|
Forums >
General Industry >
GWC - Guy with Camera - The real DEFINITION.......
LeDeux Art wrote: Hollywood Starlet wrote: peter leverett wrote:
Sep 12 08 06:54 am Link What if you are a guy with two cameras? Sep 12 08 06:55 am Link Wayne King wrote:
Sep 12 08 06:56 am Link R2S DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY wrote: Thanks for providing your definition. Sep 12 08 07:00 am Link PhotoJoe wrote: I'm trying to figure you out. I see disdain for Playboy photogs but I look at your portfolio and you do nudes and have a link to Sep 12 08 07:10 am Link I think that Model Mayhem has Tons of GWC's and Wanna Be Models ! Lately the Internet has created these categories . . . . With site like the one's mention . . . . MM anad OMP ! It would be nice if there was a site with more censorship or definition of its purpose ! BTW ? ? ? ? Am I a GWC ? ? ? ? I'm a Glamour , , , ,Playboy Style Photographer ? ? ?  Sep 12 08 07:18 am Link Everyone keeps focusing on lack of talent and style of shooting. That is absolutely irrelevant when trying to define GWC. It has nothing to do with how good the product you produce is. It is about why you produced that product in the first place. Sep 12 08 07:25 am Link Its interesting to read this thread and it made me think of something. Several models that I have worked with have told me of a click of local photographers on the island who are always trying to get them to go topless or get naked to the point where they would say something like " you know if you want to make it in this business this is what you have to do." Now mind you these photographers are well known as "professionals" and a couple of them have worked with some big names in the industry from what I see. So my question is if a photographer is has an established reputation as a "professional" but yet is always trying to get girls to be naked then what do you call them, just perverted? What I am getting is that if you are not doing it for the art or with the intent of producing great images then that would qualify you as a GWC or is this type of mentality as it regards to pro level photographers just deemed unprofessional? Simon. Sep 12 08 07:34 am Link The problem with that definition is that it no longer means anything. GWC, could mean a 'creep.' GWC could mean 'unprofessional.' GWC could mean he has no 'eye.' All of these can be said of 'professional' photographers with lighting skills and all the equipment in the world. I work in advertising... and whatever sells the product is what gets used. High-end photography don't sell no American Apparel. Low-end 'GWC'-looking photography don't sell no high-end diamonds (not yet). Digital photography has leveled the playing field for bad photography! lol ME Sep 12 08 07:35 am Link Titles hold people back. Titles mean little considering they mean a million different things to a million different people. The internet doesn't help this. Why we cling to these silly things, I will forever wonder about...for like a minute. Sep 12 08 07:50 am Link There are several generalizations of GWC by a large number of people. GWC = lack of talent (which is what I originally thought) GWC = inappropriate sexual advances or GWC = both of the above?? idk... There is a common definition in this thread though.... mmmmm Interesting...... Sep 12 08 08:21 am Link Glamour1 Studio wrote: Aww babes idk....but I like your avatar Sep 12 08 08:23 am Link Stefano Brunesci wrote: QFT and scribed into the archives. Sep 12 08 08:27 am Link Hollywood Starlet wrote: This has been answered, read above. Sep 12 08 08:28 am Link I saw it.. I agreed with Stefano as well on pg 1. Thanks Greg. Sep 12 08 08:29 am Link Hi there.... how is everyone? Just wondered how a GWC is supposed to get a start in the 1st place, surely he isnt a pro from the get go. I must be a GWP - girl who poses. Have a gr8 weekend ppl. x Sep 12 08 08:30 am Link Michael Edmonds wrote: You forgot: Sep 12 08 08:31 am Link One might also define as Geek Without Character! ;-) Sep 12 08 08:33 am Link Michael Edmonds wrote: -WB- wrote: Hey you!! Sep 12 08 08:35 am Link No they did not call you a GWC based on your work?!!    Shame on them!! Sep 12 08 08:38 am Link peter leverett wrote: How about the slime ball that poses as an agent, has them sign an Exclusive contract, gets nude shots and sells them to a porn site, all the while being "respectful" and promising modeling work, while the newbie models are none the wiser. Sep 12 08 08:43 am Link Stefano Brunesci wrote: I agree 100% with THIS definition, and I alas, am guilty of this ! The female body is a beautiful thing, and nearly ALL my shots where it shows it generates more comments & views than my "covered" shots, so whats up with THAT ??? .....no apoligies for being a GWC here ;-) Sep 12 08 08:43 am Link Not a big fan of the word GWC as it sorta puts everyone in the same category. Just like there are Slimeballs in the GWC's there are Slimeballs in the Photographers realm. In Visa versa, there are those who are serious about their craft and have the love for what they do whether they are a beginner or a pro. Never underestimate those who are passionate, for they may be standing next you side by side one day.  