Photographer
Aberotica
Posts: 500
Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
We all hear about the GWC, (guy with camera) usually spoken of in derisory terms. Not a serious photographer, only in it for the naked models, etc. Is there a model equivelant?
It seems to me I've spoken to a few (not a lot) here on Mayhem over the years. women, who are here for the "fun" element. Discuss.
Take cover - incoming!!!
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 4288
Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica
Aberotica wrote:
We all hear about the GWC, (guy with camera) usually spoken of in derisory terms. Not a serious photographer, only in it for the naked models, etc. Is there a model equivelant?
It seems to me I've spoken to a few (not a lot) here on Mayhem over the years. women, who are here for the "fun" element. Discuss.
Take cover - incoming!!! don't know about 'the model equivalent' but there's another type of photographer:
"GWCWDSTHAIIFP-MMTWWAWRJGATOTDMHS"
"Guy with camera who doesn't seem to have an interest in finding interesting, professionally-minded models to work with, and would rather just groan about the ones that don't meet his 'standards'."
Or so I've heard...
EDIT: OP, this has nothing to do with your particular portfolio (didn't look at it) so it isn't a critique. Also, by posting this in the MC, I assume you're into that fetish where you are just continuously kicked in the balls after you've pissed women off?
Photographer
Eyesso
Posts: 1218
Orlando, Florida, US
I thought "GWC" was more of a negative term, like....a guy who uses his camera to get alone time with a pretty girl, and tries to encourage provocative poses, but lacks any creative talent or photographic skills, instead just using the camera to maintain a front row seat to the show he is creating. In the end it is about inflating his own ego, nothing more.
The model equivalent?
I'm not sure there is an exact equivalent, but if there were....it would be a guy or girl who has a sizable portfolio, and "experience". This person might make requests like make up, hair, wardrobe, getting paid, etc. But then during the shoot it becomes clear that they have not invested into the art of modeling, their poses might be cliche or poor, they might not care about the creative vision of the photographer and instead want to lead their own fantasy shoot experience. Then after the shoot which might yield no great pictures, yet they request 20-30 edited shots....two days later, with reedit requests because they "don't like it".
I have not met any models like that....but from reading on the forums, I know they exist. So maybe that is the GWC equivalent?
Photographer
A K - Fine Art Images
Posts: 336
Charleston, South Carolina, US
The model equivalent would be one who is just in it for the money, and would only be considered a model by a GWC. So a GWC-only model? GWCM?
Photographer
James Jackson Fashion
Posts: 11132
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
I think a while ago we called this GWP (Guy/Girl With Pics) ... typically it's someone who has no portfolio to speak of, nothing in their portfolio indicates any ability to pose or work artistically, sometimes a couple of nasty spreads on a blue background with baby oil rubbed unevenly over their genitals, no stats to speak of what so ever (5'3", size 12 girl/5'8" 230lb guy), and in their profile they demand $100/hour for fashion to implied nude and $500/hour or more for nude work.
Model
Jen B
Posts: 4474
Phoenix, Arizona, US
A K wrote:
The model equivalent would be one who is just in it for the money, and would only be considered a model by a GWC. So a GWC-only model? GWCM? James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I think a while ago we called this GWP (Guy/Girl With Pics) ... typically it's someone who has no portfolio to speak of, nothing in their portfolio indicates any ability to pose or work artistically, sometimes a couple of nasty spreads on a blue background with baby oil rubbed unevenly over their genitals, no stats to speak of what so ever (5'3", size 12 girl/5'8" 230lb guy), and in their profile they demand $100/hour for fashion to implied nude and $500/hour or more for nude work. Both of these sound about right.
This thread topic looks like it should be moved to the photography forum though. Might want to request it moved. I only say so because recently the models in the forum really vented some hostility over photographers asking questions in the MC thread about models and then answering each other in it.
It was ugly, (and I disagreed but they sure went on.)
Jen
Photographer
PTPhotoUT
Posts: 1961
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I think a while ago we called this GWP (Guy/Girl With Pics) ... typically it's someone who has no portfolio to speak of, nothing in their portfolio indicates any ability to pose or work artistically, sometimes a couple of nasty spreads on a blue background with baby oil rubbed unevenly over their genitals, no stats to speak of what so ever (5'3", size 12 girl/5'8" 230lb guy), and in their profile they demand $100/hour for fashion to implied nude and $500/hour or more for nude work. I like your GWP, only I would say guy/Girl withOUT pics. I responded to a casting call from a model who "needed help building a portfolio". A quick look at what she had, showed that her portfolio needed serious work, mostly selfies. I had some extra time, so I offered my services. 4 months later, she replied that I could help her build her portfolio, and that because I was helping her, she would only charge me $150/hr for clothed and $200/hour nude. Overweight and really not that attractive, I had to turn down this golden opportunity.
