This thread was locked on 2012-12-03 06:24:21
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
I've noticed quite a few photographers on here that i believe only take photos to get girls nakey. Example: A photographer casting a call thats taking only pictures with an iphone of you in sheer underwear, bending over and then a series of casting calls of fetish shoots with an iphone of women "trampling" on men, obviously for some weird sexuall pleasure.
I feel that obvious gwc's like this lower the standards of MM.
I thought that things like that were banned? Do you think they should be if not?
Model
Anna Adrielle
Posts: 18763
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
shooting fetish stuff or even weird "sexual" stuff does not equal GWC
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Anna Adrielle wrote:
shooting fetish stuff or even weird "sexual" stuff does not equal GWC It kind of does when your using an iphone. Not saying that fetish or sexual is gwc im saying that that combined with an iphone camera is.
Photographer
kitty_empire
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Model
Axioma
Posts: 6822
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Make contact and shoot with those you want to shoot with. Ignore the rest.
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
intense puppy wrote:
Girls can do "wank banks" too: http://www.facebook.com/GorgeousGuys69  HaHa. Got me there although there images from the internet not their own personal photos they've taken.
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Axioma wrote:
Make contact and shoot with those you want to shoot with. Ignore the rest. Some of these people obviously only have sexual intent, not the intent to make art, by ignoring these people some models could be put in danger.
Photographer
Neil Snape
Posts: 9474
Paris, Île-de-France, France
Are there casting calls like that really?
MM aMazizes Me.
Yet is this really surprising?
A bit of advice: avoid looking in the casting calls if the above is true and or looking on Craigslist.
Model
Axioma
Posts: 6822
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
NayNay wrote:
Some of these people obviously only have sexual intent, not the intent to make art, by ignoring these people some models could be put in danger. NayNay, savior of all models!
If you can figure it out, other models can as well.
Photographer
Marc Damon
Posts: 6562
Biloxi, Mississippi, US
Amateurish looking photos are often more popular online. I think it has to do with the photos looking 'real' (some random housewife or girlfriend) rather than 'staged' (professional model).
Whenever you do a shoot, get a copy of the release and ask any questions you may have so you know the potential use of the photos and what you're getting into.
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 3588
Ashford, England, United Kingdom
OP, you are free to report any profiles which you think are inappropriate, any inappropriate casting calls, or any photographers who ask you to do inappropriate things.
One must assume, though, that the photographer had at least four decent (!) pics in his portfolio, presumably shot with a good camera, when he joined MM, to get past the vetting procedure.
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Axioma wrote:
NayNay, savior of all models!
If you can figure it out, other models can as well. Hahaha I'm superwomen, shhh.
Some people will do anything for money (forgot to add that they pay). I know a girl on here who's always looking to score drugs and that includes getting any money possible, and I'm sure there are many more girls out there that will ignore their safety for a "fix" "taste" or whatever. This could be stopped by MM but weeding out these creeps.
Photographer
Photos 4 The Memories
Posts: 1308
Kewaskum, Wisconsin, US
NayNay wrote:
Some of these people obviously only have sexual intent, not the intent to make art, by ignoring these people some models could be put in danger. Different strokes for different folks.
So just curious what is your definition of art?
Photographer
kitty_empire
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom
NayNay wrote:
Hahaha I'm superwomen, shhh.
Some people will do anything for money (forgot to add that they pay). I know a girl on here who's always looking to score drugs and that includes getting any money possible, and I'm sure there are many more girls out there that will ignore their safety for a "fix" "taste" or whatever. This could be stopped by MM but weeding out these creeps. Personally, (and this is just me) I'd worry about myself and myself only.
Ignore the GWC's, go shoot and have fun.
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Kent Art Photography wrote:
OP, you are free to report any profiles which you think are inappropriate, any inappropriate casting calls, or any photographers who ask you to do inappropriate things.
One must assume, though, that the photographer had at least four decent (!) pics in his portfolio, presumably shot with a good camera, when he joined MM, to get past the vetting procedure. The 4 pictures you have to put up to start your profile, i dont even know how some people get there profile started. I've seen some horrible first 4 pics. And this photog first 4 were of girls bending over in seee through panties. eh.
Photographer
kitty_empire
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom
NayNay wrote:
The 4 pictures you have to put up to start your profile, i dont even know how some people get there profile started. I've seen some horrible first 4 pics. And this photog first 4 were of girls bending over in seee through panties. eh. Were they in black and white? If they were in black and white then they are legit art (no matter the content or tone) and you're not allowed to complain (it's the law) 
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Photos 4 The Memories wrote:
Different strokes for different folks.
