Forums > Photography Talk > GWC's - An alternative point of view.
Search

Photographer

Derek Ridgers

Posts: 1625

London, England, United Kingdom

In the couple of months that I’ve been on Model Mayhem, I’ve noticed that everyone has a real downer on the poor GWC.

The term itself is obviously sarcastic and derisory, I realise that.

If by ‘GWC’ everyone means a horny guy using a camera purely to try to meet women, photograph them naked, act inappropriately and have absolutely no interest in the end product, then yes I obviously agree.  Those people need to be avoided at all costs.

If by ‘GWC’ everyone means a horny guy using a camera purely to try to meet women, photograph them naked, but act properly and have some degree of interest in the end product, then I don’t.

I think the key difference is whether any element of deceit is used.

It's clear that many men are motivated in their life choices by a desire to meet women.  It’s pretty natural and totally universal. 

If the male libido didn’t exist, neither would a lot of the world’s greatest art, the human race would have died out long ago and professional photographers would not have much of a market for sexy photographs of women either.

But I empathise with the GWC for two reasons.

(1) I used to be one myself and (2) essentially the GWC’s motives are more profound than the motives of a commercial photographer.

I’ll qualify (2) by saying that this is very much a conceptual point.  I feel good photography always has to be about something, and great photography has to be about something profound.  Meaning something a lot of people can either learn from or identify with.  Trully great photography IMHO is seldom just pretty pictures.

When a  professional photographer photographs a professional model, it ought not to be purely about only that.

It can, and obviously often does, involve those people as participants. But it ought to strive to be about something more.

If you study the fashion or advertising photography of Richard Avedon, Irving Penn, Fransesco Scavullo or Helmut Newton there always seems to be so much of the personality and individuality of the model in their photographs.  And there’s always such a tangible engagement of the participants.

IMHO the vast, vast majority of professional fashion, advertising, glamour, lingerie or swimwear photography seen today doesn’t have that same kind of emotion.  It’s mostly vacant models photographed by efficient but basically vacant photographers.

Photoshop and digital imaging has brought the overall technical standard of what we see today up a notch or two.  But in every other sense it’s debatable whether it’s helped.

Your average GWC may not have much skill, much  equipment or much access to decent models but he (or his female equivalent) will have just as much access to all the human emotions needed to create great art.

Compulsion and commitment is what’s required IMHO rather than a commision.

Before anyone looks at my port and writes “Well I don’t see much great art there, mate” fair enough, I agree.  When I started to earn a living as a photographer, I think I lost most of the naive enthusiasm I had as an amateur .  But once I recognised that fact, I have at least set out on the road to try to recapture it.

I may never get there, but that is certainly the road I want to be on.

Anyone who is familiar with the history of photography will know that often the ‘GWC’ will take more profound, more interesting and more enlightening images than the average working professional.  Whether it be J H Lartigue photographing his friends and family in the early 20th century to the more recent work, again photographing his family, by Richard Billingham.

And since I’ve been reading these MM forums, I’ve noticed by far the most fervently ouspoken voices against the GWC’s are the provincial, amateur models working in the genre of glamour.

Fair enough, they probably meet more of the bad kind than the rest of us so I can certainly sympathise.

But my general point is that the honest GWC will often have something worthwhile to contribute and often much more than that.

I don’t really wish to be the devil’s advocate on this subject but photography is my life and I do know that there is some absolutely great work out there being done by people who are, and probably always will be, essentially GWCs.

Jan 06 07 12:31 pm Link

Photographer

GWC

Posts: 1407

Baltimore, Maryland, US

Dude U R gonna hear from my atterney, um, attourney, err - U're in trouble with my lawyer for abusing my trademark.

Like, cease and desist.
GWC!

Jan 06 07 12:34 pm Link

Model

DELETE ACCOUNT

Posts: 5517

Eškašem, Badakhshan, Afghanistan

I read your thoughtful post, understand your point, and agree with you.

Jan 06 07 12:35 pm Link

Photographer

EL PIC

Posts: 2835

Austin, Indiana, US

If you can stay awake beyond line 3 you are a GWC ...

