SPRINGHEEL  wrote:

Never heard of her, had to look her up.  Lovely girl.


The answer would be no

+1

I too have never heard of her before, but to be fair she has probably not heard of me either.

Mel Recker wrote:
"Newer less experienced photographers are likely to accept escorts. The more experienced (hopefully better) photographers almost exclusively will not allow them."

I find this very difficult to believe, ...

It makes perfect sense to me.  A newer photographer is more likely to work with newer models who are usually the one's insisting on escorts.   Being new, they haven't yet experienced the escort problems.   As they work more, have problems related to escorts and discover most models don't require escorts, it makes sense that some would change their escort policy as a result.

Mel Recker wrote:
I must admit that I'm also very confused by this thing about not allowing significant others. Do models show up with their bf's or gf's...and they haven't told their partner they're shooting nudes?!!! That seems cray cray.

Mel

Significant others are a bloody pain in the ass. I had a boyfriend brandish a shotgun at me in my house because I did an erotica shoot that he had been informed about in advance and knew both of the other participants. I've had other models on set with their bfs, who were disruptive to the shot and ruined it for everyone else. I've got a pretty simple rule- if there's someone's partner on set, I'm not. It's too much drama, and honestly, most people's partners can't seem to get the hint that this is a job, not a sexual free for all. Because they want to fuck their partner, they assume everyone else does too, and they turn into idiots- even if they're cool as all get out the other 99% of the time.

Mel Recker wrote:
For example, I've seen several photogs say that having another person there is distracting. And yet, on very large professional sets, there are often whole teams of people clanging around. People working with the lighting, etc. I have trouble understanding how this is somehow less distracting than an escort.

1. Those who complain about escorts may not have enormous sets with lots of people around.  They may be shooting in a small home studio, where their is either no distraction or the escort is the distraction.

2.  Professionals on a set act professionally. Escorts not being professionals often do not.   A paid MUA is much less likely to flake than an escort, etc.

Mel Recker wrote:
In many of the threads on this topic, photographers insist that professional models simply know better than to bring an escort. Except these photographers do not live in major markets. Perhaps they used to work in a major market, but no longer do? Or perhaps they don't know what they are talking about.

Why do you believe one has to live in a major market to have any knowledge of whether or not professional models require escorts?  Talk about a logic fallacy.

I don't live in a major market.  In fact I live 60 miles from a minor market.  Still when I've worked with professional models, they've never even brought up the idea of an escort.  One only need to read the many, many posts by professional models over the years here to see they generally do not bring escorts.  One does not need to live or have lived in a major market to have this knowledge.

Professional model or not, there is little reason for me to deal with all the negative issues that go with escorts, when there are so many other models to choose from that do not require escorts.

Trisha May Photography wrote:
I do, because...why not? I always need somebody to hold my stuff for me

Just wait until the first time they steal or break some of that stuff of yours. You will likely change your opinion at that time, unless you are a slow learner in which case it will take a few times of them stealing or breaking your stuff for you wise up.

Mel Recker wrote:
Oh shiiiiz, I'm back. Ok, so out of curiosity, I did a little study. I took a look at the longest thread on this subject. I culled the first 11 pages of the thread, and here is what I found:
Mel

VERY impressive.

The first really worthwhile addition to this subject in many years.

I'd shoot with you in a moment. No escort.

I shoot nudes.

Mel Recker wrote:
Oh shiiiiz, I'm back. Ok, so out of curiosity, I did a little study. I took a look at the longest thread on this subject. I culled the first 11 pages of the thread, and here is what I found:

In small markets, there were 34 male photogs and 1 female photog who expressed a yes or no opinion on whether or not they allow escorts.

Out of the males, 22 shoot nudes, and out of that group, 14 do not allow escorts. 12 do not shoot nudes, and 11 out of those 12 allow escorts.

The only female who responded, does not shoot nudes, and does allow escorts.

In large markets (LA, NY, Chicago, Miami, etc.), there were 15 male photogs and 1 female photog who expressed a yes or no opinion on whether or not they allow escorts.

Out of the males, 9 shoot nudes, and out of that group 4 do not allow escorts. 6 do not shoot nudes, and all of those allow escorts.

The only female who responded does not shoot nudes, and does allow escorts.
____

Models, draw your own conclusions.