Needless to say, she still has the same non-professional, mostly selfshot, portfolio.
Photographer
PTPhotoUT
Posts: 1961
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
MB Jen B wrote:
Both of these sound about right.
This thread topic looks like it should be moved to the photography forum though. Might want to request it moved. I only say so because recently the models in the forum really vented some hostility over photographers asking questions in the MC thread about models and then answering each other in it.
It was ugly, (and I disagreed but they sure went on.)
Jen Hey Jen, I see you have moved to warmer climates!
And you are right, we should not have this discussion in MC.
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 4288
Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica
Although I didn't say it as eloquently as others did (coffee hadn't kicked in), I agree that the MC is the worst place for this thread, even if it was created in a lighthearted manner.
These words from the original post: 'Take cover - incoming!!!' lead me to believe it's a true troll post: toss a bomb, see what blows up, and sit back and laugh at the carnage.
Again, IMHO
Model
Cervezax
Posts: 152
Atlanta, Georgia, US
James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I think a while ago we called this GWP (Guy/Girl With Pics) ... typically it's someone who has no portfolio to speak of, nothing in their portfolio indicates any ability to pose or work artistically, sometimes a couple of nasty spreads on a blue background with baby oil rubbed unevenly over their genitals, no stats to speak of what so ever (5'3", size 12 girl/5'8" 230lb guy), and in their profile they demand $100/hour for fashion to implied nude and $500/hour or more for nude work. I like this one.
Photographer
Dorola
Posts: 479
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
A K wrote:
The model equivalent would be one who is just in it for the money, and would only be considered a model by a GWC. So a GWC-only model? GWCM? I would consider a model that works just for money to be professional. If you are going to model well and help me produce some outstanding images, I will be happy to pay you.
Photographer
George Silvaney
Posts: 298
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Of course there's a model equivalent for a GWC. There are variations. I can think of two...
Girl who was really popular in school, and thinks she's a model because she's cute.
Girl who recently got married, looked awesome in her gown, and looked and felt like a model in her wedding photos.
I use the word girl as fem form for guy.
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 7504
New York, New York, US
salvatori. wrote:
Although I didn't say it as eloquently as others did (coffee hadn't kicked in), I agree that the MC is the worst place for this thread, even if it was created in a lighthearted manner.
These words from the original post: 'Take cover - incoming!!!' lead me to believe it's a true troll post: toss a bomb, see what blows up, and sit back and laugh at the carnage.
Again, IMHO Mebbe so, mebbe not, but I think it's a good subject for the MC (if we all play nice and stick to the topic) because I think it would be good to get models' opinions as well as the photographers'.
Let me differentiate here, though. I don't think the OP is making a negative comment on the models who model for the fun of it (without the quotes) but only about those who are here in the hopes of generating some sexually-related, not-necessarily-photographic income.
While some do slip through from time to time, just as some of the slimey-er "photographers" do, they really are pretty rare, considering the number of applications processed every day. The gatekeepers do a pretty darned good job of keeping them out, in my observation, and the mods are quick to close down the ones who do get through.
On the other hand, why not admit that many models (being human, despite all the attempts to dehumanize them) have a tendency to enjoy being admired for their looks and even (horrors!) for their sexiness. After all, isn't it the model's job to be admired just as it's the photographer's job to make a picture that will facilitate that admiration?
Putting my model's hat on for a moment: There are a lot of things about MM that I'm not real happy about, but models and photographers being able to work together in all their humanity is not one of them. What I am unhappy about is the people who try to take the humanness out of the process, to make it no more than a technical exercise done for the purpose of making money. While at my age nobody sees me as a sexual object, I derive a great deal of pleasure from the fact that people sometimes see me as being interesting enough to take a picture of me. And with my photographer's hat on, I derive a great deal of pleasure from having a model appreciate my appreciation of her.
Whichever hat I may be wearing, I think the pleasure of the work itself is not only a valid reason for doing it, I think it's the most valid reason. I don't think mindless negative branding of those who do this for the fun of it is ever, in any way, valid.
All IMHO as always, of course.