EL

Jan 06 07 12:36 pm Link

Model

DELETE ACCOUNT

Posts: 5517

Eškašem, Badakhshan, Afghanistan

big_smile

Jan 06 07 12:39 pm Link

Photographer

Tom Widlak

Posts: 149

MASPETH, New York, US

I completely agree with your point. I do certainly qualify as GWC and I don’t mind that at all, I have no desire to become professional photographer cause photography for me is about love and passion, not about making a living from it. And I don’t see anything wrong with it :-)

Jan 06 07 12:40 pm Link

Photographer

919

Posts: 1273

Kalamazoo, Michigan, US

I've worked with a GWC, (as a female assistant).

Being female, I found a few things unnerving.

The "true" GWC has no interest in getting better.  He sells himself on fancy equipment, sounding like he "knows" the stuff.  His approach isn't simply to get chicks and hit on them, it has a more deepend self serving purpose.

The GWC likes his ego stroked.  He likes the power and submissiveness that his models give him.  He likes to talk about how naked and exposed they can become, all for his sake. 

Its never about photos.  Its about having hot chicks over to get them to do what they otherwise wouldn't, simply because he's impressive enough to naive women to SEEM like a good photographer, (Hence the amount of knowledge he's memorized.)  He can spout off name brands of lighting, and cameras, and has a lot of each.  He's got his own studio, and his own agenda.

Again, the end product has nothing to do with the photos...

Sometimes a GWC can be more dangerous, wanting to fondle and molest his models...not always, but sometimes.  This type of GWC is the worst kind, because its that kind that leaves models dead or raped.  He's rare, but exists.  Most GWC's simply want to see naked chicks...and will pay handsomly to do so.  A sort of privatized strip show just for them.

Again, I stress, a GWC does NOT care about the photos.

Amatures are what you speak of....male amateurs to be more exact.  Meh, not dangerous, but willing to actually learn and a desire to get better.  There IS a difference.

Jan 06 07 12:40 pm Link

Photographer

Larry Brown Camera

Posts: 1081

Atlantic Beach, Florida, US

aw come on now....... think about how much fun we would be missing if we couldn't bash GWC's ! 
What I like the most is that GWC's are often the fodder of other GWC's .....
That's what I really like to watch on MM! smile

Jan 06 07 12:42 pm Link

Photographer

Tom Widlak

Posts: 149

MASPETH, New York, US

919 wrote:
I've worked with a GWC, (as a female assistant).

Being female, I found a few things unnerving.

The "true" GWC has no interest in getting better.  He sells himself on fancy equipment, sounding like he "knows" the stuff.  His approach isn't simply to get chicks and hit on them, it has a more deepend self serving purpose.

The GWC likes his ego stroked.  He likes the power and submissiveness that his models give him.  He likes to talk about how naked and exposed they can become, all for his sake. 

Its never about photos.  Its about having hot chicks over to get them to do what they otherwise wouldn't, simply because he's impressive enough to naive women to SEEM like a good photographer, (Hence the amount of knowledge he's memorized.)  He can spout off name brands of lighting, and cameras, and has a lot of each.  He's got his own studio, and his own agenda.

Again, the end product has nothing to do with the photos...

Sometimes a GWC can be more dangerous, wanting to fondle and molest his models...not always, but sometimes.  This type of GWC is the worst kind, because its that kind that leaves models dead or raped.  He's rare, but exists.  Most GWC's simply want to see naked chicks...and will pay handsomly to do so.  A sort of privatized strip show just for them.

Again, I stress, a GWC does NOT care about the photos.

Amatures are what you speak of....male amateurs to be more exact.  Meh, not dangerous, but willing to actually learn and a desire to get better.  There IS a difference.

Sounds more like Guy With Lots of Issues from your description :-)

Jan 06 07 12:45 pm Link

Photographer

Karl Blessing

Posts: 30911

Caledonia, Michigan, US

So you are trying to Lump the Term "GWC" with Amateur photographers? I thought there was a separation there, ie: GWC != Photographer. Least in the years I've heard the term it has always been used as a negative term from the get-go (unlike Amateur).

I'm an Amateur photographer and damn proud of it because Amateur is one who does something for the passion or art of it more so than for the living of it. GWC is well simply put, a guy with a camera , not a PWC (Photographer with a camera).