Mel

We get it... you think guys who shoot nudes have an agenda. Where's the eye roll emoticon?

I shoot almost exclusively nude, never have an escort, and have no issues. The worst experience I ever had was at a group shoot, where a guy shoved in front of all the other photographers and literally tried to shove his lens into my labia. The other photographers were incensed, and threw the guy out (after his camera got kicked into his face). I had at least twenty "escorts" at that shoot. He still tried to be a douche nozzle.

Mel Recker wrote:
Draw your own conclusions.

Nude models are cooler and know how to look after themselves.

Right?




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Molly Hoover wrote:
Does a lot of photographers allow escorts , if not why ?

I do but...with conditions that are addressed during the negotiation phase. If an agreement can't be reached, then we don't shoot.

FBY

The Original Sin  wrote:
We get it... you think guys who shoot nudes have an agenda. Where's the eye roll emoticon?

I'm afraid foot shooters have it much worse.

FBY

Robby Rockett wrote:
Personally no matter what sort of business is taking place I'm suspect of anyone who insists i come alone somehwere. Buying a car, installing cable, selling something, whatever. All things I've often done alone but probably would never do if the people insisted before hand that i be alone.

This. Exact. Thing.

I always ask "Is it alright if my boyfriend might come along? He can sit in a different room and won't affect the shoot at all."

This has nothing to do with a lack of trust-if I didn't trust you to not do anything to me, why would I trust you to honor a contract that deals with my (often nude) photos? It also has nothing to do with my comfort or self-confidence with this line of work.

Really, my only purpose in asking is because boyfriend and I do things together, and sometimes that includes him reading a book while I model, (or me reading a book while he's working in the lab, or him coming and taking a bite from an attack dog I'm training--this isn't a modeling-specific thing) after which we go and do something different together. It saves gas if I don't have to go back home to pick up his book-reading butt.

I have never had a photographer say no, and I am grateful for our mutual trust and understanding.

Mel Recker wrote:
Oh shiiiiz, I'm back. Ok, so out of curiosity, I did a little study. I took a look at the longest thread on this subject. I culled the first 11 pages of the thread, and here is what I found:

In small markets, there were 34 male photogs and 1 female photog who expressed a yes or no opinion on whether or not they allow escorts.

Out of the males, 22 shoot nudes, and out of that group, 14 do not allow escorts. 12 do not shoot nudes, and 11 out of those 12 allow escorts.

The only female who responded, does not shoot nudes, and does allow escorts.

In large markets (LA, NY, Chicago, Miami, etc.), there were 15 male photogs and 1 female photog who expressed a yes or no opinion on whether or not they allow escorts.

Out of the males, 9 shoot nudes, and out of that group 4 do not allow escorts. 6 do not shoot nudes, and all of those allow escorts.

The only female who responded, does not shoot nudes, and does allow escorts.
____

Models, draw your own conclusions.

Mel

Mel,

That's actually a good statistical approach to it.  I always get a bit mathematical when it comes to stats.  So I have a few questions.  Why the small sample size?  15 photographers in large markets seems like a very small sample.  Also, did you any way correlate the photographers to time photographing or (perhaps more difficult) quality of port?

Molly Hoover wrote:
Does a lot of photographers allow escorts , if not why ?

They tell the photographer what he can take and not take(photo wise ) tell the photographer to keep his hands off the model or else ,,, they talk too much ,,, the model looks at the escort all the time ,,,listens to escort and does not listen to photographer,,,talks to model and model talks to escort as if you the photographer has nothing to do with the photos ,,,they waste time by talking to photographer,,, want to take their own photos in the session ....
not any more ,,enough is enough !!!!
model says she is bring an escort,,,,, I WILL NOT SHOOT WITH THEM,,,,,
I'm sick and tired of being not trusted ,,,that I'm there for sex !!!!
that's my 2cents worth

The Original Sin  wrote:
We get it... you think guys who shoot nudes have an agenda. Where's the eye roll emoticon?

here ya go ...

Mel Recker wrote:
I've seen some seriously cool nudes on here, so don't get it twisted. But there is a lot of anecdotal info in this thread, so I just wanted to check out numbers. Nuttin wrong with that.

