login info join!
This thread was locked on 2012-12-03 06:24:21. Reason: Trainwreck-this is done
Forums > General Industry > Wank banks Search   Reply
first123last
Model
NayNay
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.

If you put 2 photographs together, lets say one from vogue and one from a 2 megapixal phone, and asked people which one was the quality photo, I'm pretty positive 99% or more would say the vogue pic. I wouldn't say this is a definition but it definitely shows that people can say what is and what isnt a quality photo!

Dec 03 12 05:39 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
udor
Posts: 21,780
New York, New York, US


DarkSlide wrote:
Your questions are sophomoric and ignore thousands of years of art history.

She is... well... 17...

Dec 03 12 05:40 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


DarkSlide wrote:
Your questions are sophomoric and ignore thousands of years of art history.

My questions are not conceited and overconfident of knowledge I'm expressing opinions not my "knowledge". How is a question knowledge anyway? A question is asking someone else for knowledge, wisdom or opinions.

Dec 03 12 05:43 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


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!?

You clearly didn't read my post.

The definition of a GWC is somebody who is only taking pictures to be around naked or  partly clothed girls. The 'quality' or subject matter of the results is irrelevant. It's the intent that counts.

There are plenty of people both here and out in the real world whose entire motivation for taking photos is to get and see girls naked and/or to get into their pants. You wouldn't be able to tell by looking at their portfolios because they are also quite (or very) accomplished photographers in the technical sense. They are GWCs but you would probably never realise it until you had the misfortune to schedule a shoot with them.

On the other hand there are also thousands of people here who are passionate about photography and for whom the results are all that really matter, but who (unfortunately for them) are also crappy photographers, and so their portfolios remain crappy or at the best less than stellar. They're not GWCs - they're just poor photographers.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Dec 03 12 05:44 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


NayNay wrote:

If you put 2 photographs together, lets say one from vogue and one from a 2 megapixal phone, and asked people which one was the quality photo, I'm pretty positive 99% or more would say the vogue pic. I wouldn't say this is a definition but it definitely shows that people can say what is and what isnt a quality photo!

And how am i ignoring thousands of years of art history by expressing my opinions about iphones? ARE you serious iphones are not thousands of years of history, more like 10 years of history.

Dec 03 12 05:44 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Axioma
Posts: 6,761
Gent, East Flanders, Belgium


A) "Danger"... Statistically, you have more chance of being raped by a member of your family or a neighbour;
B) Quality is subjective. Denying members based on subjective grounds is a slippery slope;
C) This is the internet. MM provides a medium where photographers and models can find each other and offers to facilitate communication. That's it. They do that, their job is done. What comes after is their member's responsibility;
D) Don't worry so much about others. People have their reasons for behaving the way they do. If you agree with them, great. If you don't, ignore them;
E) Barging in and telling people what to do or not might not be the best way to win respect.
Dec 03 12 05:46 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:

You clearly didn't read my post.

The definition of a GWC is somebody who is only taking pictures to be around naked or  partly clothed girls. The 'quality' or subject matter of the results is irrelevant. It's the intent that counts.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Yes i totally agree with you. I'd say that their intention is to be around naked women and not to do it as a hobby or career as "trampling fetish" is to get off. This is why i think it is gwc because their intent is not one of most photographers.

Dec 03 12 05:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Aaron Lewis Photography
Posts: 5,080
Catskill, New York, US


Do you understand art? Basically what you're saying is that any photographer using an iPhone or assuming other such devices can't be a photographer and must only be out to "get the girl"

Is that what you're saying?

I've seem some pretty nice work come from an iPhone.

The capture device (i.e. camera) is a tool. The talent of the person behind it is what makes or breaks the image.

So person with an iPhone posting casting calls for shoots of what you consider to be odd subject matter doesn't pose an issue. The problem is the conclusion you've drawn about that person.

Additionally, in regards to your Vogue photo reference. A technically perfect image of crap is crap. An image with poor technical qualities of a great capture is art.
Dec 03 12 05:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fotopia
Posts: 1,085
Atlanta, Georgia, US


In my area, there are a number of mid-life-crisis males with very high end equpiment, who's motivation for being on mayhem is entirely of a sexual nature.