So just curious what is your definition of art? I guess art is in the eye of the beholder, well thats my definition, anything that involves creativity. Would you call anal pornography art? you may say that's not related but its some peoples fetish and fetish is a part of my topic. whats your definition of art?
Someone getting off on a person trampling on their back while someone else films it, i would definitely say is not art but pornography.
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
intense puppy wrote:
Were they in black and white? If they were in black and white then they are legit art (no matter the content or tone) and you're not allowed to complain (it's the law) Hahha oh god. Black and white seems to make pictures classy to some folks. HAH.
Photographer
Marc Damon
Posts: 6562
Biloxi, Mississippi, US
intense puppy wrote:
Were they in black and white? If they were in black and white then they are legit art (no matter the content or tone) and you're not allowed to complain (it's the law) b/w = art? LOL not imho
Is that really a law in the UK? If so, please cite it.
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Marc Damon wrote:
b/w = art? LOL
Is that really a law in the UK? If so, please cite it. I'm not sure if you were using sarcasm or not?
The other person was.
Model
Anna Adrielle
Posts: 18763
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
NayNay wrote:
It kind of does when your using an iphone. Not saying that fetish or sexual is gwc im saying that that combined with an iphone camera is. then don't shoot with them
Photographer
Photos 4 The Memories
Posts: 1308
Kewaskum, Wisconsin, US
NayNay wrote:
I guess art is in the eye of the beholder, well thats my definition, anything that involves creativity. And that is also my answer as well.
Photographer
kitty_empire
Posts: 864
Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Marc Damon wrote:
Is that really a law in the UK? If so, please cite it. As the UK doesn't have a proper constitution it's difficult to cite. You'll have to take my word for it.
(Sorry - I'm going to leave this thread now and get coffee. Sorry for derailing)
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
MM has standards?
I've only been here since month 2 or 3, I must have missed that.
Photographer
DarkSlide
Posts: 2353
Alexandria, Virginia, US
NayNay wrote:
The 4 pictures you have to put up to start your profile, i dont even know how some people get there profile started. I've seen some horrible first 4 pics. And this photog first 4 were of girls bending over in seee through panties. eh. Ahh, the Art Police have a new recruit :-(
Artist/Painter
Hunter GWPB
Posts: 8179
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US
Are pieces by Picasso art?
Is "David" by Michelangelo porn?
I started lead and follow dancing 20 years ago. It was hard to get women to dance with me, because I sucked at it. Now, I am damn good at it. But I remember, and I will dance with anybody because everybody has to start somewhere.
You are 17. Kind of young to be arrogant, isn't it?
Photographer
Wolfy4u
Posts: 1103
Grand Junction, Colorado, US
The OP is making assumptions that are very unlikely, and then projecting opinions based on that.
If someone wants to simply see a naked women, there are much better and less expensive ways of doing that besides photography. Strip clubs, 'live' internet and internet porn, etc. come to mind.
GWC's serve a purpose for models in that they provide an avenue to income that has value. The model can still control her own limits.
For most shoots, if the model and photographer agree on an approach, it's no one else's business what the content of that shoot is.
Btw, are there really people who would pay $100usd/hour to shoot a naked women with an iphone? Hmmmm....
Photographer
Tog
Posts: 55204
Birmingham, Alabama, US
You're on the internet... The world's greatest collective spank bank.
There's a 97% chance that someone, somewhere is wanking to you right now.
Life goes on...
Photographer
Kent Art Photography
Posts: 3588
Ashford, England, United Kingdom
Tog wrote:
You're on the internet... The world's greatest collective spank bank.... And many a good business plan has been based on it, too...
Photographer
Kincaid Blackwood
Posts: 23492
Los Angeles, California, US
NayNay wrote:
It kind of does when your using an iphone. Not saying that fetish or sexual is gwc im saying that that combined with an iphone camera is. I could rattle off a list of shooters who shoot with their iPhones who you'd be delighted to shoot with. You should look at Sita Mae's iPhone work.
Combining fetish and iPhone doesn't make you a pervert who just wants to build a wank-bank. In fact, some people with exceptional talent using high-dollar equipment are the one's building their masturbatory archives (just think of the striking clarity all those megapixels will provide for some hottie's lucky anus).