Mel

Mel, you've repeatedly mentioned the use of anecdotal info, but most photographers (and least the ones I know) use their own experiences -- not industry-wide statistics -- to form their policies on escorts. I do. It may be the most reliable type of info on which to base one's policies.

When I first started out, I encouraged the presence of escorts. As a beginner I was working mostly with beginners and allowing escorts was the surest way to avoid scaring off the nervous noobs. Then I got some gear stolen. Had gear broken. Had several shoots disrupted and terminated by escorts. Had many more cancelled or flaked on because the escort bailed. Had a few models take their directions and get shot-by-shot approvals from the BF sluggo. Even had one escort abandon her charge at a remote and isolated shoot; she left the model in the hands of the photographer they so mistrusted. I've had some pleasant escort experiences, but it was always a crapshoot. So I hardened my escort policy and kept the shoots simple. Life was good.

However, there were models who insisted on an escort and I REALLY wanted to shoot with the girl. I'm more flexible on escorts than my profile suggests, but I really have to want to work with the girl in order to risk the hassle.

Mel Recker wrote:
Those are all great questions. It's obviously a small sample, but many studies are. I'd be interested in taking a larger sample if I had time. In terms of number of years of experience, I'm unsure.

Mel

While the trends are interesting, the sample is just so small that I'd be hesitant to draw any reliable conclusions.  I just did a quick search and there 36,543 photographers within 50 miles of NY, LA, and Chicago.  So the 15 sampled represents just over. 0.04%. 

And if you could find any way to control for time/experience that would be even more interesting.  It sure is less statistically sound, but even if you look at this thread there seems to be a very strong correlation (based both on time on MM and number of forum posts) between experience and general dislike of escorts - an opinion shared by both photographers and models.  So if you can figure out a way to include that into your stats, that would be very interesting as well.

MedievalIce wrote:
I'll chime again - perhaps against my better judgement. 

I'm in the category of photographers who prefer not to have an escort, but I'm not completely against it.  I have had very good experiences with escorts, ones who were nice, helpful, etc. and some that weren't so great, but I don't have any true escort horror stories (robbed, attacked, fights, etc.).  Part of that may be because even when I was more pro escort, I pulled out of shoots when I felt a strange vibe.

One of the instances which really caused me to reevaluate my escort policy happened with an underage model, who brought an escort (her mother) at my insistence.  Her mother was very nice and supportive, but created other problems.  I shoot a lot on location, and we had planned on shooting at a certain system of waterfalls, and I told the model to be prepared for such.  Unfortunately, that information did not get passed on to her mother, who showed up in heeled boots.  We had to scrap our shooting plans because the escort was no prepared.

This is generally my biggest complaint with escorts - they are not prepared.  The model and I have discussed the shoot and are involved in it, but the escort isn't.  So they can't go somewhere, they get bored, get hungry, etc.

I also hate having someone looking over my shoulder, especially when there implied purpose is to make sure I "behave."  (And possibly physically assault me if I don't "behave" according to their definition.)

You will also notice a general trend that the longer a model or a photographer has been around and shooting the more anti-escort they tend to get.  It's not an absolute, but a general trend.  And in my case part of it is that as I build my network, there is less and less benefit to accepting one.  It's always a risk to shoot with a new (to me) model since I don't whether we'll work well together or not.  Having an escort there can possibly introduce other issues, so whenever I'm discussing a shoot with a model who wants an escort I have to ask myself whether the possibility of a great shoot outweigh the possible escort drama, or should I just use the time to shoot with a model I know and know we'll get good results.

Escorts=issues..the escort is in no way vested in the shoot, so their very presence is a problem...and who goes around Ithaca in heels with all of those hills and gorges??

Mel Recker wrote:
Oh shiiiiz, I'm back. Ok, so out of curiosity, I did a little study. I took a look at the longest thread on this subject. I culled the first 11 pages of the thread, and here is what I found:

In small markets, there were 34 male photogs and 1 female photog who expressed a yes or no opinion on whether or not they allow escorts.

Out of the males, 22 shoot nudes, and out of that group, 14 do not allow escorts. 12 do not shoot nudes, and 11 out of those 12 allow escorts.

The only female who responded, does not shoot nudes, and does allow escorts.