If they were all to be banned, there would be a significant drop in membership.
Dec 03 12 05:50 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


Axioma wrote:
A) "Danger"... Statistically, you have more chance of being raped by a member of your family or a neighbour;
B) Quality is subjective. Denying members based on subjective grounds is a slippery slope;
C) This is the internet. MM provides a medium where photographers and models can find each other and offers to facilitate communication. That's it. They do that, their job is done. What comes after is their member's responsibility;
D) Don't worry so much about others. People have their reasons for behaving the way they do. If you agree with them, great. If you don't, ignore them;
E) Barging in and telling people what to do or not might not be the best way to win respect.

A) Thats an interesing fact and kind of disturbing hmm
B)I agree to some extent but MM does deny some people.
C)MM moderators step in alot so i think its MM's and members responsibility.
D)I swear worry is my middle name. Some people need looking out for.
E)I dont mean to barge in and tell people what to do or imply anything of the sort.

Dec 03 12 05:51 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
Do you understand art? Basically what you're saying is that any photographer using an iPhone or assuming other such devices can't be a photographer and must only be out to "get the girl"

Is that what you're saying?

I've seem some pretty nice work come from an iPhone.

The capture device (i.e. camera) is a tool. The talent of the person behind it is what makes or breaks the image.

So person with an iPhone posting casting calls for shoots of what you consider to be odd subject matter doesn't pose an issue. The problem is the conclusion you've drawn about that person.

Dec 03 12 05:52 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


NayNay wrote:

I'm not saying that anyone who uses an iphone is amateur at all. If you had read the posts carefully i have stated that using an iphone, fetish and sexual intent are grounds for gwc.

Dec 03 12 05:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


NayNay wrote:
I'd say that their intention is to be around naked women and not to do it as a hobby or career as "trampling fetish" is to get off.

This may be true in some cases, of course.

But content isn't necessarily any better clue to motivation than quality. Many people are perfectly able to shoot fetish content for money without being turned on by it themselves. I could quite easily shoot 'balloon popping' for instance with complete detachment because it just seems silly to me!



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Dec 03 12 05:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DavidCoward Photography
Posts: 629
Sandy Springs, Georgia, 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!?

Should we judge your motivations by your amateur spelling?

Dec 03 12 05:54 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


New Century Studio wrote:
In my area, there are a number of mid-life-crisis males with very high end equpiment, who's motivation for being on mayhem is entirely of a sexual nature.

If they were all to be banned, there would be a significant drop in membership.

I guess MM doesn't want the drop in membership, but safety should be priority over money making.

Dec 03 12 05:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SME
Posts: 20,847
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US


I shoot with an iPhone a lot.  My subjects are mostly women.  I'm not attracted to them.  Whatever one thinks of the resulting imagery, it wasn't created as an excuse to hang out with hot chicks.
Dec 03 12 05:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Aaron Lewis Photography
Posts: 5,080
Catskill, New York, US


NayNay wrote:
I'm not saying that anyone who uses an iphone is amateur at all. If you had read the posts carefully i have stated that using an iphone, fetish and sexual intent are grounds for gwc.

Maybe, maybe not. Who are you to make that judgment call. Is there statistical proof showing this to be the case 90% of the time? Anyone shooting fetish or sexually oriented photos with an iPhone is bad and has malicious intents?
Really?

You may want to be careful with this.

It's not MM's responsibility to look out for ones safety. It's yours. Don't we already have enough governing bodies in the world?

Dec 03 12 05:57 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


DavidCoward Photography wrote:

Should we judge your motivations by your amateur spelling?

Their is used correctly and obviously amateur was a mistake not my "bad" spelling, although sometimes my spelling isnt the best. However how does spelling have anything to do with spelling?

Dec 03 12 05:57 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photos 4 The Memories
Posts: 1,275
Kewaskum, Wisconsin, US


NayNay wrote:

I guess MM doesn't want the drop in membership, but safety should be priority over money making.

It is NOT MM responsibility to watch out for your safety! It is up to you and only you to watch out for your safety! MM is a tool and how you use it is up to you and you only!

Dec 03 12 05:58 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Axioma
Posts: 6,761
Gent, East Flanders, Belgium


NayNay wrote:
I guess MM doesn't want the drop in membership, but safety should be priority over money making.

The safety argument is pretty much bullshit in most cases. You can't estimate how "safe" a shoot is going to be based on quality of work most of the time. Models have been fondled by top-magazine-shooting-photographers. It's also extremely wrong to assume that every photographer here is "out to get you". They're not.