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 16713
Orlando, Florida, US
Eyesso wrote:
I thought "GWC" was more of a negative term, like....a guy who uses his camera to get alone time with a pretty girl, and tries to encourage provocative poses, but lacks any creative talent or photographic skills, instead just using the camera to maintain a front row seat to the show he is creating. In the end it is about inflating his own ego, nothing more. They don't have to be unskilled.
I consider myself a highly skilled GWC. I mean.... when it really comes down to it, isn't this whole hobby industry about self gratification and inflation of ego? And spending time with young, pretty girls? Otherwise, we'd be wildlife photographers or food photographers. And the models don't model because they think it's their calling. There aren't too many people who can model naturally, like some people can just naturally sing or play piano or do calculus. The vast majority of girls who model do it for the attention it brings them and how it makes them feel about themselves.
The odd dichotomy there is that most successful models who do this as a career don't really LIKE all that attention to their physical person and feel it entirely stressful to maintain their looks by all means necessary.
So. I'll say that the model equivalent to the GWC is EVERY "model" who is not out there hustling every day to get that next job, or working 10 hours a day to maintain a certain weight, else risk getting dropped by their agency. Those girls who see this as "fun" as opposed to those who treat their job like a job.
And I'm glad that those girls exist. The other 99%. Because that's generally who I shoot. Because I don't pay to shoot.
Photographer
Llobet Photography
Posts: 4915
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Maybe some young girls aren't in it for the money either, although it's a plus for them.
Some young ladies might be in it for the attention they get and the occasional shoot with a hot young guy. Just guessing here.
Model
Isis22
Posts: 3557
Muncie, Indiana, US
BlueMoonPics wrote:
Maybe some young girls aren't in it for the money either, although it's a plus for them.
Some young ladies might be in it for the attention they get and the occasional shoot with a hot young guy. Just guessing here. I've had several females contacting me for duo shoots...It's not always men they want shoots with;)
Photographer
The Grand Artist
Posts: 468
Fort Worth, Texas, US
The truth is that I am guessing the majority of the models here are just playing at the craft. They have done very little to train at being a model. Whatever there motivation is they have a desire to be photographed but they have not worked at being a model.
The difference these models and a GWC is that no one cares about the models that are not models. If they do not have a look anyone is interested then they will simply be ignored because the modeling industry is cold thus they are going to be doing very little modeling.
A GWC on the other hand can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. I have seen people call a photographer just starting out with no experience who is trying to learn a GWC. I have seen people call natural light photographers a GWC because they are not shooting in a studio. I have seen photographers that do not use Photoshop called a GWC. I have seen the photographer that shoots for fun and not income called a GWC. I have also not seen these same labels placed on women photographers just the men.
In my neck of the woods being called a model is not exactly a flattering thing or positive so the idea that it is on Mayhem is quite surprising to me.
On a sidenote Model Mayhem seems to have a problem when it comes to the forums especially when it comes to Photographers vs Models. I keep saying it basically comes down to a young girl vs and old man battle. Every time these discussions come up it is the old male photographers arguing with young female models with a few female photographers who are also models and no male models in the discussion.
Models ask photography questions in the photography forum, why would a photographer not be able to ask a modeling question in the model forum. Makes no sense at all.
Model
M E L U X I N E
Posts: 1204
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
CWWTMTEJOF? A.k.a Chicks who want to make their exes jealous on Facebook. Or something? 
Photographer
A K - Fine Art Images
Posts: 336
Charleston, South Carolina, US
BlueMoonPics wrote:
Maybe some young girls aren't in it for the money either, although it's a plus for them.
Some young ladies might be in it for the attention they get and the occasional shoot with a hot young guy. Just guessing here. (Adding to what you said, not contradicting it) A lot of models care about producing high-quality images. They want to be paid, but not by a "photographer" who doesn't care about quality.
Photographer
salvatori.
Posts: 4288
Amundsen-Scott - permanent station of the US, Unclaimed Sector, Antarctica
Rays Fine Art wrote:
Mebbe so, mebbe not, but I think it's a good subject for the MC (if we all play nice and stick to the topic) because I think it would be good to get models' opinions as well as the photographers'.
Let me differentiate here, though. I don't think the OP is making a negative comment on the models who model for the fun of it (without the quotes) but only about those who are here in the hopes of generating some sexually-related, not-necessarily-photographic income.
While some do slip through from time to time, just as some of the slimey-er "photographers" do, they really are pretty rare, considering the number of applications processed every day. The gatekeepers do a pretty darned good job of keeping them out, in my observation, and the mods are quick to close down the ones who do get through.