Jan 06 07 12:52 pm Link

Photographer

Michael Kirst

Posts: 3231

Los Angeles, California, US

919 wrote:
I've worked with a GWC, (as a female assistant).

Being female, I found a few things unnerving.

The "true" GWC has no interest in getting better.  He sells himself on fancy equipment, sounding like he "knows" the stuff.  His approach isn't simply to get chicks and hit on them, it has a more deepend self serving purpose.

The GWC likes his ego stroked.  He likes the power and submissiveness that his models give him.  He likes to talk about how naked and exposed they can become, all for his sake. 

Its never about photos.  Its about having hot chicks over to get them to do what they otherwise wouldn't, simply because he's impressive enough to naive women to SEEM like a good photographer, (Hence the amount of knowledge he's memorized.)  He can spout off name brands of lighting, and cameras, and has a lot of each.  He's got his own studio, and his own agenda.

Again, the end product has nothing to do with the photos...

Sometimes a GWC can be more dangerous, wanting to fondle and molest his models...not always, but sometimes.  This type of GWC is the worst kind, because its that kind that leaves models dead or raped.  He's rare, but exists.  Most GWC's simply want to see naked chicks...and will pay handsomly to do so.  A sort of privatized strip show just for them.

Again, I stress, a GWC does NOT care about the photos.

Amatures are what you speak of....male amateurs to be more exact.  Meh, not dangerous, but willing to actually learn and a desire to get better.  There IS a difference.

Sounds like any guy with a beer (GWB) in any bar on any Saturday night. Just swap the camera for a beer. But we don't get concerned about them, do we? If anything they could be construed as more dangerous as they often travel in packs.

So what's the point of all this? Do you ever go out to bars and protest thier actions?

The stance of someone using "power" over another individual because they appear to have a "profession" or are in a position of leadership i.e. priests, etc., is an age old pastime. But making the point that they just want to get into your pants is old news as ANY normal person wants to get into the pants of pretty much anything on two legs with a pulse. Does this make it right? No. Are we gonna change world history? Again with the "nope".

It's called common sense folks.

Jan 06 07 12:53 pm Link

Photographer

Carpe Imago Photography

Posts: 1757

Dousman, Wisconsin, US

919 wrote:
Again, the end product has nothing to do with the photos...

This is the defining characteristic.  Plain & simple.

Jan 06 07 12:55 pm Link

Photographer

The Don Mon

Posts: 3315

Ocala, Florida, US

yawn....

gw.. what?

Jan 06 07 12:55 pm Link

Photographer

Karl Blessing

Posts: 30911

Caledonia, Michigan, US

Just a random thought, but I remember seeing an ad on here on MM for a while ( and seemed to suit the target audience if you ask me lol ), but I guess all the GWC could goto that "Sugar Daddy for Me" website, and sign up as a GWC willing to record the memories of dates and what not for any 'fine ladies' out there. tongue

Jan 06 07 12:57 pm Link

Photographer

jack4photos

Posts: 323

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US

I'm a serious amateur photographer that likes to shoot nudes. I'll never be a pro photographer because I'm too damn old to start a new career. I hope I'm not considered to be a GWC, in the MM-negative sense of the term.

I like the OP's point that passion is often missing from some photography today. I hope when the passion goes out of my work that I have the sense to quit.

Jack

Jan 06 07 12:58 pm Link

Photographer

American Glamour

Posts: 38813

Detroit, Michigan, US

So what you are saying is that we need unqualified photographers who mislead women and try to get into their pants on the premise that photoshopping will push the creative envelope and raise the bar of artistic quality in the industry?

Come on, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being an amateur photographer.  It is a total misnomer to suggest that photoshop makes bad photographers good.  Photoshop can allow a mediocre photographer to produce passable images.  However, Photoshop will allow a great photographer to produce incredible images.  It moves the bar up for everyone.

GWC is a term about professionalism and motivation.  If you go out on your first shoot and treat your models with respect and try to develop your craft, you are welcome no matter what your skill level.

If you shoot your model and then retreat on the breaks to the bathroom to review your images with one hand while your pants are down around your ankles, then you need to get a life.

We are not aristocrats here.  Everyone with a serious interest in photography, no matter what their level are welcome.  All others apply elsewhere.