Of course MM worries about membership. The more members, the more attractive for their sponsers. Do you think MM provides this service for our pretty blue eyes? (No, they don't). Is the sight of some of the work here pretty? No. Is it going to change because you rant here? Highly unlikely.

Bottom line - again - work with who you want and ignore the rest.

Dec 03 12 05:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DavidCoward Photography
Posts: 629
Sandy Springs, Georgia, US


NayNay wrote:
I swear worry is my middle name. Some people need looking out for.

Yep. Like 17-year-old girls who think they know what's good for people.

Dec 03 12 06:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Aaron Lewis Photography
Posts: 5,080
Catskill, New York, US


Personally I think anyone with a image containing the duck face should be banned because it clearly shows you don't take modeling seriously.
Dec 03 12 06:01 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:

NayNay wrote:
I'm not saying that anyone who uses an iphone is amateur at all. If you had read the posts carefully
Maybe, maybe not. Who are you to make that judgment call. Is there statistical proof showing this to be the case 90% of the time? Anyone shooting fetish or sexually oriented photos with an iPhone is bad and has malicious intents?
Really?

You may want to be careful with this.

It's not a judgement call as it is not the "last word" I'm only stating opinions. I never said anyone shooting fetish with an iphone has malicious intents! READ what i said, i stated that anyone who has SEXUAL intent uses an iphone and shoots fetish are most likely GWC.

Dec 03 12 06:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jeffrey M Fletcher
Posts: 4,318
Asheville, North Carolina, US


NayNay wrote:

I guess MM doesn't want the drop in membership, but safety should be priority over money making.

You're assuming that there is a correlation between bad pictures and criminal behavior. So far as we know, there is none.

I know it's tempting to assume a crime of taste or fashion goes hand in hand with fraud or assault but it's not true in any verifiable way.

Dec 03 12 06:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Aaron Lewis Photography
Posts: 5,080
Catskill, New York, US


NayNay wrote:
It's not a judgement call as it is not the "last word" I'm only stating opinions. I never said anyone shooting fetish with an iphone has malicious intents! READ what i said, i stated that anyone who has SEXUAL intent uses an iphone and shoots fetish are most likely GWC.

Semantics

So you think on the MM membership app they should ask
Do you have any sexual intentions
Do you have an iPhone

Why don't' you bring that up to the mods and see how it works out. This is in fact the Internet and as far as I know it's the last free place on earth.

Dec 03 12 06:04 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JLC Images
Posts: 11,559
Phillipsburg, New Jersey, US


Moderator Note!

NayNay wrote:
I guess MM doesn't want the drop in membership, but safety should be priority over money making.

Members are removed everyday.   If anyone is approached or sees something outside the rules of MM or acts inappropriately during a shoot they are encouraged to report them to the moderators. 

http://www.ripoffreport.com

Dec 03 12 06:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DavidCoward Photography
Posts: 629
Sandy Springs, Georgia, US


NayNay wrote:

Their is used correctly and obviously amateur was a mistake not my "bad" spelling, although sometimes my spelling isnt the best. However how does spelling have anything to do with spelling?

No, dear. The word you're looking for is "they're". It's a contraction of "they are". Most of your other posts are rife with errors as well.

My point about your spelling is this: You're being judgmental about amateurish photos.  Maybe those photos are the best they can do, just as your bad spelling is the best you can do.

Try minding your own business.

Dec 03 12 06:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


NayNay wrote:
Their is used correctly

FYI, it wasn't.

DavidCoward Photography wrote:
The word you're looking for is "they're". It's a contraction of "they are".

This.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Dec 03 12 06:05 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


DavidCoward Photography wrote:

Yep. Like 17-year-old girls who think they know what's good for people.

I never said i know whats good for people. READ it carefully don't jump to conclusions.
Some people do need looking out for, now that one is a fact. Since your mind seems to be very simple I'll give you some examples : Suicidal people, very drunk people, babies, Children and the list could go on.

Dec 03 12 06:06 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Aaron Lewis Photography
Posts: 5,080
Catskill, New York, US


NayNay wrote:
I never said i know whats good for people. READ it carefully don't jump to conclusions.
Some people do need looking out for, now that one is a fact. Since your mind seems to be very simple I'll give you some examples : Suicidal people, very drunk people, babies, Children and the list could go on.

Yes but why are you making it your job and or trying to make it MM's job to look out for them? It's not. Mind your business.
There are no babies or children on MM and because we're on line and not face to face YOU have no way of knowing if someone is drunk or suicidal.