In large markets (LA, NY, Chicago, Miami, etc.), there were 15 male photogs and 1 female photog who expressed a yes or no opinion on whether or not they allow escorts.

Out of the males, 9 shoot nudes, and out of that group 4 do not allow escorts. 6 do not shoot nudes, and all of those allow escorts.

The only female who responded, does not shoot nudes, and does allow escorts.
____

Models, draw your own conclusions.

Mel

Go ahead and draw your own conclusion. After you get those few shoots done with the photographers that allow escorts, lets see where you end up .

MedievalIce wrote:
That's actually a good statistical approach to it.

Sampling size is crucial to reliable statistics. This wasn't it.

AlexaRose wrote:
I always ask "Is it alright if my boyfriend might come along? He can sit in a different room and won't affect the shoot at all."

And who's going to be watching him to make sure he doesn't go wandering around the house, helping himself to stuff he likes the look of?




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Orca Bay Images wrote:
Sampling size is crucial to reliable statistics. This wasn't it.

Why bother with sampling size when one seems to have predetermined that photographers who shoot nudes are more untrustworthy than those who don't, or that one's stance on escorts determines their trustworthiness.

Great example of someone starting with an answer and trying to find "facts" to support their position, rather than investigating and evaluating information and THEN forming educated opinions based on that research instead of assumptions.

AlexaRose wrote:
I always ask "Is it alright if my boyfriend might come along? He can sit in a different room and won't affect the shoot at all."

How about your BF sits in the car and we call him a driver? I've never known a photographer to object to a driver. Come on in, say hi, go back to the car until the shoot's over. No problem.

This has nothing to do with a lack of trust-if I didn't trust you to not do anything to me, why would I trust you to honor a contract that deals with my (often nude) photos? It also has nothing to do with my comfort or self-confidence with this line of work.

My spidey-senses are tingling...

Really, my only purpose in asking is because boyfriend and I do things together, and sometimes that includes him reading a book while I model, (or me reading a book while he's working in the lab, or him coming and taking a bite from an attack dog I'm training--this isn't a modeling-specific thing) after which we go and do something different together. It saves gas if I don't have to go back home to pick up his book-reading butt.

It's nice you're a tight couple, but cut the umbilicus and save the bonding for another setting. As far as saving gas, he can read in the car.

g2-new photographics wrote:
These escort threads seem never to die!

The reality, though, is that if you don't like escorts, then don't work with models who like to have escorts.

If you want so desperately to work with an escort-escorted model, then just deal with it.

If you're a model who needs an escort, and you want to work with a photographer who doesn't like escorts, then tough (or maybe compromise).

So why does this have to go on and on?

These will go on and on until the mods decide to start locking them down immediately and the initiators brigged.

AlexaRose wrote:
I have never had a photographer say no, and I am grateful for our mutual trust and understanding.

That's not mutual trust. That's the photographer trusting your escort not to steal or break shit or to try to dictate the shoot.

If it was truly mutual trust, you wouldn't have insisted on the escort.

Mel Recker wrote:
If Candice Swanepole approaced you tomorrow and said, "Hey, let's shoot. I'm gonna bring my bf, cool?" would you say no?

In some situations, for some photographers, I do believe that this is about making a power play.

I would tell her this...."I hope you and your "escort" enjoy sitting at home. Pay or no pay, I'll be shooting with a model who is smart enough to check references and act like a adult".

AlexaRose wrote:

This. Exact. Thing.

I always ask "Is it alright if my boyfriend might come along? He can sit in a different room and won't affect the shoot at all."

This has nothing to do with a lack of trust-if I didn't trust you to not do anything to me, why would I trust you to honor a contract that deals with my (often nude) photos? It also has nothing to do with my comfort or self-confidence with this line of work.

Really, my only purpose in asking is because boyfriend and I do things together, and sometimes that includes him reading a book while I model, (or me reading a book while he's working in the lab, or him coming and taking a bite from an attack dog I'm training--this isn't a modeling-specific thing) after which we go and do something different together. It saves gas if I don't have to go back home to pick up his book-reading butt.

I have never had a photographer say no, and I am grateful for our mutual trust and understanding.

you will very quickly find that clients are not going to tolerate being sucked into your world of bringing your boyfriend (personal life) to a shoot. Keep things separate!