Jan 06 07 01:02 pm Link

Photographer

SKPhoto

Posts: 25784

Newark, California, US

Karl Blessing wrote:
So you are trying to Lump the Term "GWC" with Amateur photographers? I thought there was a separation there, ie: GWC != Photographer. Least in the years I've heard the term it has always been used as a negative term from the get-go (unlike Amateur).

I'm an Amateur photographer and damn proud of it because Amateur is one who does something for the passion or art of it more so than for the living of it. GWC is well simply put, a guy with a camera , not a PWC (Photographer with a camera).

While he can answer for himself, I think he is referring to a "large" section of models/photgraphers/mua's/stylists who refer to any photographer who is not in an elite class.  i.e.  They would have to pay me to work with them.  Of course they don't take into account that they would have to pay the class of photographer that they think should be doing tfp with them.

As for feelings, we all have feelings, if you don't you can no longer create true art.  Just depends whether or not you keep them inside, or act on them.

GWC = while at one time may have been descriptive, it has become a dismissive, used to dismiss a whole array of skills or lack thereof,  similar to the "N*****" word.

So be careful when you toss it around.

Jan 06 07 01:03 pm Link

Photographer

Karl Blessing

Posts: 30911

Caledonia, Michigan, US

Karl Blessing wrote:
So you are trying to Lump the Term "GWC" with Amateur photographers? I thought there was a separation there, ie: GWC != Photographer. Least in the years I've heard the term it has always been used as a negative term from the get-go (unlike Amateur).

I'm an Amateur photographer and damn proud of it because Amateur is one who does something for the passion or art of it more so than for the living of it. GWC is well simply put, a guy with a camera , not a PWC (Photographer with a camera).

SKPhoto wrote:
While he can answer for himself, I think he is referring to a "large" section of models/photgraphers/mua's/stylists who refer to any photographer who is not in an elite class.  i.e.  They would have to pay me to work with them.  Of course they don't take into account that they would have to pay the class of photographer that they think should be doing tfp with them.

As for feelings, we all have feelings, if you don't you can no longer create true art.  Just depends whether or not you keep them inside, or act on them.

GWC = while at one time may have been descriptive, it has become a dismissive, used to dismiss a whole array of skills or lack thereof,  similar to the "N*****" word.

So be careful when you toss it around.

Well its like with any durogeratory word, you want to be careful who you use it with, or at all.

Jan 06 07 01:20 pm Link

Photographer

T R Willmitch

Posts: 7173

Normal, Illinois, US

Hi,

Derek, I have to agree with some of the other folks here that you have blurred the line between a GWC (Guy with Camera) and an amateur photographer.  However, I defend this blurring of the definitions since neither is black-and-white.

Simply because a photographer is an amateur doesn’t mean that he (or she) isn’t dedicated, talented, and skillful at his craft.  My copy of “Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language” defines an amateur first as:

     1. One who does something for pleasure, not for pay; nonprofessional.

Amateurs have pioneered many fields of endeavor; including art, literature, and science.  By strict definition, the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh was an amateur, even as he pioneered the Expressionism movement in painting -- enormous influencing a century of artists to follow.

At the same time, I can name more than a few professional photographers that I consider absolute hacks.  That money changes hands doesn't necessarily impact the quality of an artist's work.

So when is a photographer a true amateur and when is he a GWC? 

Who can really say and isn’t that the point?  There have been great painters and photographers that were lecherous.  So even adding this trait into the mix doesn’t truly answer the question.  It really is a matter of perspective, with many shades of gray.

Take care,
Tom
https://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i164/trwillm/MySpace/Kitten.gif

Jan 06 07 01:22 pm Link

Photographer

Darqlord

Posts: 140

Dayton, Ohio, US

Derek Ridgers wrote:
Before anyone looks at my port and writes “Well I don’t see much great art there, mate” fair enough, I agree.  When I started to earn a living as a photographer, I think I lost most of the naive enthusiasm I had as an amateur .  But once I recognised that fact, I have at least set out on the road to try to recapture it.

I may be an unknown 'nobody' but 'art' is in the eye of the beholder and in my eye there is PLENTY of art in the portfolio you have here on MM. In the long run it's the paying public who will determine if something is 'art' or not. If I were in a gallery and saw some of your shots for sale I would buy them; therefore 'art'.

