Photographer
Kenzphotos 2
Posts: 183
Anaheim, California, US
Photographer
LA StarShooter
Posts: 2731
Los Angeles, California, US
This thread should take a nap and so should I. The Yes/No button on sights does not allow for subtle parsing, for the actual truth. It is more true to write that "I shoot nudes only if I like concept, the photographer's work, etc," if that's is the case than to describe the complicated affair as shoots nudes. As the model may wish to encourage certain photographers to contact her she may display images that she thinks will work. I have read profiles where the model explains that she's not generally available for nude work or TF nude, after ticking the "no nude" options.
In persuading a model to do a TF shoot it helps a photographer if the concept is explained. Sometimes the portfolio suggests that the photographer always can come up with concepts, ideas, etc., and this gives that photographer an advantage. I see no big problem with choosing one of the buttons and then qualifying it in the profile. "No, I don't shoot nudes, unless it's a paid shoot and I like the concept."
The I-have-nudes-in-my-portfolio-but-will-only-shoot-them-under-certain- circumstances models are just doing the best they can within the limitations of the site. Accusing them of hypocrisy is to ignore that the format of the site is far from perfect. I know a model who gets hundreds of emails a week, maybe a thousand. She explains that she cannot respond to them all. Models that appear to be available for art nudes, for playboy style, or spread shots, will receive an enormous amount of mail. Your lack of empathy for their predicament may have an effect on you engaging models successfully and persuasively.
Photographer
Eric Mazzone
Posts: 17
Kalamazoo, Michigan, US
Decay of Memory wrote:
I can see it being considered rude to attend a shoot to learn, but that's not my primary objective. My primary objective is long distance transportation, my car is in better condition and I know the area down her much better than her. She's not from around here. I stay invisible and only participate when needed, usually where the photographer is telling me to do something if he needs an extra set of hand, or if my friend needs something, otherwise I'm way back doing my own thing. I'm not there as a bodyguard, SHE can kick my ass. I've made that clear a few posts back, to claim that she's scared of this 'tog without an escort is ignoring stated facts. Scared, unrealistic? Of course not, don't be ridiculous, she's just more comfortable with a military style buddy system when at those shoots. Does she need an escort to deal with the unbearable pressure to "shoot beyond her comfort zone" that comes from a photographer telling her he only wishes to shoot her nude?
I'm not super familiar with military style photography and modelling operations but I do have the occasional missionaries come to the door to chat, always in pairs. I'd swear at times that they seem to be worried about some mental contagion that could result if they approached unbelievers alone. I suppose it's true enough that the wicked world can lead to a devastating fall from grace for those who are alone.
Best of luck, keep it safe. Military style photography? WTH is that? I'm talking about her wanting an escort becuase she's used to the buddy system. Hell she usually is on site for my shoots as an escort for me. NO she doesn't need a buddy to help her with that, that is handled before the shoot happens. Insisting on nudes = no shoot. It's pretty simple. But right now, for her, the escort is a non-negotiable. Of course the tog who insisted on nude only badgered the two of us about the 'she's scared of me' line. When it's simply not that.
Her main thing about nudes, is she doesn't control who has access to them, and she doesn't want her family, especially her little brothers friends to see them. Along with not being able to do nudes while she's still in the military, it'd cause way too many problem and could result in separation from the service because of what her job is.
Photographer
Eric Mazzone
Posts: 17
Kalamazoo, Michigan, US
BTHPhoto wrote:
I know it's hopeless, but on the slim chance that this thread could actually be put back on track and produce some legitimate answers, let me try to explain it this way:
Even though all the drama-mongers want it to be so, this is NOT the question:
"Models, if you have nudes displayed, why don't you say yes to everyone who wants to shoot nudes with you?"
The actual question I am hoping people will discuss is:
"Models, if you shoot nudes with some photographers and the evidence in right there your portfolio and/or your credited photos, why don't you just admit it? Do you really think you're fooling anyone so they'll believe you don't do nudes and therefore not ask? Because that makes NO sense at all to me. Do you think that blatantly lying in the face of evidence doesn't influence peoples' perceptions of you in a negative way and drive away legitimate offers? Because it seems to me that's a very likely result from such behavior." It's pretty simple. They just don't want to do nudes anymore, regardless of the fact that they have in the past and that they may be willing to keep them in their port because they're good images. If no is marked don't be upset if they get snarky in reply, even if you're serious, because they're most likely getting constant requests because of the SAME reasons you're asking her to shoot nude when she obviously marked NO. Constantly being asked the same question that has already been answered repeatedly everyday is sure to annoy the living daylights out of people, and if they're having a bad day already, they MAY lash out.
It's not hypocritical of them to have posed nude before, keeping it in their portfolio, and saying they're not shooting. It's just a fact at that time and getting upset about it is truthfully a might childish.