On the other hand, why not admit that many models (being human, despite all the attempts to dehumanize them) have a tendency to enjoy being admired for their looks and even (horrors!) for their sexiness. After all, isn't it the model's job to be admired just as it's the photographer's job to make a picture that will facilitate that admiration?
Putting my model's hat on for a moment: There are a lot of things about MM that I'm not real happy about, but models and photographers being able to work together in all their humanity is not one of them. What I am unhappy about is the people who try to take the humanness out of the process, to make it no more than a technical exercise done for the purpose of making money. While at my age nobody sees me as a sexual object, I derive a great deal of pleasure from the fact that people sometimes see me as being interesting enough to take a picture of me. And with my photographer's hat on, I derive a great deal of pleasure from having a model appreciate my appreciation of her.
Whichever hat I may be wearing, I think the pleasure of the work itself is not only a valid reason for doing it, I think it's the most valid reason. I don't think mindless negative branding of those who do this for the fun of it is ever, in any way, valid.
All IMHO as always, of course. I appreciate your sentiments, but, 'GWC' is a negative moniker, no matter how many of us want to be seen as a GWC with class (GWCWC?).
Kinda like calling yourself a pervert, but then adding a disclaimer that says you're only a pervert with other, consensual people. Yeah, I get that, but only like-minded perverts will.
I mean, let's look at it in its most basic meaning. A GWC is a guy with a camera. Sounds pretty innocuous until you realize that there is almost always a negative connotation attached to it.
Photographers will see the different types of GWCs, models will not.
Models will see the different types of wannabe models and offer various shades of models & ther intentions, photographers will just see a woman with shitty pics who wastes their time.
Again, IMHO
EDIT: In reading my reply, I'm not sure it really addresses your points all that well. As I type my replies lately, I fear the worst - that my intentions won't be understood by others the same way I hear them in my head, so for all I know, I am offering a cluster-frick of jumbleness.
I think (well, I pray, actually) that my novel is coming more comprehensible... lol
Photographer
PTPhotoUT
Posts: 1961
Salt Lake City, Utah, US
M E L U X I N E wrote:
CWWTMTEJOF?
A.k.a
Chicks who want to make their exes jealous on Facebook.
Or something? 1+
Photographer
Abbitt Photography
Posts: 13564
Washington, Utah, US
I think the flaky model would be one equivalent.
Photographer
fsp
Posts: 3656
New York, New York, US
Yes there are. Some newbies are very interested in trying new n experimental shoots in an effort to find their niche or if its for them.
Nothing wrong with it as long as its fun n both parties understand what they are doing.
I love having fun, im an old guy with camera... Ogwc! Mmmmm matybe DOM too?
Hahahaha enjoy your fun, its a good release of stress.
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 3450
Sisters, Oregon, US
James Jackson Fashion wrote:
........... typically it's someone who has no portfolio to speak of, nothing in their portfolio indicates any ability to pose or work artistically, sometimes a couple of nasty spreads on a blue background with baby oil rubbed unevenly over their genitals, no stats to speak of what so ever (5'3", size 12 girl/5'8" 230lb guy), and in their profile they demand $100/hour for fashion to implied nude and $500/hour or more for nude work. Eeeeeeewwwwww. Too much graphic information. LOL
We can call that GWP Type 1.
Type 2. Similar stats (maybe only size 9 dress), 25 or more piercings (and photos thereof including genital piercings) and port of selfies made with cheap camera phone, out of focus. Paid assignments only. Will not shoot without escort present on set at all times. 
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 7504
New York, New York, US
MB Jen B wrote:
A K wrote:
The model equivalent would be one who is just in it for the money, and would only be considered a model by a GWC. So a GWC-only model? GWCM? Both of these sound about right.
This thread topic looks like it should be moved to the photography forum though. Might want to request it moved. I only say so because recently the models in the forum really vented some hostility over photographers asking questions in the MC thread about models and then answering each other in it.
It was ugly, (and I disagreed but they sure went on.)
Jen Uh-oh! Looks like Jen may be right--only 4 posts by models, 5 if you count me, out of 21 so far. Not to go off topic but if the models don't post in the MC it's hard to complain that the photographers are taking it over.
So how about it, ladies and gents of the modeling persuasion? Want to contribute your own silly, fun, irreverent or even serious on-topic observations? We know you're lurking. We'd all love to have your thoughts on the subject.
All IMHO as always, of course.
Model
Ana Lancova
Posts: 68
Powder Springs, Georgia, US
Lol i like some of the examples listed above. I have run across some of the (guys with cameras), but most of the time you can identify them fairly easily. I have not seen a lot of models profiles like those listed above; however the only time i look at other models profiles is when something catches my attention.
