbits as most are about 5' 2". May 15 12 02:57 pm Link a photo subject May 15 12 09:28 pm Link VisualE wrote: Let's call them, GWC (girls with clothes), and not to be confused with GWC (guy with camera). May 15 12 09:37 pm Link VisualE wrote: I call them "model". May 15 12 09:49 pm Link I dont know what to call them, but some are just want free photos for facebook maybe " TWOT" Total waste of time " no seriously i dont mind new anything only if they have interest besides getting photos for personal use May 15 12 09:57 pm Link hobels May 15 12 10:01 pm Link May 15 12 10:15 pm Link c_h_r_i_s wrote: That's already a term- short girls thinking they're going to take over the fashion industry. May 15 12 10:16 pm Link I call them most of them my bread and butter. Some I call fun buns with hot sauce. May 15 12 10:20 pm Link Presley ONeil wrote: Because they belong to a subset of models, who do it as a hobby activity, rather than a serious commercial activity. May 15 12 11:00 pm Link Ruben Sanchez wrote: To avoid the confusion, how about GWP -- girls with portfolios. May 15 12 11:29 pm Link c_h_r_i_s wrote: Hobbits are much shorter than that though.... May 16 12 06:44 am Link Presley ONeil wrote: I'm realistic in knowing that high fashion and runway will never really be an option for me based on my height and other stats. That doesn't mean I can't wish and hope for the opportunities and make the best of them if they come up. May 16 12 06:49 am Link I really don't care if the model is working full time at it or not. I have shot a lot of signed agency models who have not been booking enough work these days. If the model has the look and stats I need for a shoot then what more do I need know. There personal financial/career goals and success at them is their own concern. May 16 12 06:55 am Link In the world of Model Mayhem I have a naming convention; Models, Photographers, MUA/HD, and Retouchers: Loosely defined as those with a professional business acumen, drive to improve, and reasonable chance at success ('success' being defined by setting, working towards, and achieving goals) Everyone else: Members. They do not deserve the titles assigned simply by virtue of having created an account. (and yes, I recognize the play on words..  I'll let the MM population decide the percentages of account holders who qualify as one or the other. Cheers!May 16 12 07:09 am Link TRC Photography wrote: What about those who are new to MM and are trying to get work and get started? May 16 12 07:13 am Link TRC Photography wrote: Sadly that part is totally overlooked on MM. May 16 12 07:17 am Link TRC Photography wrote: And how exactly will this be decided? People's other opinions? Yeah, that's a great idea. May 16 12 07:30 am Link Why do we have to name everything? You called them hobby-models, so they already have a label, and now you want a second? And what was the purpose of the zombie-bump? And an even better question... What was the use of this thread in the first place? Questions, questions. May 16 12 07:36 am Link Loona Wynd wrote: They can very, very easily fit into the first category and earn the name. Totally up to the individual. May 16 12 08:05 am Link Scarlett Candee wrote: Yep. Most everything in the world you present to the public will be judged by others. Everything. You are free to react to it or not, but most people do... even the ones who say they don't. May 16 12 08:17 am Link Fotographahaulic wrote: Of the 10% who do, 50% won't show. May 16 12 09:04 am Link TRC Photography wrote: I am working on setting up more shoots to develop my port and working towards learning the trade. I actually learn a lot more through discussions online than I can from reading blogs or essays, which is all I can do until I have more shoots with different photographers. Right now my shoots have all been with one photographer, and while she has been helpful in getting me started, I want to have other photographers I work with and develop a relationship with. May 16 12 09:11 am Link id say what most people say they enjoy doing it for fun...like me i havent got paid for anything yet but dont really mind as im not making modelling my whole life. May 16 12 12:19 pm Link Siobhan C wrote: +1 May 16 12 12:30 pm Link Model is a verb. Professionals if they are good at it get work. 80% of that work will not be paid for by photographers. The people who pay are those generally who can see what the verb means. It doesn't mean 'pretty girl'. It means the worth of the model to actually carry out the verb. If she is good she will get paid if she markets herself to those who actually require models. Photographers don't always need models; they may just want subjects. The hobby model probably won't understand this. If she begins to and can model she will get paid work; though not necessarily from photographers. I would say to see it as pros v hobbyists is too simple a delineation. There are wannabes. They may genuinely have a desitre to or commitment to wanting to become a model. Some will know what that involves; some won't. Some may succeed. Most will not realise what it is. They think it's about pretty too. Some just want to be famous or are doing it for an ego thing. There are amateur models who do it for the Art. This group generally are among the best models because they tend to have a creative desire. Some will be artists in their own right; with their own creative concepts. Because they are often having to do something else as a day job however they won't always be available. Those that make the commitment and develop extraordinary portfolios will eventually turn pro. Then there are models who make money from glamour type images on the net; or in publications or a little of both. That groups has its own amateur to pro and reader's wives to high quality artistic poles too. I don't think 'hobbyists' describe any of these main groups or the different types within them very well. It also does not differentiate between the flake types and the committed. 'Hobbyist' sounds a little like they are playing at it. Amateur sounds better to me probably because it just simply denotes they are not professional ie not paid for, or making a living from, their skills - as yet. Those who model professionally make a living from it because they can. They have it as their only source of income. They are likely either to be Agency signed; or the journeyman model getting modelling work from the Fine Art/Art institution/Artist group field; the fashion, fitting and parts modelling fields; promotional work; or in film/theatre/acting singing dancing related fields. They may do vintage or burlesque or perhaps a little of that. They may have a character look or a speciliased wardrobe or style look eg 'alt' that they have developed enough to be in demand. Or they may be doing a bit of pro modelling and a bit of styling/MUA/photography for example.Then there are the semi professionals. Those getting to that stage of it being their main source of income. Or those that do it (like myself) as an extra source of income having moved from being a professional model into another field of work. We are able to charge for a day's work because some value our skills. Often this will be designers, boutiques, artists, educational institutions, PR/marketing companies, or even businesses contacting one directly via a reference. Sometimes and only sometimes it's photographers. What I notice is that some photographers around here are pretty contemptuous of models full stop. Particularly MM ones . Makes me wonder why they do it and why they are here in the forums generally moaning about flakes; lack of professionalism, and greed by those who are professional because they dare to ask for pay. And if they dare ask for pay for modelling nude why they are strippers. So to me the question depends entirely on the person using the label and what they want to infer by it. May 16 12 12:50 pm Link  /thread May 16 12 01:11 pm Link Eliza C wrote: This says it in a nutshell. Clearly the OP's "question" was a statement merely dressed as a question, and whose purpose is only to further insult and denigrate models. May 16 12 01:26 pm Link Randal Scott wrote: I wish I had had the courage to say that actually Randall. Wasn't feeling much like being the only one again so I thought I'd try and say it diplomatically. Also; I wasn't entirely sure that was the op's intention. Thing is; just as always I think about jacking it in here I get some interesting work via the site from consummate professionals. And it reminds me that that vociferous minority of whinging harpies one comes across here demeaning the models are no more representative of the bulk of the membership than are the flakey models! I guess their attitudes attract each other.... May 16 12 01:39 pm Link |