Photographer
Eric Mazzone
Posts: 17
Kalamazoo, Michigan, US
Decay of Memory wrote:
Why do you equate checking a box with admitting something? Especially when a model has nudes in the portfolio (which would be a stronger admission of doing nudes at certain times under some conditions). Why are the explanations such as: not wanting to come up in a search, not wanting to give an unqualified yes, selectivity, or just sloppiness not sufficient or better explanations. You're addressing the issue of checking a box on an online profile that is used for searches and then rejecting the idea that people could have many different interpretations of, the meaning of, or the use of, a single checked box description and function.
For example: Let's say a model has nudes in the portfolio but does not expect to shoot nudes with most people. Then, on balance it would be dishonest more of the time for the yes to nudes box to be checked. How about implied? Topless? Used to do nudes? On hiatus? This is not a question with a simple yes or no answer, or a simple accurate one such as age, weight, height, etc.
No matter which way the box is checked it is not going to be fully accurate or account for all situations. The box does not read, "Have you ever appeared in a nude photograph?". It's purpose is to aid in connecting willing photographers with willing models and it should be answered according to if the model wishes to be found for the work of that type by the people who use the function in that way, nothing more. +1
Photographer
Bravo Magic Images
Posts: 765
Temple City, California, US
There are lots of models that have trust issues and I agree with them I would not shoot nudes with every photography on the planet. That is a style you develope trust and respect. Some show nudes and say they dont do nudes simply they are just letting the viewer see an other side of their work that is all if you as a photographer can not understand the differance then your just viewing the model as a GWC and not as an artistic photographer with a talented eye and and i dont mean the one eyed monster.
Photographer
Decay of Memory
Posts: 682
Asheville, North Carolina, US
Eric Mazzone Fotograf wrote:
Again, she's not scared of him. Just more comfortable with having an extra person around. Do you even understand the buddy system the military has? The two of us are both military, so we're conditioned to keeping paired up when working with unknown people. If the original shoot proposal was non-nude, she may have been willing to do it without an escort.
Further I have seen their messages back and forth, after she refused nude and counter-offered non-nude, the 'tog claimed that he only has use for her nude and that she's not cute anyhow, THAT is pressuring a model to shoot beyond her comfort zone.
I can see it being considered rude to attend a shoot to learn, but that's not my primary objective. My primary objective is long distance transportation, my car is in better condition and I know the area down her much better than her. She's not from around here. I stay invisible and only participate when needed, usually where the photographer is telling me to do something if he needs an extra set of hand, or if my friend needs something, otherwise I'm way back doing my own thing. I'm not there as a bodyguard, SHE can kick my ass. I've made that clear a few posts back, to claim that she's scared of this 'tog without an escort is ignoring stated facts. Decay of Memory wrote:
Scared, unrealistic? Of course not, don't be ridiculous, she's just more comfortable with a military style buddy system when at those shoots. Does she need an escort to deal with the unbearable pressure to "shoot beyond her comfort zone" that comes from a photographer telling her he only wishes to shoot her nude?
I'm not super familiar with military style photography and modelling operations but I do have the occasional missionaries come to the door to chat, always in pairs. I'd swear at times that they seem to be worried about some mental contagion that could result if they approached unbelievers alone. I suppose it's true enough that the wicked world can lead to a devastating fall from grace for those who are alone.
Best of luck, keep it safe. Eric Mazzone Fotograf wrote:
Military style photography? WTH is that? I'm talking about her wanting an escort becuase she's used to the buddy system. Hell she usually is on site for my shoots as an escort for me. NO she doesn't need a buddy to help her with that, that is handled before the shoot happens. Insisting on nudes = no shoot. It's pretty simple. But right now, for her, the escort is a non-negotiable. Of course the tog who insisted on nude only badgered the two of us about the 'she's scared of me' line. When it's simply not that.
Her main thing about nudes, is she doesn't control who has access to them, and she doesn't want her family, especially her little brothers friends to see them. Along with not being able to do nudes while she's still in the military, it'd cause way too many problem and could result in separation from the service because of what her job is. Just straightening out the quotes.
Photographer
Brian Scanlon
Posts: 838
Encino, California, US
Mizz Amanda Marie wrote:
Ask. The worst that can happen is a no. Models may shoot nudes but not want to shoot them with everyone. You mean their 300lb boy friend won't show up and break every bone in your body!
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
SensualThemes wrote:
'I shoot nudes' vs 'I don't'
is often like sex on a first date
idon't usually just means 'I don't with you...unless I choose to
why is this hard?
why is this bad?
why is this a problem
have never asked a llama to go nude that. wouldnt...because I wait till we are ccomfortable (not on set, after the first couple shoots) to see if she likes the cconcept
and yea. I said concept.
not 'show me your lady parts' but 'ddoesn't this sound cool?...but it needs a nude llama'
Either she's in or not. No stress. Pretty sure that in about 200 nude shoots, I've NEVER said "show me your lady parts." I tend to just say, "here's what I shoot, let me know if you're interested." Or, I need art nudes for a trade to make sense, let me know if that works for you.
|