You have to evaluate these castings a little further than that. While its true that some filthy perverts are just trying to get their kicks via iPhone photos… that does not immediately mean they aren't serious about their work. I know internationally exhibited photographers who shoot fetish with iPhones and none of them will hesitate to admit how much they enjoy what they do. Again, case-by-case basis instead of a catagoric dismissal.
Photographer
KMP
Posts: 4834
Houston, Texas, US
NayNay wrote:
It kind of does when your using an iphone. Not saying that fetish or sexual is gwc im saying that that combined with an iphone camera is. I share some of your opinions about some of the the work on MM.
There are crap photos on here.
But I'll bet most of them were shot with DSLRs.
Cell phones don't automatically denote a GWC.
You have to judge the quality of their work, their artistic merit (if any) and their intent.
I'm not one to ban any work that is not illegal based on someone's personal beliefs and/or artistic sensibilities.
You're able to make your own decision as to what works and doesn't work for you.
I believe it's best you allow others to make their own decisions as well.
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
NayNay wrote:
It kind of does when your using an iphone. The type of camera is irrelevant to whether a photographer is a GWC or not. Many GWCs have excellent equipment, fully equipped studios and may even work as professional photographers during the day.
The only thing that counts in defining GWC or not is motivation: if creating quality images is the primary goal of the shoot (regardless of how 'quality' is defined) then the guy behind the camera is a photographer; if being around naked girls is the goal, then he's a GWC.
Just my $0.02
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Photographer
Farenell Photography
Posts: 18832
Albany, New York, US
NayNay wrote:
It kind of does when your using an iphone. Not saying that fetish or sexual is gwc im saying that that combined with an iphone camera is. The iPhone is simply a tool.
There's a growing rise of pro photographers (who do this as their main source of income) converting to just that. Also there are many respected contests utilizing it.
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
NayNay wrote:
I've noticed quite a few photographers on here that i believe only take photos to get girls nakey. Example: A photographer casting a call thats taking only pictures with an iphone of you in sheer underwear, bending over and then a series of casting calls of fetish shoots with an iphone of women "trampling" on men, obviously for some weird sexuall pleasure.
I feel that obvious gwc's like this lower the standards of MM.
I thought that things like that were banned? Do you think they should be if not? A lot of people shoot fetish, or "wank bank" stuff for pay. In some cases, they don't even particularly like the content they shoot. Or at least, don't get "turned on" by it.
Sadly, I'm not one of them, since I don't get paid all that often. But amateur looking photos such as those with an iphone (sometimes) are definitely a category that can sell.
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
I'd say their a gwc because 1.their using an iphone 2. Fetish pornography 3.iphone 4. crap portfolio full of shitty photos 5. Portfolio is full of photos that are so amtuer
If this isnt gwc then what is!?
Photographer
DarkSlide
Posts: 2353
Alexandria, Virginia, US
NayNay wrote:
I'd say their a gwc because 1.their using an iphone 2. Fetish pornography 3.iphone 4. crap portfolio full of shitty photos 5. Portfolio is full of photos that are so amtuer
If this isnt gwc then what is!? Finally, we have a concrete definition and someone who can say what is, and isn't, quality photographs.
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Hunter Wald wrote:
Are pieces by Picasso art?
Is "David" by Michelangelo porn?
I started lead and follow dancing 20 years ago. It was hard to get women to dance with me, because I sucked at it. Now, I am damn good at it. But I remember, and I will dance with anybody because everybody has to start somewhere.
You are 17. Kind of young to be arrogant, isn't it? No i don't think either are porn. But i do think fetish is porn because its sole purpose is to cause sexual arousal to certain people.
Do you know the definition of arrogant? I'm guessing not. Well here it is since you have used it so casually.
Someone who believes they are always right, and better than everyone. Also cannot take abuse.
Where in this post have i stated i am better than everyone?
Where have i said I'm always right? I'm not always right no one is always right.
I can take abuse if i think its relevant and correct.
What does my age matter and how is it relevant?
Photographer
SPRINGHEEL
Posts: 38224
Detroit, Michigan, US
Model
Nay Louise
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
DarkSlide wrote:
Finally, we have a concrete definition and someone who can say what is, and isn't, quality photographs. I was meant to put at the start "in my opinion"
Why doesnt anyone ever answer any questions!!!
Photographer
DarkSlide
Posts: 2353
Alexandria, Virginia, US
Your questions are sophomoric and ignore thousands of years of art history.
|