Many well-known photographers are here on MM and almost every one of them says they come here to see what the new 'styles' are and to stay 'fresh' and you won't get that from studying other 'pros'. It's the hobbyist/enthusiast who is willing to try something new that is creating these new 'styles'.

Unfortunately, it appears that the 'curse' of becoming a 'professional' is that one finally becomes known for a certain 'style' of shooting. The downside of this is that one then becomes pigeon-holed into that 'style' and anything shot outside of that 'style' is unacceptable by the fashion houses, stock industry, management agencies, etc.

Jan 06 07 01:32 pm Link

Photographer

Stan The Man

Posts: 733

Brooklyn, Indiana, US

and i thought FREUD  was dead!!!!

Jan 06 07 01:36 pm Link

Photographer

Mike White Photo

Posts: 332

Chicago, Illinois, US

GWC doesn't really exist.

Putting a label on either of these two types is too elusive, but I would rather be in Group A.

Photographer Group A:
Regardless of professional status or technical ability, this "photographer" has a true passion for the photographic image and interacts with the model specifically in a way that will enable him to produce these images.

Photographer Group B:
Again, regardless of professional status or technical ability, this "photographer" has a self-serving and often hidden agenda with models, and ultimately will work with a model for reasons that are beyond the making of a photographic image.

Jan 06 07 01:53 pm Link

Photographer

Michael Southwick

Posts: 534

Rock Island, Illinois, US

Now I’m having an identity crisis.
M

Jan 06 07 02:10 pm Link

Photographer

GWC

Posts: 1407

Baltimore, Maryland, US

artblanche wrote:
GWC doesn't really exist.

Dude I do U the courtesy of believeing in U cant U do me likewise?

Jan 06 07 02:18 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12117

Tampa, Florida, US

All you've done is redefine the term GWC. A GWC is defined by less than admirable intentions, not a lack of photographic skill. Everything else is just psychobabble.

Jan 06 07 02:22 pm Link

Photographer

Mike White Photo

Posts: 332

Chicago, Illinois, US

GWC wrote:

Dude I do U the courtesy of believeing in U cant U do me likewise?

Gotcha!
LOL

Jan 06 07 02:22 pm Link

Photographer

STUDIOMONA PHOTOGRAPHY

Posts: 33697

Avon, Minnesota, US

I think there is a big difference between a GWC (Guy with Camera, as perv lol ) and GWC (Geek with Camera) .

Jan 06 07 02:23 pm Link

Photographer

Mike White Photo

Posts: 332

Chicago, Illinois, US

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
All you've done is redefine the term GWC. A GWC is defined by less than admirable intentions, not a lack of photographic skill. Everything else is just psychobabble.

I agree.
I recycled.
I digressed....

Jan 06 07 02:24 pm Link

Photographer

Mike White Photo

Posts: 332

Chicago, Illinois, US

StudioMona wrote:
I think there is a big difference between a GWC (Guy with Camera, as perv lol ) and GWC (Geek with Camera) .

Hey, I was a geek long before I owned a camera! (G - C)

Jan 06 07 02:26 pm Link

Photographer

Rp-photo

Posts: 42711

Houston, Texas, US

GWC is not an all-or-nothing thing.

A photographer can be GWC-ish to varying degrees, such as "enjoying" the shoots a bit too much yet producing a quality end product. This photographer behaves like a GWC.

Or perhaps being very courteous and professional towards models yet producing a less-than-polished product. This photorapher produces GWC-ish images.

In this analysis, GWC describes weak points.

Jan 06 07 02:26 pm Link

Photographer

Rp-photo

Posts: 42711

Houston, Texas, US

GWC wrote:
Dude U R gonna hear from my atterney, um, attourney, err - U're in trouble with my lawyer for abusing my trademark.

Like, cease and desist.
GWC!

Hey GWC:

Beter check out that parked domain of yours.

Jan 06 07 02:30 pm Link

Photographer

Tonic Dog Studios

Posts: 12527

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

StudioMona wrote:
I think there is a big difference between a GWC (Guy with Camera, as perv lol ) and GWC (Geek with Camera) .