Sep 12 08 08:59 am Link FrizzyCube wrote: Now, this everyone, is soooooooooooooooo true. Sep 12 08 09:03 am Link Creativity is all in the eye of the beholder. You may look at my urban glamour images and call them trash. I might look at your model with a guitar work and say its garbage. Its all about what your tastes are. For every "talentless" photographer out there, theres probably one or two new models out there dying to get naked in front of his or her wrinkled backdrop. The problem lies in when one of these photographers tries to climb the skill ladder. To hold these individuals down we come up with terms like "GWC" and "MySpace Model". We create posts of all the horrific details of the photographer who got a little excited during the shoot or about the model who flaked and came up with some lame excuse. All this serves to kill off any unecessary competition. As someone said above we all have a little voyeur in all of us. We all appreciate beauty and it all boils down to having a healthy balance of professionalism, safety, and keeping a shoot fun. Stop labeling people and get out there and shoot! Sep 12 08 09:05 am Link alot of times people will call a beginner a GWC and that kinda ticks me off, its complete B.S. in time the true artist will improve and the GWC label is best reserved for those that are just trying to get their rocks off. Sep 12 08 09:09 am Link Atris Everson wrote: True. Sep 12 08 09:09 am Link LeDeux Art wrote: Every pro photographer was once a beginner, Sep 12 08 09:10 am Link Hollywood Starlet wrote: you can spot the GWC based on their work, things that give it away is when every image looks the same, this is a trap that a lot of photographers will fall into but a true artist will explore and not just go for that tried and true safe shot every single time Sep 12 08 09:12 am Link Hollywood Starlet wrote: exactly and its wrong to ridicule someone for being a beginner, wait untill they F up before you jump their ship, remember MM is the greatest show in town and today their are thousands of young boys that dream of being the next Bruce Talbot or Escalante and that beats the heck outa wanting to be the next drug dealer any day Sep 12 08 09:14 am Link my lady, pardon the H/J but you dont ever sleep do you? Sep 12 08 09:15 am Link LeDeux Art wrote: I do, but tonight I can't....maybe excitement, I don't know.... Sep 12 08 09:17 am Link Hollywood Starlet wrote: LeDeux Art wrote:
Sep 12 08 09:19 am Link I don't think there's really an equation. One question might be though, "does the subject take away from the composition as a whole?" You could put majestic Mt Everest in the background but if Jenna Jameson is spreading her legs, nobody is looking at the mountain. Once again, some people see photography as a catalyst for meeting chicks or satisfying their own perversions. Others see it as a means to express themselves or where they see the beauty in people/places/things . And of course others are just $$ - Jack J|DEW||PHOTO Some people would still take note of the mountain-allbeit as a second glance. Sep 12 08 09:24 am Link Too late now, but GWC does to my mind have an association with 'beginner', sadly, even a legitimate one. Would have been better as a CWC - Creep With Camera. Then it's just a definition of what makes someone a creep... John http://TheBaldPhotographer.com Sep 12 08 09:29 am Link we are in the midst of an amazing place in time, where the digital camera has made it affordable for many people to learn how to take pictures, combine that with the Internet, specifically MM and what we have is probably the greatest period in the history of man in the world of art this is what i said from day 1 and ive seen nothing to change my mind Sep 12 08 09:32 am Link Chris Keeling wrote: Thank you! Sep 12 08 12:12 pm Link I think in reality, the term is used much more broadly. That's as good a description as any... but alas, there are many. Sep 12 08 12:14 pm Link I assumed it could also mean any novice photographer with very little equipment and experience.... I didn't realize it had such a SEVERE negative connotation ... Sep 12 08 12:15 pm Link The Alternative Image wrote: The same type of behavior goes on with well-known, professional, published photographers... just saying. Sep 12 08 12:18 pm Link |