Model
DLatrice
Posts: 252
Fort Wayne, Indiana, US
Model here, please don't hurt me There are wanna-be's: those who say they are a model, "yeah, I'm on MM" but only have selfies in their portfolio with no stats and will do 'paid only'. This includes flakes. There are hobbyist which I think I am: I am not a model, I am someone who models. I do not spend much money on my craft because I don't expect to make much money on my craft. I am here to create beautiful images for my own personal use. And then there are models: those who model for income and network round the clock to get their name and image out there any way they can. My opinion
Model
MartaBrixton
Posts: 1022
London, England, United Kingdom
DLatrice wrote:
There are hobbyist which I think I am: I am not a model, I am someone who models. I do not spend much money on my craft because I don't expect to make much money on my craft. I am here to create beautiful images for my own personal use. This is me as well!
I just like being in front of the camera. If someone asks me if I'm a model I say no.
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
Atlanta, Georgia, US
I don't think there are many "models" who are out to seduce would be photographers (I am sure there are some somewhere) like the GWC. But around here the term is also used to cover a broader range of people.
The photographer who is just playing at a fantasy of shooting for playboy is diffent, I don't consider them in the same category as they are harmless. There is also the would be model who is just there to get some money from them or maybe feel better about themselves.
Photographer
Doctor Haze Chavenstein
Posts: 95
San Diego, California, US
Whoa!
If I may...I think what Aberotica is talking about is this.
A model that has thousands of veiws, hundres of friends (if not thousands), will not respond to serious offers to shoot when they say they want to and have been around for years with the same pictures and only check in to say " follow me" or "vote for me"
Am I right?
sigh... I feel that I have a bunch of friends like that.......we talk and they drop. Their loss
Photographer
Orca Bay Images
Posts: 33877
Arcata, California, US
I'm not sure if the analogy of an ugly, untalented model wannabe holds up. Some GWCs are quite talented. Being a GWC comes down to motive: the photographer is a photographer primarily because it's his or her way to be around naked models.
Maybe a model equivalent of a GWC would be a model who shoots only with young hunky photographers in hopes of seeing what develops.
Photographer
Don Garrett
Posts: 4984
Escondido, California, US
Aberotica wrote:
We all hear about the GWC, (guy with camera) usually spoken of in derisory terms. Not a serious photographer, only in it for the naked models, etc. Is there a model equivelant?
It seems to me I've spoken to a few (not a lot) here on Mayhem over the years. women, who are here for the "fun" element. Discuss. If you are not here for "the fun element", you are here for the wrong reason(s), in my opinion.
-Don
Model
Mz Muse
Posts: 287
Los Angeles, California, US
James Jackson Fashion wrote:
I think a while ago we called this GWP (Guy/Girl With Pics) ........ nothing in their portfolio indicates any ability to pose or work artistically This!
Model
Isis22
Posts: 3557
Muncie, Indiana, US
Don Garrett wrote:
If you are not here for "the fun element", you are here for the wrong reason(s), in my opinion.
-Don Frankly, what is in quotes is what worries me.
Photographer
Don Garrett
Posts: 4984
Escondido, California, US
Isis22 wrote:
Frankly, what is in quotes is what worries me. I know, anything with the word "fun" in it worries me to death too !
-Don
Photographer
Fred Ackerman
Posts: 292
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
There are some on this site who have biographies that read like War & Peace.. They go on forever with minutia and demands. What surprises me is that anyone (model or photographer) would want to work with them. I guess for every GWC there's an equivalent model.. Some of these biographies are so long that I grab the popcorn
Photographer
Isaiah Brink
Posts: 2328
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
Aberotica wrote:
We all hear about the GWC, (guy with camera) usually spoken of in derisory terms. Not a serious photographer, only in it for the naked models, etc. Is there a model equivelant?
It seems to me I've spoken to a few (not a lot) here on Mayhem over the years. women, who are here for the "fun" element. Discuss.
Take cover - incoming!!! Oh, the equivalent is what I call a "GWC". Or a "Girl With Clothes." Tons of them are out there giving women who take modeling seriously a very bad name, like the photographer equivalent.
Photographer
Herman van Gestel
Posts: 2266
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
I would say: GWS = Girl With Selfies  ? (and most of these GWS's just want nice pics of themselfies :p ) or GWWS =Girl Who Want Selfies ?
Photographer
highStrangeness
Posts: 2485
Carmichael, California, US
No one has heard of "GWT"? As in "Girl with Tits"?
|
? 