Hey!  Some of us geeks can multitask.  Being a perv and geek aren't mutually exclusive.  *wink wink*

Jan 06 07 02:30 pm Link

Photographer

Rik Austin

Posts: 12164

Austin, Texas, US

StudioMona wrote:
I think there is a big difference between a GWC (Guy with Camera, as perv lol ) and GWC (Geek with Camera) .

Now that's hitting below the belt (or pocket protector, if any of you are old enough to remember).

Jan 06 07 02:56 pm Link

Photographer

Aaron S

Posts: 2651

Syracuse, Indiana, US

Has GWC ever been anything but a derogatory term?

Jan 06 07 03:12 pm Link

Photographer

MF productions

Posts: 2064

San Jose, California, US

artblanche wrote:
GWC doesn't really exist.

Putting a label on either of these two types is too elusive, but I would rather be in Group A.

Photographer Group A:
Regardless of professional status or technical ability, this "photographer" has a true passion for the photographic image and interacts with the model specifically in a way that will enable him to produce these images.

Photographer Group B:
Again, regardless of professional status or technical ability, this "photographer" has a self-serving and often hidden agenda with models, and ultimately will work with a model for reasons that are beyond the making of a photographic image.

this sums it up pretty good .

Jan 06 07 03:17 pm Link

Photographer

Chris Macan

Posts: 12969

HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US

If it Quacks like a duck......

Jan 06 07 03:20 pm Link

Photographer

East Coast Visual Media

Posts: 690

Altamonte Springs, Florida, US

Just ask for references ... you'll find out quickly if someone is a perv or not!  Is it just me or has the internet given a false sense of how real business is conducted (phone calls, meetings, etc  rather than countless Messages and tags?)

Don't get me wrong sites are great for finding talent, but isn't building a professional relationship part of what makes magic during photoshoots? 

I've had 2 guys that I have never met recently talk smack about me to models.  They were some random friends of the models saying I am a pervert because I want to take photos of females and probly talk them out of thier cloths.  LOL so hence I say check my references buddy...

Jan 06 07 04:16 pm Link

Photographer

Derek Ridgers

Posts: 1625

London, England, United Kingdom

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
It is a total misnomer to suggest that photoshop makes bad photographers good.  Photoshop can allow a mediocre photographer to produce passable images.  However, Photoshop will allow a great photographer to produce incredible images.  It moves the bar up for everyone.

My view would be that Photoshop has lowered the bar slightly for the truly bad photographers.  Especially ones that can't control their lighting.  Dull, flat lighting and eyes with no catchlights etc. can be improved.  Slightly. 

Luckily for those of us that don't consider oursleves to be among the truly bad, most bad photographers also seem to use Photoshop badly as well.

It's arguable whether Photoshoop "allows" great photographers to produce incredible images IMHO.  Facilitate perhaps.  It certainly makes it much, much easier to do certain things.  Multiple layers of varying transparency for instance.

But history decides who the greats are, and it may well be too soon to tell who will emerge from the post Photoshop era.

Jan 06 07 04:18 pm Link

Photographer

mjkhfryimhg

Posts: 2974

Tucson, Arizona, US

EL PIC wrote:
If you can stay awake beyond line 3 you are a GWC ...

EL

pheeew, thats where I left off

Jan 06 07 04:23 pm Link

Photographer

Derek Ridgers

Posts: 1625

London, England, United Kingdom

Darqlord wrote:
Many well-known photographers are here on MM and almost every one of them says they come here to see what the new 'styles' are and to stay 'fresh' and you won't get that from studying other 'pros'. It's the hobbyist/enthusiast who is willing to try something new that is creating these new 'styles'.

I think you make a very good point David. Whilst I think it's absolutely essential to aspire to something, or someone, in order to improve, it won't always be the professionals we can learn most from.

There's an awful lot of very formulaic photography of women on MM - lots of sunshine with just a little bit of fill flash, tanned and glistening skin, big hair falling down over the shoulders, the eyes narrowed slightly and the lips seductively parted, a thumb playfully hooked into the top of the bikini bottoms.

There's nothing wrong with it, it's just that I don't see women in that way myself.  Women shot almost as one would a pack shot.

I'd just hate to go to every shoot knowing exactly, almost to the millimetre, what I was going to do.  I like to surprise myself.  Even if, at times, it leads to images that don't really work very well.

Jan 06 07 05:31 pm Link

Search