Dec 03 12 06:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DavidCoward Photography
Posts: 629
Sandy Springs, Georgia, US


DavidCoward Photography wrote:
Yep. Like 17-year-old girls who think they know what's good for people.
NayNay wrote:
I never said i know whats good for people. READ it carefully don't jump to conclusions.
Some people do need looking out for, now that one is a fact. Since your mind seems to be very simple I'll give you some examples : Suicidal people, very drunk people, babies, Children and the list could go on.

So what you're saying is, some models are suicidal drunk children who need YOU to look out for them?

Dec 03 12 06:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Matt Throop Photography
Posts: 228
Oshawa, Ontario, Canada


Who cares what others shoot or shoot with on this site. If you don't like it, don't work with them. I don't work with every model, band or client that messages me.
Dec 03 12 06:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jhono Bashian
Posts: 2,427
Cleveland, Ohio, US


JLC Images wrote:
Members are removed everyday.   If anyone is approached or sees something outside the rules of MM or acts inappropriately during a shoot they are encouraged to report them to the moderators. 

http://www.ripoffreport.com

Dec 03 12 06:10 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


I'm not saying that fetish is wrong.
I'm not saying that Iphone pictures are not quality.
I'm not saying that bad pictures = Malicious intent.
I'm not saying MM must do anything.
I'm not saying that my spelling is the best in the world.

All i was trying to get across is that people with sexual intent are gwcs and should probably be filtered out because it may lower the standards of MM and prevent people from signing up to MM.
Dec 03 12 06:13 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JLC Images
Posts: 11,559
Phillipsburg, New Jersey, US


Moderator Warning!

DavidCoward Photography wrote:
My point about your spelling is this: You're being judgmental about amateurish photos.  Maybe those photos are the best they can do, just as your bad spelling is the best you can do.

Try minding your own business.

This is not how the forums work.  Take a few days off to settle down.

Dec 03 12 06:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DarkSlide
Posts: 2,150
Alexandria, Virginia, US


NayNay wrote:

If you put 2 photographs together, lets say one from vogue and one from a 2 megapixal phone, and asked people which one was the quality photo, I'm pretty positive 99% or more would say the vogue pic. I wouldn't say this is a definition but it definitely shows that people can say what is and what isnt a quality photo!

You're right. I don't know anything.

Dec 03 12 06:14 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DarkSlide
Posts: 2,150
Alexandria, Virginia, US


NayNay wrote:

And how am i ignoring thousands of years of art history by expressing my opinions about iphones? ARE you serious iphones are not thousands of years of history, more like 10 years of history.

C'mon, you didn't really write this!

Dec 03 12 06:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
JLC Images
Posts: 11,559
Phillipsburg, New Jersey, US


Moderator Warning!
Lets stay on topic.
Dec 03 12 06:16 am  Link  Quote 
Model
NayNay
Posts: 82
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:

Yes but why are you making it your job and or trying to make it MM's job to look out for them? It's not. Mind your business.
There are no babies or children on MM and because we're on line and not face to face YOU have no way of knowing if someone is drunk or suicidal.

I am not making it my "job" its an opinion. If everyone minded their own business the world would go to shit, murder, rape, stealing, violence would all be more prominent as everyone would be minding their own business.
There are children on MM, anyone under the age of 18 inst an adult yet. I am classified as a child and am looking out for my fellow youngsters i guess.

Dec 03 12 06:17 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Aaron Lewis Photography
Posts: 5,080
Catskill, New York, US


NayNay wrote:
I'm not saying that fetish is wrong.
I'm not saying that Iphone pictures are not quality.
I'm not saying that bad pictures = Malicious intent.
I'm not saying MM must do anything.
I'm not saying that my spelling is the best in the world.

All i was trying to get across is that people with sexual intent are gwcs and should probably be filtered out because it may lower the standards of MM and prevent people from signing up to MM.

But you have in fact said everything above and why do you say this

"people with sexual intent are gwcs "

Is that a fact? and thinking about it a GWC is usually defined as someone into photography simply to get women naked. So what, Why do you care. You seem to be overwhelmed by this topic and you signed up.

So we know this, why are you making it a huge story. Furthermore, why would you ban them? Maybe you should propose a bill that cameras should only be sold to people who don't have sexual intents.

Get over it, move on.

Dec 03 12 06:18 am  Link  Quote 
first123last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers